Are men intimidated by smart women?
I want to thank all the ladies of Roxcy! I am looking forward to posting my thoughts, opinions, and ideas. Watch out Blogworld!
As a single woman, I have dated many, many different types of men over the years. Too many to count! So many, in fact, that I am starting over again with men that are twice divorced 
During my dating experiences, I have noticed something that really intrigues me: LDS men seem to be more intimidated by women who are tall and smart than non-LDS men. Am I imagining this? Is it the tallness or the smartness, or both? I would really like to hear feedback from men and women about this issue.
April 17th, 2006 11:47
Hahaha, Indi, I have a doll of an ex-hasband who is, in fact, twice-divorced. Both times, it was all the woman’s fault; I am not kidding. He’s gorgeous, brilliant, kind, and sweet. Let me know if you want a hook-up! The funniest part is that I’m actually not kidding! =)
April 17th, 2006 11:56
Naiah,
I don’t mean for this web site to become a match-making blog, but hey, I just might take you up on that offer. One question though, is he intimidated by tall, smart women?
April 17th, 2006 12:28
I seem to have noticed the smart women thing. When I was single I’d have this conversation at the institute multiple times (with slight variation):
Me: So what’s your major.
Him: {business, communications, computer science, engineering}
Me: thats cool.
Him: What’s yours
Me: astrophysics.
Him: (watching some other girl walk by, and starting to follow her) oh, uh… thats… nice. Hey you know I’ll see you later.
I don’t know why, but it is a pattern I noticed.
April 17th, 2006 12:46
Naiah, Indi, and fellow Roxcyites (Roxettes?),
Great topic. If you haven’t already seen it — and if you’ve got some time on your hands — you may want to check out http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=1858 . Melissa Proctor raised this very question at T&S, and generated 350 comments in one of the longest T&S threads ever.
Don’t let the size of the thread intimidate you. It’s got Melissa, Kristine, Rosalynde and Julie, all firing on all cylinders — it’s a really great read.
April 17th, 2006 13:08
I’m pretty much intimidated by any woman
.
In the long run to me (and if I were single) intelligence would always be a big plus, as long as it was coupled with some humility. As far as tallness that’s another thing. Many men might not mind a tall girlfriend/wife as long as they wern’t taller than they were. But me, I would have loved to raise a few basketball players so being tall would be good.
Then there is the ‘out of my league’ thoughts, or the ’she’s great, probably not available’ assumption that is probably common.
April 17th, 2006 13:43
I really dig smart chicks. What bugs me is when I sense that a woman is playing a role to avoid offending (so-called) masculine sensibilities.
April 17th, 2006 14:22
I have heard a few times from LDS single guys that they have a sense that LDS girls are raised with impossibly high standards. They feel as if they will never be what girls are told they should have. Mind you, these are truly good, deeply faithful men, with no discernable vice or tarnish. Their self-perceived shortcomings are things like having served a domestic rather than a foreign mission, and only having been a zone leader instead of an AP. It doesn’t have much to do with being smart or tall, but this made me think of it.
As for smart and tall, yeah, my guess is with the “she’s out of my league” theory, but then again, I only dated for one year after joining the church before marrying, and most of the guys I dated dug my smarts, but, then again, I’m all of 5′4″. *shrug* I know that some guys think that tall chicks don’t want a guy to be shorter than them, and so they don’t try, avoiding preconceived rejection.
April 17th, 2006 14:32
I absolutely think men are intimidated by smart women. I would imagine tall is there too, but since I will never be tall, and I never was skinny I was just as unable to find dates by the judgement of my figure not being ideal. I did have a bishop once tell me that boys are intimidated by smart girls, but to keep being what I was, a smart, talented, young women, and do the best I could in life. I shouldn’t be something I’m not. It was great advice. I dated someone that broke up with me purely because he was intimidating, this was after telling a friend he wanted to marry me. I’m blessed because I married a man that loves my mind, and the way I think. I’m grateful I can be what I can because of him.
April 17th, 2006 14:54
Yes, stupid men are intimidated by smart women.
Solution: Only date smart men! (Sounds so simple on paper…)
April 17th, 2006 15:27
Kaimi- Roxettes gets my vote, for I love the sound of crashing guitars.
Geoff J, I like your answer, but like you said it’s easier said than done.
On the other hand, there is another phenomenon that I ran into as well, many of the LDS men that I dated liked that I’m smart, but they thought of it more as a neat trick rather than a valuable asset. Sort of a “Oh look! She’s doing multivariable calculus, isn’t it cute?” In this way they weren’t threatened by intelligence because they didn’t see it as something real. It was play-intelligence. Needless to say they got dumped, I’d rather deal with someone who was needlessly intimidated by me, than someone who needlessly patronizes me.
April 17th, 2006 16:06
Kaimi, Foxylady–
How about Roxcettes!
April 17th, 2006 16:09
DKL said: What bugs me is when I sense that a woman is playing a role to avoid offending (so-called) masculine sensibilities.
DKL: I love this comment! People (usually women) have told me all my life that I need to ‘play the games’ to get a man. Even my own mother used to tell me that I need to let the boys win. I can’t stand that kind of game-playing and have fought against it my whole life. Where are all the real men who believe as DKL?
Naiah said: I have heard a few times from LDS single guys that they have a sense that LDS girls are raised with impossibly high standards.
Naiah: I have also heard from many men that as RM’s and Priesthood holders they deserve a ‘Babe’ with a hard body who will keep her figure no matter how many kids she has. So, I believe that having impossibly high standards applies to both genders. Why can’t we all just stop the insanity and accept people the way they are.
Tigersue; You are blessed and lucky because you are accepted and loved for who you are.
Kaimi, Geoff J: Thanks for the great comments and links to other blogs.
Starfoxy: You go girl! I’m intimidated by you too
I totally agree that being patronized is one of the worst ways a man can treat a woman. Last year I dated a man who was so arrogant and full of himself, he actually said he truly believes that men are superior to women. It was all I could do not to smack him ‘up side a da head. (Yes, he is divorced twice…no surprise there).
April 17th, 2006 19:05
I agree with the point that average or below-average intelligence men are intimidated by smart women. But as a smart guy, intelligence is what I was attracted to most. So I would say this: who cares if some men find your intelligence a turn-off? Those aren’t guys you’d want to marry anyway. And all the single, intelliegent men I know are looking for intelligent women.
Of course, it does make finding enjoyable dates more difficult. Despite being surrounded by 15 thousand women at BYU, I still found it difficult to find intelligent women to date and ultimately resorted to the Internet to find my brilliant, beautiful wife.
I probably would have been intimidated by a woman taller than me. But I’m 6′4″. I’m intimidated by men who are taller than me, since I encounter it so rarely.
April 17th, 2006 20:06
I’ll chime in as someone who’s blogspot.com profile, until recently, proudly proclaimed “intimidating women” under my interests. It took me more than a year to realize it might be read as a gerund, rather than present participle. Oops. I love intimidating, er… Intimidating women are attractive to me. In the sense that–I love an LDS woman with a grad degree who can make my head spin with theory or physics (with me, it’s not that hard).
However–I will agree with Naiah here. She said: “I have heard a few times from LDS single guys that they have a sense that LDS girls are raised with impossibly high standards. They feel as if they will never be what girls are told they should have. Mind you, these are truly good, deeply faithful men, with no discernable vice or tarnish. Their self-perceived shortcomings are things like having served a domestic rather than a foreign mission, and only having been a zone leader instead of an AP.”
My personal weaknesses run much deeper than only being ZL, not AP (althouth that’s true too). When I take a long hard look at myself, I realize very quickly that I’m the boy that mothers dream their daughters will marry. However, we LDS men, whatever we look like on paper, are basically pounded with guilt left, right, and center about how we’re not living up to [our priesthood, roles as future fathers, husbands, missionaries, home teachers, examples, and other responsibilities].
Speaking personally–I know myself, my limitations, and virtues. But it is much, much easier for me to date a non-member, however intimidating (supermodel, Nobel Prize winner, etc.) than a Mormon woman. This is true b/c the two groups expect different things. I know already that I’m all the non-member could dream of and more. But I’ll never be the perfect Mormon man–none of us will be. (Sound familiar? I think a lot of married Mormon women face the same frustration/inadequacy over not being perfect wives/mothers.)
The most intimidating part for meis thinking that LDS women have the same set of expectations that the Church/God does. Tall, smart women generally don’t have those expectations. They’re happy to get someone who has a good job, is willing to be faithful, and doesn’t drool on the good furniture. I’m willing to be 100% honest with an LDS woman who will take me as I am. But it’s hard not to think that you’re being viewed as spiritually flawed or a fixer-upper whenever you go out with an LDS woman.
