Is there some freak force of nature that dictates the higher a man's pay, the lower his rank on the good looks, height and charm totem pole???
After nearly four years of working in PR firms with mostly J.A.P.s and a handful of Don Divas, I was more than eager to make the switch to my latest industry, which happens to boast a male-to-female ratio that is only contested by a Catholic seminary, Riker's Island, or a 'fab' state-of-the-art condo at Bleecker & 7th Ave. Yet, while I began my new career single and presumably as happy as Smurfette the morning after, I soon realized that in addition mostly-male surroundings, the men of Wall $treet (or at least my bank) actually share a few more characteristics with CartoonLand's favorite 'ville of 100. Like the Smurfs, they're vertically-challenged; wear entirely too much pale blue (I think wearing Royal is an actual a sin, punishable by death); oft times appear pale themselves, and look, talk and walk exactly the same as all the nymphs in the tribe.
Upon realizing that it's not 1987 and my office is not a movie set - so I shouldn't expect for a young, sexy Charlie Sheen to round my desk at any moment - I began to come to terms with the fact that a higher quantity of men does not necessarily equal a higher quantity of good looking men. It could really mean just more not so good-looking men.
I am sure Smurfette figured it out, too, which probably explains why homey never bothered to change her outfit.