April 17th, 2006 21:20
To me, it’s not smart women, nor beautiful women who are intimidating. It’s smart beautiful women who intimidate me, or cause me to be twitterpated.
I find smart women to be more attractive than those who are great lookers. Intelligence is high on my requirements list. My quest is for a smart woman who is the girl-next-door type, or plain-jane type, or Marian-the-librarian type.
One mistake that people in and out of the church make is that higher education equates to intelligence. A degree doesn’t make one smart. And sometimes a degree doesn’t make one educated either, just trained. Intelligent people get degrees, but not everyone with a degree is intelligent.
April 17th, 2006 21:25
In other words, I’d take Mary Ann over Ginger any day. Especially a Mary Ann with the brains of the Professor.
April 17th, 2006 22:11
I think, perhaps, Mormon men are raised with Molly expectations, on top of the general social expectations that women should be physically small (supermodels) and kinda dumb (Jessica Simpson’s public persona).
Speaking just for me, I tend to prefer short, blonde and cute, but all three are negotiable, and brilliant is certainly cool. When you said “astrophysics” I was at “that’s really cool” because I have hobby-level interest in that (and I was a pro-space activist for some years). I’m tall enough that I don’t think your height would likely intimidate me. But, then, I don’t intimidate all that much in terms of being around someone or talking to them.
I’m not going to be in the dating market for another 3.5 years, but, if you’re looking for someone older (almost 43 by then), divorced, and a bit odd, feel free to look me up then if you don’t have anything better going on. If I keep up my subscription to Slacker Astronomy, I could at least talk to you about current events in the world of astronomy and have some idea of what you’re talking about.
April 18th, 2006 04:52
I was 5′2″ when I graduated from high school, 5′6″ when I graduated from college (I grew on my mission, what can I say). I like bright women (my wife got a perfect score on her CRNA boards) and love a tall one (she is about 2-3 inches taller than I am).
Having not gotten married until I was 29, I can comment that an emphasis on height runs both ways.
When I was in law school at BYU, they had a society for the unmarried guys there (about a third of us were unmarried). They kept trying to set us up with girls who were not much different from french poodles. One stake president, as a practical joke, set us up with what he considered a colection of undesireable old maids.
Much to his surprise, that was the end of the set-ups, because the guys were suddenly interested in the women they met and weren’t interested in further set-ups. Smart, independent, older women were what they had been trying to find, not the appearance driven “service club” types.
As a group, smart guys tend to be less socially engaged, but more interested in smart women when they find them, or at least in my experience. Otherwise, people are just as shallow as ever, or not, regardless of sex, intelligence or age.
April 18th, 2006 05:46
I like the easy assumption that studying astrophysics means you are smarter than other LDS women !
(though, on average, its probably true)
Anyway, here’s some thoughts:
1) When a girl says she’s studying astrophysics, are you sure its intelligence that’s scaring them off? I would bet that, on average, women studying astrophysics or engineering or other non-traditional majors are much less likely to accept traditional gender roles. Also, on average, much less likely to have traditional female characteristics. So, given we live in a fallen world with limited time, maybe it makes more sense to move on than to stick around and find out if you are an exception. Think of it as you saying, right off “I probably don’t want kids and I’m probably not much like your mother.” On average these will be things that turn off LDS men more than gentile men.
2) Even if it is smartness per se, and not just the non-traditional majors, I imagine that its still the on average correlation, or perceived correlation, between intelligence and refusing to accept gender roles that’s steering guys off. Again, on average this would affect LDS men more than gentile men.
3) A non-LDS specific explanation might be that, on average, people tend to be less respectful of the views and ideas of people who aren’t as smart as they are. You may be the exception, but how is one to know it without investing time that might more profitably be invested elsewhere? This only explains the disparity between LDS and gentile men, however, if (1) the previous commenter is right that LDS men are more likely to have their macho assumption that they are generally well-liked indoctrinated out of them or (2) if gentile men have been more indoctrinated on average into thinking of a relationship with a smart girl as proof that they are not shallow or backwards.
April 18th, 2006 07:43
When I first met my future wife, she announced her double major in Biochemistry and Cell Biology w/plans for med school. I wasn’t intimidated nearly as much as i was impressed/interested.
My theory for my response is this: I couldn’t split a cell or maintain a protein assay if my existence depended upon it. Conversely, it would take my wife three weeks to write a paper that I could write during the commercial breaks in an episode of The Simpsons.
These are two examples of how our specialties are complementary.
And she’s like 5′4 or something so if it came down to it, I could kick her butt in a street fight.
/No, I couldn’t/
April 18th, 2006 07:43
Being short (5′2″), I never worried about the height thing. I actually preferred shorter guys, and my husband was the tallest person I ever dated at 5′9″ and I often tell him he’s just slightly too tall for me.
As far as smarts go, I dated a guy for a year and a half who was absolutely intimidated by my intelligence. I was taking Spanish classes at the time and he would get frustrated and angry whenever I would slip into ‘Spanish’ mode. This is only one example. I’m glad it never worked out; I look back now and see how awful it was for my self-esteem to have him not respect my intelligence or abilities. He also expected the ‘hard body’ (which I definitely don’t have) and lucky for him, he married a marathon runner.
I ended up marrying a very non-traditional Mormon man who’d never dated much because he’s a tortured artist-type. (aka no business prospects to make $$$ in accounting or law or whatever a profitable job is these days). He often got shunned by women at BYU, where he had transferred when we met, because he was 21 and hadn’t served a mission. So yes, I think the double standard goes both ways. He totally respects my desires and goals; I’m now completing my master’s degree and he followed me over 2000 miles from Utah so that I could complete my degree with no prospects waiting for here him. I think that this practice (moving so the woman can get a degree) is quite rare in the Mormon circle, but much more common among ‘gentiles.’
What’s the point of my rambling? I’m not sure now…just that I’ve had experiences with Mormon men not respecting my intelligence (and most non-member men do.) I’ve also found one who does. I think it goes both ways, you just have to look a little harder sometimes to find the ones who like smarts (and also the ones who like feminists.)
April 18th, 2006 07:54
I dated a girl about 1 inch taller than me for a while at BYU. We were walking home from church one Sunday when a car with two jock types pulls up and the window rolls down. The guy in the passenger seat says, “Hey, I’m taller than he is.” Without missing a beat she says, “Yeah, but he’s better looking.” What a girl.
April 18th, 2006 07:54
Adam: “You may be the exception, but how is one to know it without investing time that might more profitably be invested elsewhere?”
And here I was foolishly thinking that true love was one of the places that Capitalism couldn’t stick it’s efficiently greedy little fingers. I can just imagine the Board Meetings going on inside the heads of unmarried people.
“Well Bob, how’s the P&L looking on this joint venture?”
“Not good Phil, we expected at least a 3.5% return on our time investment, instead all we’re showing for Accounts Receivable this month is 17 minutes of cumulative hand holding, 8 minutes of hugs and .87 seconds of lip action.”
“That doesnt sound too bad, Where does A.P. stand Joe?”
“Well, we spent one Saturday helping her sister move, Helped her Dad clean the garage and 23 hours walking around the mall pretending to like shopping”
“Cut funding immediately!!”
April 18th, 2006 11:21
Blain, I fear we have a case of mistaken identity. Indi is the tall smart beautiful woman who wrote this post, I’m the short nerdy girl who is grumpy about guys not respecting my skilz back when I was single, (and I fear I may have stolen some of Indi’s thunder in my eagerness to gripe). I am quite happily married to a man who is as big of a geek as I am, and who is not in the least bit intimidated by me.
And Adam, I only have the easy assumption that studying astrophysics makes me *sound* smarter.
When I say “I studied astrophysics.” The first words out of the listener’s mouth are normally, “Wow, you must be smart!” Even though many people who are as smart or smarter won’t get the same response to their career titles. For instance, construction engineers and architects know and use most of the same math and physics that I do, but it just doesn’t sound as good. My conversations with LDS men are often a shortened version of what many intelligent LDS women go through. While it may take a week or so of dating for a guy to realize that the girl studying journalism (or something else) is really much smarter than he thought, it only takes a few minutes for a guy to decide that the girl studying in an imposing scienific field is probably pretty smart.
April 18th, 2006 11:45
Adam -
What do you mean when you say that women engineers are less likely to have “traditional female characteristics”? That these women have no breasts? That they won’t cook and clean?
April 18th, 2006 12:03
Adam, I really can’t believe that you typed that comment, yet there it is. The might have less traditional female charactersitics? I see Elisabeth has already commented on that, but HOLY CRAP!
April 18th, 2006 12:13
I think there are a few reasons LDS men are intimidated by intelligent women, some of which are true of all men, and some of which are unique to our little Mormon culture.
I know that I am intimidated by intelligent women, I’m also very attracted to intelligent women and intelligence is one of the most important factors in dictating who I am interested in as a companion.
I think a big part of the intimidation just comes down to the insecurities of men. And these are magnified within the Church. Culturally men are expected to be the providers, and by extension there is the assumption that they should be more capable of being said provider. Even a man that in his head believes that it is just fine if his future wife were to work, or to make more money than him, or to be the sole provider- he probably feels like less of a man for not clearly being superior in this area- or he assumes that the woman desires someone whom she views as being capable of providing for her. That translates to being more capable than she is. (Also, I think that a lot of the times we men feel like we want to do a little bit better than we really think we deserve- and a smart woman is going to eventually figure out. “hey, I can totally do better.”)
A guy may be very attracted to the girl that says she is finishing up her degree in astrophysics, but feel that unless he can respond with “Really? That’s wonderful. I’m just finishing up my masters in biomechanical engineering, but I’ve always been interested in astrophysics” he isn’t really someone that would be able to be marriage material for said astrophysicist. The guy that says “well, I got sick of college and left, now I’m coming back at 28 to finish my undergrad in a not particularly challenging major and will finish with a poor gpa” just doesn’t feel like he has much to offer the ambitious intelligent girls.; especially the ones his age who are working on PhDs
I think that outside the church there isn’t always the assumption that a relationship is going to lead to marriage, and even if there is that assumption there are slightly different cultural norms and that can lead to less intimidation. I hate referencing a stupid movie- but in Singles Ward the main character talks about how dating women outside the church is easier. You have more of a chance up front. When you talk to a woman and ask her out she basically judges whether you are worth spending a few hours with. But with Mormons you are immediately being sized up for time and all eternity.
The guy that is dumb as a brick may not have any pretensions that the grad student he met at a bar would want to marry him. But he may also be fully confident that she wants to hook up for the night, and that he will be fully capable of rocking her world on a short term basis.
So, yes some guys are stupid and just don’t like women who are smarter, or taller than them (or both.)
But, I think that many guys actually are just intimidated and assume that they don’t have a chance. And, guys are stupid. Even the smart ones. They often assume that they have no chance at all when it is clear that they do (conversely other stupid guys always assume they have a chance when it is clear they don’t.) I guess that means that intelligent, attractive women need to make it clear they are interested in a guy and that the guy has a shot with them.
April 18th, 2006 13:12
Elisabeth, perhaps he means what renowned feminist and progressive thinker Naomi Wolf meant when she wrote in The New Republic that Jeane Kirkpatrick had no uterus. (To be precise, she said, “The other extreme of the female public voice is perhaps represented by Jeane Kirkpatrick: a voice so Olympian, so neck-up and uninflected by the experiences of the female body, that the subtle message received by young female writers is: to enter public voice, one must abide by the no-uterus rule.” This really is quite similar to what Adam seems to be saying. Adam Greenwood & Naomi Wolf–Who’d have thought?)
April 18th, 2006 13:22
DKL: I hope not!
Hopefully, Adam will explain what he meant, though. He can’t possibly mean that women who study the hard sciences are somehow less “female”.
April 18th, 2006 14:25
Adam,
I, too, am curious what you mean by traditional female characteristics.
I’m really hoping this is like one of those times that my husband says something just so out there–completely looks like he’s got not just his foot in his mouth, but that he’s working on getting up to the kneecap. When I point out how it was taken, he can usually explain it better.
I’m with Elisabeth–hoping you’ll explain what you really meant.
April 18th, 2006 15:17
I am tall and smart. I suspect this discouraged some guys from being interested in me. It also discouraged me from being interested in anyone shorter than me or a lot less smart than me.
People pick up on vibes. I don’t blame the guys since I think it was equally my “problem.” I didn’t feel comfortable being tall, and I didn’t feel comfortable with someone who I felt I couldn’t even explain things to.
I admit I did end up with someone who I’d kick his butt on an SAT/ACT test (he managed to not take it so we can’t actually compare scores). But I recognize his smarts in categories that I am clueless in, so I don’t mind that he thinks I”m speaking another language when I talk mortgages. I think I had to fall in love with him first. And that, I have to admit, is due to his perseverance. I was completely not interested in him in the beginning. I guess the height helped! He’s 6′4 1/2.”
April 18th, 2006 15:21
Even if Adam has a good explaination, (and I’m sure he does) I think what he said is really the at the crux of the discussion. The personality traits that accompany intelligence in women are often unappealing to men, and unfortunately are often more unappealing to LDS men. Men may say, “It’s not that her intelligence intimidated me, it’s just that she wasn’t very feminine.” However, in their minds (feminine) = (not intelligent) so it really was the intelligence (or ambition, assertiveness etc), they just renamed it.
April 18th, 2006 22:02
Starfoxy — Yes, there was a slight confusion of identities there, so please take the parts that are obviously directed toward you, and then Indi can grab the parts that are obviously directed toward her, and all will be well.
And I get what you’re saying about folks responding with “you must be smart” when you say “astrophysics.” I got the same thing when my answer was “Greek.” It was nice to hear, but not when I’m struggling with the Greek verb system and failing to make much headway. I’ve since essentially given up on it, but it’s handy from time to time.
Interestingly, my Greek teacher, a non-LDS woman, is someone I respect immensely. She’s strong, brilliant (fluent in Greek, Latin, English, Italian, French, German, Sanskrit and was starting on Hittite when I met her), very nice, very interested in people (she remembers all the names and marital statuses of all of her students over a period of years). She’s one of my favorite people anywhere. If she were younger, single, and interested in me, and if our personalities clicked in that way (which they really haven’t — we have a very different understanding of the responsibility of individuals in group decisions), I think I’d be very interested back.
April 19th, 2006 05:03
I’m suggesting that its pretty likely that in measuring values, traits, interests, majors, or whatever, statistically speaking people tend to cluster around a norm. I’m also suggesting that, for biological or cultural reasons, women will tend to have different clusters then men–to the extent these are identifiable, voila, traditional female characteristics. I an also suggesting that to the extent a woman is an outlier from the cluster on one trait, its probably more likely that she’s an outlier on others (don’t know how strong the correlation would be, but I bet its there).
Which means that if a woman is studying something that’s not traditional for a woman to study–astrophysics, say
–I’m betting its more likely that she’s less likely to some degree to meet up with popular expectations of how women are and act in other ways too. Now, as has been noted above, for some folks this is a plus. I’m thinking that for the majority it isn’t, and here’s why. Although romantic fiction makes a lot of hay out of the unusual and the unpredictably exciting, I think people mostly like comfort food, especially when they’re thinking not just about dating but about marriage and family. So people who are more likely to be outliers on a number of norms may be less attractive as prospects. Second, its been shown that when thinking about marriage men are more likely than not to tend to look for someone who is more like their mother than not (though this isn’t usually conscious). So, to the extent that there are clusters of female-associated traits, mothers are statistically more likely to be within the clusters, and outlier women are therefore more likely to be less attractive as prospects. And, if outlying characteristics have been correlated in the past with lower rates of marriage and childbearing, this problem is only exacerbated. Third, to the extent that the Saints get married younger and have a younger marriage culture–its my belief that the young are less likely to be risk takers in marriage and so on, and more likely to subconsciously do the sort of stereotyping I’m talking about here (outlier in one trait, probably an outlier in others) rather than taking the time to get to know some one as an individual.
April 19th, 2006 06:37
I only dated smart women. Of the women that I dated seriously the least educated has a master’s degree. My wife is a medical doctor and pretty darn smart.
Now that I’ve gottent that out of the way, let me say that the discrimination works both ways. I’ve known plenty of very intelligent LDS women who seemed to assume that any LDS man wouldn’t be good enough for her because he would look down on her in some way. Or women who are so impressed with themselves that they look for evidence of men being intimidated where there is none. I’m not saying that all smart LDS women do this, but I would go so far as to say that in my experience smart LDS women are much more likely to do this than smart non-LDS women.
April 19th, 2006 07:04
Is it me, or has Adam Greenwood gone from channeling Naomi Wolf to channeling Carol Gilligan? Are you going for some kind of grand feminist synthesis, Adam?
The basic problem, Adam, is that you are basically positing that certain kinds of success make a woman less feminine. Not that this is unusual among people that advocate feminist theories. In fact, for them, the degree to which a successful woman reflects feminine virtue is the degree to which they acknowledge feminists as being a key part of their success. Thus, those women who achieved a large measure of worldly success and who are role models for our daughters and who blazed real trails for other women to follow in their footsteps and who are not feminists and do not trace their success to feminism (Margaret Thatcher, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Elisabeth Dole,Phylis Schlafley) are despised by feminists, and those women who achieve a great measure of worldly success who are feminists (remind me who these are, again?) are loved.
We see the same thing happen with the black political power structure, where black people who achieve success without paying homage to the dominant black political power structure are despised (e.g., Clarance Thomas, Condoleeza Rice).
April 19th, 2006 20:30
“The basic problem, Adam, is that you are basically positing that certain kinds of success make a woman less feminine.”
Nope. I’m positing that women who are outliers from female statistical norms in certain respects may be more likely to be outliers in other respects too. What this has to do with feminism, Margaret Thatcher, Clarence Thomas and what not is beyond me.
April 19th, 2006 21:35
Adam, you’re avoiding the issue. the “certain respects” in which some women “are outliers from female statistical norms” include certain kinds of success. And since your “female statistical norms” constitute feminity in some sense, you’re saying that these successes make them less femine. Hence, the basic problem.
This relates to feminism and the feminists that I name in exactly the way that I outline above. The relation to power of black leaders is simply an analogue of the behavior I identify you and feminists sharing; specifically, the disqualification of blacks from some kind of authentic blackness based on their success outside of the reaches of their influence is similar to the disqualification of women from some kind of authentic femininity based on their success in some area outside the reach of preconceived notions.
April 19th, 2006 23:43
Great post, thanks. Two thoughts:
I’m a 22 yr old girl, in a major at BYU that’s almost entirely male. I used to get frustrated with all the assumptions people made when they found out what my major was. I’ve gotten over it though. Adam’s statistical demo, whether reliably true or not, is being assumed by many, many men. But I’ve learned they can be convinced otherwise. If they give me a shot, guys I date learn quickly that I have as many feminine traits and tendencies as the home ec major next door. If the curls and mascara weren’t a clue, though that’s obviously not a requisite. And if they walk into my apt, they’ll soon see my provocative poster of Marilyn Monroe prominently displayed, with her quote captioned underneath “I don’t mind living in a man’s world as long as I can be a woman in it.” My endorsement of that quote is another story, but totally related to this topic. . .
-Secondly, and I’ll keep it as short as possible: I was talking to a friend/mentor about this topic just yesterday. He’s a practicing psychotherapist. I said Why do my brilliant pre-med, pre-law classmates snap up the el-ed majors like crazy? He said that that often, (and we’re overgeneralizing, I know) men who are super intellegent and ambitious aren’t trying to disregard smart women, but when they are around a girl who’s maybe a little extra flirty, perky, even -simple? and most of all fun, they are allowed to indulge in those dimensions in themselves. Which is something they don’t often get to do or are not as used to doing on their own. They’re used to a logical formality, even a rigidity, and they make (probably incorrect) assumptions that around brilliant women, it’s more of the same. Whereas they meet someone totally different and less intellect-oriented, and they love how they can let go of the rigidity and have fun.
Luckily, not all guys think this way. And many do recognize what an asset intelligence is in any woman. The key is to be yourself and not become overly defensive about how others perceive you, as this will backfire. I’ve happily learned that there are men who will respond positively to what you have to offer if you’re willing to put yourself out there.
April 20th, 2006 06:24
Interesting question. I stopped dating a couple of years ago, after a couple of disasterous relationships, one was even an engagement, and within months both men were in full time relationships with much younger women.
I hadn’t ever been the woman anyone was looking for, even when I was young and adorable, and it just seemed the easiest thing to do.
Now after a couple of years of reflecting, I have to tell you that I still adore men. I would love a committed relationship, but not enough at this point to go out and be a salmon once again ( you know, swim against the flow of the water, because that is what it feels like)
I also woke up this morning realizing that I had spent the last couple of years actully going through the steps of mourning on this, and I am to the point of acceptance of what has happened, and acceptance is lovely, but then it seems one more reason to put off going out and doing what my patriarchal blessings says is my number one mission here on earth. I am not sure how to reconcile that, but to sit back and try to learn what you SHOULD do in an eternal marriage rather than the things I did do. I find it was the “little” sins that did the biggest damage, the ones where I didn’t respect, didn’t treat my ex husband like I would a guest ( we tend to treat guests “best”.. shouldn’t we family? ) that allowed for the bigger sins to creep in. It might be my only offering to the Lord, as weak as it is.
So. here I am. Pickier( if the guys can be so picky as to choose some lovely young thing why can’t I be picky too? lol), but calmer, loving men better in a GOOD way, and still unwilling to actually go back out in the dating market again.
Not that this helped you, so I will tell you this. I do know at least ONE attractive wonderful man out there that does seem to have a propensity toward tall and beautiful especially if they happen to be blond, so if you are in Utah, it could happen (oh. and this guy LOVES intelligent. It is why we are good friends even though romance will never be an option between us.)
April 20th, 2006 06:42
“Adam, you’re avoiding the issue. the “certain respects” in which some women “are outliers from female statistical norms” include certain kinds of success. And since your “female statistical norms” constitute feminity in some sense, you’re saying that these successes make them less femine. Hence, the basic problem.”
1. The idea that “success” is an outlier characteristic for women is all yours, not mine.
2. Correlation is not causation. You are confusing the two. I am not suggesting that being atypical of women in one area of life causes one to be less representatively female in other areas of life. I am suggesting that empirically there is a correlation.
3. You are also confusing norms and normativity, or else I can’t understand why you would be bringing in Clarence Thomas and so on. I am suggesting that statistically speaking, some behaviors and characteristics are *norms* for women–they are the average, the median, the statistical cluster, with no value judgment implied. You are talking about *normativity*–what characteristics a woman or a black man should have to be “authentic* or *acceptable*, irrespective of how many of them actually have these traits. Saying that a woman’s behavior and characteristics are not the norm for women is not the same as saying that the woman is not *authentically feminine.*
April 20th, 2006 13:13
Hi all,
I am way behind on answering the posts on this thread. I don’t think I can match Naiah’s awesome ability in that area. However, I want to thank everyone for sharing your thoughts and comments. Each and every perspective has been enlightening to me and very helpful.
I love these discussions and I’m still new to blogging so you ALL impress me with your reason, intellect, and thought provoking comments. It makes me wish we could all meet in person. Wouldn’t it be fun to have an ‘in-person’ talkfest where we could discuss many of these great topics while looking face-to-face at the person(s) we are talking to? I know that thought probably scares many of you =), but still, it would be fun.
I can’t help wondering if we would see each other as equals and individuals without stereotypes or if our physical appearances would change how we perceive each other. You all know I’m tall and blonde, but would you take me seriously in person, if you didn’t know me already? Ha! That is an interesting thought for another discussion!
It seems to me that our perceptions of others (and therefore, our relationships) simply boil down to a few basic behaviors. It is too easy to label and stereotype each other, to make judgements based on preconceived cultural notions and to stay in our own little comfort zones. I say, let’s break the mold!
April 20th, 2006 13:18
I doubt that I lost many dates for being too smart; in fact, I probably lost interest in more men because they weren’t smart enough than men lost interest in me for being too smart.
But I bet I lost a lot of dates for not being pretty enough.
April 20th, 2006 14:44
That is a nice idea. We can try it on our own and see how it goes. I’ve kinda tried it before, and what works for me is to go ahead and make the quick surface judgments, then put them on the back burner and look for things that go against those types and make them more rich. Paying attention and listening help a lot.
This doesn’t mean that I’m not going to prefer to be around people I find attractive, but it does mean that I’m going to try to stay in the game a little longer when deciding who I like, who I don’t, and why. And, generally, I like most folks, even if I consider them obnoxious or prefer to not spend much (or any) time around them.
it’s kinda weird, really. It works for me, but not always the people I’m around.
April 20th, 2006 14:46
Adam: The idea that “success” is an outlier characteristic for women is all yours, not mine.
Wrong again, Adam. You’re talking in circles here. You stipulate that a women’s success in astrophysics is an outlier characteristic. Success in astrophysics is a certain type of success, and my words were, “certain types of success” (emphasis added). The idea is yours, you just dislike hearing the study of astrophysics re-characterized as success in astrophysics because it exposes your idea for the misogynistic tripe that it is.
Adam: Correlation is not causation. You are confusing the two. I am not suggesting that being atypical of women in one area of life causes one to be less representatively female in other areas of life. I am suggesting that empirically there is a correlation.
I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m discussing causation. When you stipulate a cluster of normal behavior for women, you’re not saying that this cluster causes feminity. You’re saying that it constitutes the popular notion of feminity. Inevitably, deviation from that norm becomes one measure of feminity. Causation never enters the picture.
Adam: You are also confusing norms and normativity
You’re the one who tries to explain the isolation that many women feel in terms of their feminity. The major problem with your reasoning is that your supposition that there is a single kind of feminity relies on a single reaction to it. Let’s allow for argument’s sake that most guys hate smart chicks. Who’s to say that there aren’t as many guys turned on by smarts as there are smart chicks?
Who’s to say whether bookish people in general simply don’t socialize as much, or just have less in common with the non-booking majority, and thus they resulting in fewer dating opportunities. I know a lot of geeky single guys who complain that chicks don’t like them. I doubt that you’d stipulate that it was because their behavior deviated from the masculine norms.
April 20th, 2006 14:46
Sarah - interesting take. Using your friend’s line of reasoning, I think that the smart boys at BYU prefer the elementary education majors (unfortunately used here as an approximation for intelligence - sorry, Marianne!) not necessarily because the el-ed majors are more fun or flirty, but because they aren’t as likely to challenge the boys, intellectually or otherwise. It’s human nature to be competitive (even more so among the Type A, academic overachieving personalities), so I understand why your friend said that these boys at BYU would rather choose a relationship with someone they didn’t feel the need to compete with. That said, I think choosing the fun and flirty spouse over someone strong, intelligent and challenging may not serve these boys well in the long run, however.
Adam and DKL- you lost me. But I think we can agree that women should be encouraged to pursue their interests - be it fashion design or astrophysics- and should not be denigrated for their successes, professional, academic or otherwise.
April 20th, 2006 15:50
Elisabeth, I think that you’re right. Personally, I’d like to see a lot more men looking at women in terms of their earning potential.
April 20th, 2006 15:59
Sorry that the el-ed stereotype was invoked, I was perpetuating something that is all too easy to fall into. I have many very intellegent friends and roommates studying el-ed . . . I absolutely have learned over the past few years that majors and professions are not a genuine indicator of intelligence or the lack there-of. My apologies again if that was offensive to anyone.
April 20th, 2006 16:02
Like I said to my wife the other day: “Beauty fades, but stupid is forever.”
Any man who would consciously choose to marry a less-than smart marry woman must really hate his unborn children.
April 20th, 2006 17:03
“You stipulate that a women’s success in astrophysics is an outlier characteristic.”
Wrong again. A commenter said that men get turned off when she tells them she *studies* astrophysics. I have no idea whether she’s successful at it or not, though I hope so.
“I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m discussing causation.”
Probably because you keep saying that I believe that “success” (your term, not mine) “makes” women less feminine. If “makes” isn’t about causation, then what is it?
“When you stipulate a cluster of normal behavior for women, you’re not saying that this cluster causes feminity. You’re saying that it constitutes the popular notion of feminity. Inevitably, deviation from that norm becomes one measure of feminity. Causation never enters the picture.”
Yes, this has been my point all along.
“The major problem with your reasoning is that your supposition that there is a single kind of feminity relies on a single reaction to it.”
Where have I made this assumption? I’m offering a possible explanation (explanation, not justification) for why LDS women who are more intelligent might *on average* find LDS men to be less interested in them than they might otherwise be. This doesn’t require a unitary view of feminity at all–it just requires statistical clusters along *some* traits, and that in turn *some* men are influenced by these clusters. The major problem with your reasoning, such as it is, is that you want any conversation about women to devolve into certain PC tropes; when it doesn’t you react emotionally with condemnation (”misogynistic”? Huh?) no matter how little what is being said actually corresponds to the oppressive bugaboos that you imagine.
“Who’s to say that there aren’t as many guys turned on by smarts as there are smart chicks?”
The person in the original post, apparently. But that’s orthogonal to my point, in any case.
“Who’s to say whether bookish people in general simply don’t socialize as much, or just have less in common with the non-booking majority, and thus they resulting in fewer dating opportunities.”
No one. Why do you think I’m denying this? But the original poster didn’t seem to think that her problem was that she didn’t socialize as much (assuming that what she meant by “intelligence” is what you mean by “bookish”). On the other hand, the “having less in common with the non-bookish majority” point is interesting–it aligns nicely with my hypothesis that women who are outliers in some characteristics are more likely on average to be outliers in others.
“I know a lot of geeky single guys who complain that chicks don’t like them. I doubt that you’d stipulate that it was because their behavior deviated from the masculine norms.”
Why do you doubt it? I’d be surprised if that wasn’t part of the explanation.
April 20th, 2006 17:06
“Any man who would consciously choose to marry a less-than smart woman must really hate his unborn children.”
Danithew, can you really mean this? Stupid people shouldn’t marry? A child’s worth is determined by its intelligence?
April 20th, 2006 18:14
Adam,
That seems to be a rather narrow (and uncharitable) reading of what Danithew said. Surely you can do better. If you insist that you can’t then I’ll offer one, but I’m quite certain that you can.
April 20th, 2006 18:21
what ARJ said.
April 20th, 2006 19:13
Adam: A commenter said that men get turned off when she tells them she *studies* astrophysics. I have no idea whether she’s successful at it or not, though I hope so.
You can’t escape this problem by redefining success out of your usage. My argument still works as an a fortiori argument: your stipulations about a woman’s femininity by virtue of her study of astrophysics are a fortiori true of the woman who studies it and is successful at it. Thus, your still still talking in circles here, and the notion that certain types of success make a woman less feminine is still consequent of your ideas.
Adam: If “makes” isn’t about causation, then what is it?
The dictionary I use has 27 definitions of “make,” only one of which uses the term “cause.” What I mean by “make” is to give rise to or to favor the occurrence of; as in, “good fences make good neighbors”, “lending money is a good way to make enemies”, “haste makes waste.” The idea that something “gives rise to” does not equal causation, but it is sometimes a decent way to discuss the kind of judgment made by virtue of some estimated measurement.
Adam: Where have I made this assumption [that there is a single kind of femininity relies on a single reaction to it]
The group of clusters that you stipulate is one kind of femininity. Once you admit multiple different types of non-unified frameworks, your proposed analysis breaks down.
Adam: The major problem with your reasoning, such as it is, is that you want any conversation about women to devolve into certain PC tropes
My anti-PC credentials surpass those of any notable participant in the bloggernacle. You blog at a site where I was banned in large part due to my unwillingness to succumb to pressure from your co-bloggers to pander to their PC sensibilities.
Adam: when it doesn’t you react emotionally with condemnation (”misogynistic”? Huh?) no matter how little what is being said actually corresponds to the oppressive bugaboos that you imagine.
Emotion has nothing to do with it. It is my considered opinion from reading your comments for a few years that you harbor misogynist opinions. Every time one of them surfaces, I won’t hesitate to point it out, no matter how hard you try to characterize my condemnation as emotional (or somehow feminine in your mind and therefore unworthy of consideration; OK, that last line was a pot shot–but I laughed out loud after I type it, and I like the way it sounds, so I’m leaving it.)
April 20th, 2006 19:41
Look, plenty of stereotypes exist for both men and women in this regard. A man studying fashion design will probably be pegged as a homosexual. A woman studying mechanical engineering will probably be pegged as smart (”nerdy”) and aloof. That said, a woman’s course of study in college (outside of BYU) isn’t necessarily correlated with her desire to get married and have a family - so this is where I disagree with Adam (to the extent he believes that).
In any event, I think these stereotypes are more harmful to women, because these stereotypes and prejudices as evidenced on this thread indicate a very narrow margin of error and very few degrees of freedom for women to pursue their interests and explore their identities as human beings, whereas men are given much more leeway to define themselves and their ambitions in a socially acceptable manner. I shouldn’t have to hide my interest in bordered hessian matrices because I’m afraid my mathematical genius will somehow detract from my “femininity”. And as Sarah noted, many men are very intrigued by the juxtaposition of “traditional female characteristics” displayed by women venturing into male dominated territory.
April 20th, 2006 20:18
Elisabeth, the basic problem that I have with Adam’s proposition is that he adopts an explanatory framework where the behavior variance is located in the actor (in this case, the woman astro-physicist) and not the perceiver of the actor (the man who may or may not reject her based on her astro-physicism).
Adam said, “for biological or cultural reasons, women will tend to have different clusters than men–to the extent these are identifiable, voila, traditional female characteristics.”
To the extant that this is a plausible kind of approach, behavior variance must be located in the perceiver. Hence something like this: For biological or cultural reasons, people (perhaps men) will expect female behaviors to have different clusters than the ones they expect male behaviors to have–to the extent these are identifiable, voila, traditional female characteristics. The problem isn’t that women shouldn’t be astro-physicists. The problem is that they’re discouraged from doing so by a society that pegs such behavior as un-feminine.
Turning the tables on the female astro-physicist (by describing her as at odds with other women rather than as at odds with expectations) is part of what I find to be misogynistic.
April 20th, 2006 20:22
“You can’t escape this problem by redefining success out of your usage.”
I don’t need to, since I never defined ’success’ into it. That’s been your contribution entirely, since you want me to be attacking successful women.
“My argument still works as an a fortiori argument: your stipulations about a woman’s femininity by virtue of her study of astrophysics are a fortiori true of the woman who studies it and is successful at it”
They are also true of a woman who studies it and isn’t successful at it. Success is irrelevant. You need it to be about success, so you can validate your idea that I’m misogynistic, but it isn’t.
“The group of clusters that you stipulate is one kind of femininity. Once you admit multiple different types of non-unified frameworks, your proposed analysis breaks down.”
No, it doesn’t. See my above comment.
“What I mean by “make” is to give rise to or to favor the occurrence of; as in, “good fences make good neighbors”, “lending money is a good way to make enemies”, “haste makes waste.””
These are all instances of causation.
“My anti-PC credentials surpass those of any notable participant in the bloggernacle”
Nonetheless, you get PC when it comes to women’s issues.
“Every time one of them surfaces, I won’t hesitate to point it out, no matter how hard you try to characterize my condemnation as emotional ”
It would be better if you explained why it was misogynistic. I’m quite aware that you are going to accuse me of misogyny–you’ve done it already in this thread. But I’m more interested in *why* you’re doing it. Please explain which of the following two hypotheses is per se evidence that I hate women:
1) I hypothesize that there are traits and behaviors in which, statistically speaking, women map onto a bell curve.
2) I hypothesize that being an outlier on one bell curve might be (weakly? strongly?) correlated with being an outlier on another such bell curve.
April 20th, 2006 20:31
“If you insist that you can’t then I’ll offer one, but I’m quite certain that you can.”
Yes, please do. The comment took me aback. I’m not sure what Danithew means by “a less than smart woman.” That could mean the bottom half of the population or even everyone who isn’t in the top 10% or 25%, but lets say that it only means the *bottom* 25%. Lets further say that not everyone who marries a girl in the bottom 25% realizes that she’s in the bottom 25%. Where does that leave us? Well, that no one can knowingly marry a girl in the bottom 25% unless they really hate their unborn children. The only reason I can think of that knowingly marrying such a girl is tantamount to hating one’s unborn children is that (1) the girl’s children are probably not going to be very smart either and (2) no one would ever create a person who was stupid unless they hated them.
April 20th, 2006 20:33
Adam: These are all instances of causation.
Uh, no. That’s why there examples that the dictionary provides in a definition that is different from the one that uses the term cause. In fact, you mutilate the meaning of the sentences when you introduce the notion of causation.
Adam: Nonetheless, you get PC when it comes to women’s issues.
Not according to the feminists I know. I’m told that they great my outlook with revulsion–and with good reason, too. My outlook is revolting; you should see it. But it would be better if you explained why my outlook is PC. And it would be even better yet if you actually addressed its merits.
Adam: It would be better if you explained why it was misogynistic.
See the comment I wrote in response to Elisabeth that I appear to have written just before you submitted your last comment.
April 20th, 2006 20:34
Incidentally, Danithew framed it in terms of marrying a less-than-smart woman, but I think it would equally apply to less-than-smart men.
April 20th, 2006 20:35
that first sentence of my response should read, “Uh, no. That’s why they’re examples that the dictionary provides…”
April 20th, 2006 20:37
I should also add that I have no problem with the idea of picking between partners on the basis of intelligence, even though intelligence, like beauty, is the sort of thing a person doesn’t have much control over. Of course one would prefer to have smarter, better-looking kids than not. But I object to the idea that less intelligent people shouldn’t get married at all or shouldn’t have kids.
I eagerly await an explanation what the more charitable reading is and/or modification, qualification, or retraction of Danithew’s comments.
April 20th, 2006 20:52
Adam, here’s some non-PC fodder for you:
I don’t think that men are intimidated my smart women. There are many more average-intelligence people who think they’re smart than actual smart people. This leads me to believe that there are more people bemoaning the impact of their wits on their social status than there are people whose wits actually impact their social status.
On the astro-physicist front: I don’t see what sex has to do with the social acceptance of astro-physicism. If most guys walk up to another guy and find that he’s an astrophysics major, it’s not likely to start a warm conversation either.
April 20th, 2006 20:53
When one is contrasting correlation with causation, “gives rise” is causation. When you say two facts are correlated, you’re saying that the two facts are found in connection with each other, but that the one fact doesn’t necessarily give rise to the other–perhaps there is some third fact which causes both of them or perhaps its just a coincidence. When people say ‘good fences make good neighbors’ they don’t mean ‘huh, good fences are associated with good neighbors, but its probably a coincidence.” You know this, DKL. Is this one of your jokes? Ha ha.
“it would be even better yet if you actually addressed its merits.”
What are the merits?
April 20th, 2006 21:06
“Adam, here’s some non-PC fodder for you:
I don’t think that men are intimidated by smart women. There are many more average-intelligence people who think they’re smart than actual smart people. This leads me to believe that there are more people bemoaning the impact of their wits on their social status than there are people whose wits actually impact their social status.”
OK. That’s reasonable (and non-PC). I myself don’t have an opinion on whether men are intimidated by smart women or not. But the poster did, and in my original comment I was trying to come up with reasons why that might be the case, other than men just having some kind of direct dislike for intelligence (which I thought was unlikely).
April 20th, 2006 21:33
Adam, with regard to why your viewpoint is misogynistic (explained here), it’s worth noting that it’s for neither of the reasons that you anticipate. This does not surprise me; you don’t seem aware that your viewpoint gives rise to such misogynistic explanations, so it’s not likely that you’ll understand exactly how they’re misogynistic.
April 20th, 2006 21:43
I still don’t understand, DKL. I’m arguing that, on average, women are less likely to become astrophysicists than men. You retort that society’s expectations of women do not include becoming an astrophysicist. Why? The retort doesn’t contradict the argument. They are compatible with each other.
April 20th, 2006 21:47
Danithew said: “Any man who would consciously choose to marry a less-than smart woman must really hate his unborn children.”
For Adam’s benefit I will offer an explanation of this. I think he was saying that a man who fails to value and seek for intelligence (street smarts, common sense, etc) in his wife is not acting in the best interest of his children. A pretty face alone doesn’t make a good mother.
April 20th, 2006 21:49
“Adam, with regard to why your viewpoint is misogynistic (explained here), it’s worth noting that it’s for neither of the reasons that you anticipate.”
The two reasons I gave weren’t the reasons I “anticipated”, DKL. They were in fact the sum total of the arguments I’d made. Everything else has been your invention.
“This does not surprise me; you don’t seem aware that your viewpoint gives rise to such misogynistic explanations, so it’s not likely that you’ll understand exactly how they’re misogynistic.”
As to whether I unconsciously hate or scorn women I obviously can’t say, but that is a very PC thing to accuse me of. Unconscious bias is probably the first item in the PC tool-kit.
April 20th, 2006 21:52
” I think he was saying that a man who fails to value and seek for intelligence (street smarts, common sense, etc) in his wife is not acting in the best interest of his children. A pretty face alone doesn’t make a good mother. ”
Agreed (though I don’t think street smarts or common sense are the same thing as intelligence), always recognizing that we will never find a partner who has everything we value and seek for. But that’s not what Danithew said, so I’m hoping he clarifies that’s what he meant.
April 21st, 2006 07:05
Adam, your last statement concerning the success issue fails to address the a fortiori argument. Specifically, if what you say is true of the study in astrophysics, then it is especially true of success in astrophysics. Trying to call into question who brought up success is a distraction, since your cluster-theory carries the same liabilities either way. But you continue to focus on the version of my argument that yields the most opportunistic reading of your misogynism.
You say “when one is contrasting correlation with causation….” I’m not contrasting correlation with causation–you are. As soon as you began trying to make this contrast, I disavowed causation and reformulated the position in a manner that (a) explicitly excluded discussion of causation, and (b) that you found acceptable. It’s OK if you misunderstood what I first meant–that’s why I clarified my point. But it simply won’t do to introduce dichotomies midstream in an argument and launch semantic arguments based on an ex post facto application of that dichotomy.
But I want to dwell on this causation issue a bit longer. You might just as easily have understood “makes” to mean that the correlation causes a certain kind of judgment. This would still be a misunderstanding of my position, because I don’t rely on this at all, but it would at least be a sympathetic misunderstanding. Instead, you insert causation at the point in my argument where it yields the least charitable reading.
This tendency toward the un-charitable, even hostile, understanding of other peoples statements (also witnessed in your interpretation of danithew’s remark), is a trend that I’ve observed with some regularity in your arguing. It’s never bothered me, because I’m quite the tenacious arguer (as you may have noticed…), but it tends to wear other people out very quickly, and you rely on this Greenwood-fatigue to give you a feeling like you’ve won an argument. Nevertheless, it is a real problem, because it amounts to arguing in bad faith. I don’t know where you learned to argue this way; but it’s just not an acceptable mode of discussion.
April 21st, 2006 07:06
Adam, the conclusion you drew about what I was saying was a bit of a jump away from what I actually said. I wasn’t advocating eugenics. I certainly didn’t mean to communicate that stupid people shouldn’t marry or that stupid children don’t have any value.
What I said was a deliberately flippant remark. That should be accounted for to some extent. That doesn’t mean it’s meaningless. It does connect to my overall philosophy about courtship and marriage. I would expect that a wise person would try to marry someone who was intelligent, a good or even superior match, someone who would be a good parent. I was responding a little bit to the observation or experience of some (expressed in the thread) that there are men who dismiss from consideration any woman who has chosen a challenging major (such as astrophysics).
By the way Starfoxy … I appreciate what you said. Your conclusion was much more accurate.
April 21st, 2006 07:13
LOL - I love how the men have taken over this thread:
“You said this!”
“No, I didn’t!”
“Yes, you did so!”
“NO, I did not! And you’re a jerk, besides!”
Yeah. I can’t compete with that.
April 21st, 2006 07:15
Yeah Adam. Don’t be such a jerk.
April 21st, 2006 07:20
Obviously, danithew is not exhibiting “traditional masculine qualities”, since he can’t hurl insults without qualifying them with smiley faces.
I wonder if danithew had problems getting dates in college because of his outlier status.
April 21st, 2006 07:24
No Elisabeth, I wouldn’t let myself be intimidated by the smart guys.
April 21st, 2006 07:39
Elisabeth, I was going to make a comment but you are intimidating me. Please stop being intelligent immediately.
April 21st, 2006 07:56
“Specifically, if what you say is true of the study in astrophysics, then it is especially true of success in astrophysics. ”
This is only so if you assume that women who study astrophysics on average do not succeed in astrophysics. You may make this assumption but don’t assume that I do–I don’t.
“I’m not contrasting correlation with causation–you are. As soon as you began trying to make this contrast, I disavowed causation.”
Of course you’re not contrasting correlation with causation–you’re muddling them. You may have *said* that you’re disavowing causation, but you haven’t disavowed your argument, which relies on it.
“This tendency toward the un-charitable, even hostile, understanding of other peoples statements”
Well-poisoning.
April 21st, 2006 07:58
“Adam, the conclusion you drew about what I was saying was a bit of a jump away from what I actually said.”
Danithew, I think its more accurate to say that its a jump away from what you actually *meant*. What you *said* was pretty astounding so I was pretty sure that you didn’t mean it. I’m glad to hear that what Starfoxy said is what you really meant.
April 21st, 2006 08:13
DKL,
Almost exclusively you’ve been trying to show why my argument makes me a bad person instead of why its wrong. That’s the acme of PC. It’s also pretty hypocritical in that, after a string of uncharitable *and* wrong readings you slam me for merely uncharitable ones. Hypocrisy in argument isn’t exclusively PC but its representative of it.
April 21st, 2006 08:14
Adam, the a fortiori argument has nothing to do with rates of success. I’ve repeatedly formulated my argument in a way that has nothing to do with causation, and you’ve yet to show that there is a dependency. All you’ve got is your lame semantic argument based on my use of the term “makes” in an earlier comment. It’s bad faith to to introduce dichotomies midstream in an argument and launch semantic arguments based on an ex post facto application of that dichotomy.
There’s no well poisoning here. There’s a serious problem, and I will not apologize for identifying it. For my part, I’m one who has freely offered apologies when I’ve felt that apologies were called for. Rather than prescribe apologies to others, perhaps you should search out in your heart the actions that you’ve taken that would best be remedied by apologies (that’s the Christ-like thing to do).
April 21st, 2006 08:22
DKL: “Rather than prescribe apologies to others, perhaps you should search out in your heart the actions that you’ve taken that would best be remedied by apologies (that’s the Christ-like thing to do). ”
LOL.
April 21st, 2006 08:52
Adam, I know very well what I said and what I meant. Before I responded to your comments and without any assistance on my part, others objected to your misreading of what I said. They showed they were able to draw other less-negative and less controversial conclusions about what I said. Why can’t you?
Don’t be so obstinate.
April 21st, 2006 08:52
” I’ve repeatedly formulated my argument in a way that has nothing to do with causation, and you’ve yet to show that there is a dependency”
DKL, you’ve hardly formulated your argument at all. The only argument I’ve seen is you saying that I claim being “successful” makes women “unfeminine”, which is not something I’ve said and clearly an argument about causation.
April 21st, 2006 08:54
“Any man who would consciously choose to marry a less-than smart woman must really hate his unborn children.”
First of all “less than smart” is in the eye of the beholder, as is also implied by the use of “consciously”. I read this to mean that the man thinks the woman is not smart. This sort of judgement will vary from individual to individual. It also stands to reason that less intelligent men will be less likely to consciously categorize women as “less-then smart”. Thus danithew isn’t saying that dumb men or dumb women shouldn’t marry, but he might be implying that they will tend to marry each other.
Also, if a person is of the opinion that his/her potential mate is dumb then they are likely to look down on them. This is going to create a less than ideal situation which in turn is bad for the children. It is also arguable that parents want their children to be intelligent and that wishing any lack of intelligence on your children is hateful. Since mother’s level of education is the best predictor of intelligence in the offspring it stands to reason that a man that conciously decides to marry and have children with a woman that he has determined is of a lesser intelligence either doesn’t care about the intelligence of his potential children.
Now if you don’t value intelligence (the glory of God?) as an attribute then you aren’t hating your children by making them dumb. But then you probably would also be less likely to be concious of the lack of intelligence of your mate.
Now Adam it is your turn to come up with a more charitable reading. I know you can do it. You just don’t want to.
April 21st, 2006 09:07
Danithew,
This is what you said:
“Any man who would consciously choose to marry a less-than smart woman must really hate his unborn children.” http://roxcy.synthian.org/2006/04/17/hello-to-everyone/#comment-306
I understand that’s not what you meant, but its what you said. I’m not really interested in having a big discussion parsing your statement or who is or who is not being obstinate, but if you want to email me about it, I am at work and my email is ahg at modrall dot com. My basic contention is that Starfoxy’s restatement allows knowingly marrying someone who is less-than-smart if they have other good qualities and if its the best you can do, but your original statement doesn’t.
April 21st, 2006 09:18
Adam, ARJ parsed it already for you.
April 21st, 2006 09:19
Guys (specifically Adam and DKL) maybe you should leave the thread alone for a bit and cool off. This has been steadily getting more heated, and more personal. I don’t want to have to delete comments or issue ultimatims.
May I refer you again to our comment policy which you should read and consider carefully.
April 21st, 2006 09:19
Gosh, I turn my back so I can sleep, and all Hell breaks loose.
Danithew and Adam — Let’s get a couple of things straight — I’m the jerk around here. Y’all have made a valiant effort to take that title from me, but, unfortunately, you’re spinning off into picky little areas of trying to mischaracterize each others comments so that one of you is wrong about something. Let me save some time.
You’re both wrong. And you’re both right. And you’re not going to agree about what each of you said and the way the other is going to characterize what you said. If you both take a break from this for a few hours, let go of the “what I said you said I said is not what I thought I said that you said I said” thing, and maybe do something constructive, you’re going to find that, even if you did agree, I’m not sure that there’s anything left to say that anybody is going to care about. If there is, after that break, then say it, and don’t expect anybody else to agree with it, support it or salute it. Just say it, and let it stand with nothing more than a little clarification if you find that you weren’t clear about what you mean.
Sorry, but piss-fights bore me.
April 21st, 2006 09:22
Might I add that if, after having read the comment policy, you wish to have some of your comments deleted I would be more than happy to do so.
April 21st, 2006 09:22
ARJ,
Danithew didn’t explicitly say anything about *knowing* that the person, man or woman, is less than smart, but its a reasonable to read that in, which I did a few comments back. But that’s not the end of the story.
If I’m taking you right, you’re saying that one shouldn’t *knowingly* marry someone who isn’t a smart as they are (actually, you say it only about men marrying women, but I’m assuming it would apply both ways). In effect, then, you’re saying that everyone should marry someone of roughly the same intelligence. But I think this puts too much emphasis on intelligence. Intelligence is a good thing, but its not the only thing, or even the most important thing. Here’s my question:
If a man meets a woman (or a woman meets a man) and realizes that this person isn’t as smart but is still desirable because they are faithful, nurturing, hard working, attractive, inquisitive, and so on, and falls in love, does this person still have a sort of reckless disregard for this person’s children if they get married?
I would say no, but I don’t think Danithew’s original, inartful statement is compatible with saying no. (if you disagree, you can email me too).
April 21st, 2006 09:22
Fair ’nuff. I’m out.
April 21st, 2006 09:25
Starfoxy,
I’ve read your comments policy. My apologies for being heated. I will stop arguing with DKL. Should have learned my lesson long ago. I’m sorry.
April 21st, 2006 09:26
Starfoxy, I’m sorry. I got the idea for my last comment from the movie, Good Will Hunting. I can see how you think it was wrong of me to post it.
April 21st, 2006 09:33
Feel free to delete my comments (including this one). I thought I had quit arguing in the Bloggernacle but apparently I still have some argument still in me. I am sorry for the active role I played in this.
April 21st, 2006 09:33
How, ’bout we compromise and just delete his replies?
April 21st, 2006 09:38
I’ve deleted edited out the insults. If there is anything I missed let me know. Thanks for calming down and offering apologies.
In the future perhaps look this site over before composing responses. It’s very soothing.
April 21st, 2006 09:49
Again Starfoxy, my apologies. I’ll be more careful and respectful in the future. I promise.
April 21st, 2006 10:23
I have nothing of substance to add. But –
I’m number 100 on the first 100-comment thread ever at Roxcy! Woohoo! (Does a little dance) I’m so cool.
(I’d better type fast, so that I don’t get bumped).
Hmm, maybe I should add some substance, so that Starfoxy doesn’t delete me. Let’s see. Men shouldn’t be intimidated by smart women. Oh, and danithew is always wrong. That pretty much goes without saying, though.
Starfoxy and Naiah - you ought to add a comment number to your template. Makes it easier to argue with people on 100-comment threads. (You can say “Danithew in #99 - you’re all wet.”)
Also, it would allow people to see that –
I’m number 100!
(That is all).
April 21st, 2006 10:55
Ohh Kaimi, so sorry, but due to a few more deletions you are now only comment 99. I have claimed comment 100 for myself! Hahahahahahahahahaha. :p
You do have a good suggestion, and we’ll see what we can do about adding numbers.
April 21st, 2006 10:57
Hey! No fair deleting old comments, making me #99!
It’s okay - I got a screenshot.
April 21st, 2006 11:15
Starfoxy, that’s a terrible site. This one is much more soothing.
April 21st, 2006 12:40
Rosalynde said,
But I bet I lost a lot of dates for not being pretty enough.
I have problems processing visual information (in other words, I’m visually dumb)–too visually dumb to evaluate beauty very well. I found this, my preferred form of stupidity, a tremendous asset in dating because I was never very good at figuring out who was good-looking and who wasn’t. (All I could figure out was who thought they were :>).
So by being dumb, as we all are in one way or another, I improved my odds of happy marriage. Fortunately I have found a wonderful man who appreciates my strengths and rolls his eyes elaborately at my weaknesses in such a way that I can’t take myself quite as seriously as I used to, pre-marriage.
P.S. Now that I’ve confessed that my judgment of beauty is basically worthless, you look very pretty in your T&S photo. Really!
April 21st, 2006 12:48
Now, I know I have a high fever and it’s messing with my head, but did I just log on to find a boy-fueled catfight stringing out to over 100 comments that even included public apologies? 102+ comments or 102+ degrees??? Clearly, I must be hallucinating, right? I mean Dave doesn’t apologize.
I got an email from the moderation queue with all these hyperlinks to comments to be deleted, and I got *really* confused. Luckily, when I logged in to the panel they weren’t there anymore. I’m not sure if they were real or not–or whether the right righteous rockin’ admin Starfoxy cleaned it up 
. I mean how often do you get comments telling you to delete comments? Very surreal.
Be nice, peeps. Contention drives the spirit away, and that just ain’t what we’re about. If you need to go on like that, take it to email. You’ll have a better discussion that way, anyway, taking out the grandstanding factor.
April 21st, 2006 13:29
Next time I could apologize privately if you prefer.
:)
April 21st, 2006 13:32
Kaimi, a few years ago, on one occasion, I was right about something, whatever it was.
April 21st, 2006 13:41
Here’s a very partial list of public apologies to specific people:
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/10/a-bible-a-bible-do-we-need-a-new-bible/#comment-42571
http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=1816#comment-39107
http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=1816#comment-39200
http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=1801#comment-38024
http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=1666#comment-31259
http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=2018#comment-54576
http://bannerofheaven.weblogs.us/archives/146#comment-4104
http://bannerofheaven.weblogs.us/archives/146#comment-4174
The 4th one is, of course, a joke. But I thought it was a somewhat funny comment (not my best, but maybe 3 out of 5 stars).
I have to keep reposting this list to remind folks that I do apologize often, and that when I refuse to apologize, there’s a very good reason. This may not make everyone happy, but it does meant that when I apologize, I mean it.
April 21st, 2006 13:49
Adam, Dan, & Dave,
No, seriously, I love that the apologies came out. Now play nice.
;)
April 21st, 2006 16:26
Since the thread has already been jacked (up?) I hope it’s ok that I post this personal note to DKL.
DKL,
Your list of links to apologies includes one to me (I was bananas at BoH). It probably doesn’t matter much, but I just wanted to say that I don’t think you’re mean any more and I have no personal beef with you (of course, I don’t think you’re always perfectly nice, but who is?). I was a little worried that since bananas disappeared after bannergate that you might think that bananas still had hurt feelings or something.
I was upset. Reading back I’m surprised at how upset I was. I don’t remember being that upset. Anyways, since that time I have publicly shared (at BCC) what I was upset at having shared under the BoH circumstances (about my wife’s mental illness). I believe that y’all weren’t trying to be mean.
April 21st, 2006 17:05
Thanks, Tom. That’s very nice of you to say. I appreciate it. (and I like the “y’all”–I live in Boston, but I still say, “you all” because 2nd person plural “you” just doesn’t sound right.)
April 21st, 2006 19:50
Lets compare.
Tall men - feel fairly comfortable with tall women, or short women. Both feel normal, neither makes them feel unmasculine.
Tall women - feel more comfortable with tall men than with shorter men. They are buying into the cultural idea that the man is usually taller.
Therefore, the tall women complain that “Men don’t like tall women” even though men do like tall women, they just also like short women, so the end up only dating tall women some of the time.
Smart men - same thing, feel comfortable with smart women and less smart women. Neither makes him feel unmasculine.
Smart women - feel comfortable with men who are as smart or smart, but don’t feel comfortable with the less smart men.
Therefore, they see the smart men dating all sorts and and there aren’t enough smart men to go around.
Perhaps they say that less smart men don’t like smart women, but the smart women are equally guilty. They don’t pursue the less smart men because they don’t feel comfortable with them. They, like the the less smart men, have bought into the cultural idea that the men should be as smart as or smarter than the woman.
So, quit blaming the men for being intimidated. The tall and smart ones really aren’t avoiding us- they just aren’t dating only us. And we really may be avoiding the less smart and less tall ones.
If you want height and excess intelligence to not be an issue, start marry the short guys and the less smart guys. Open up your own dating pool, don’t just try to limit someone else’s dating pool to only include you.
If dating a short guy hadn’t made me feel so giant and awkward and unfeminine, I would have done it more often. So, I can’t really blame the guys for feeling the same way that I did.
(Those of you women of average or short height I’m sure don’t understand what I’m refering to).
There is more to a woman than her intelligence. If a man marries (or dates, or falls in love with her) her for her other wonderful qualities, I can respect that. Why on earth would a man limit himself to only dating smarter women?
April 21st, 2006 20:20
JKS, You’re right, as a woman of very average height who always wanted to be taller when I was a kid (but now doesn’t care), I don’t get what you’re referring to. On the other hand, is there a woman alive who doesn’t feel self-conscious about her body? I’ve never towered over the guys, but I have often felt physically awkward for other reasons. (For example, when I was thirteen I decided that smiling made my nose look too big, so I determined that I would never smile again.)
I wonder if part of the issue here is that we’ve all seen smart men who will date and marry only not-so-smart women, but how many times have we seen the reverse? (I realize that blame for this state of affairs could be apportioned in many ways, so I won’t attempt to apportion it.)
I got the sense at BYU from a certain substantial minority of men that whatever they were looking for in marriage, it did not include intellectual companionship. They saw women as providers of beauty and domestic comforts, not intellectual challenge (they could get that at work or school, from other men). And they worshiped their wives to the skies for providing those domestic comforts and placed them on pedastals, but their ideas of femininity seemed very restrictive–stay in your stereotypical role and I’ll make you my Angel in the House. I remember one guy in particular who was both in my ward and in several of my classes who could not stop following me around and telling me anxiously about all of the women in his family who didn’t care about learning or degrees. I felt like a datum that did not fit into his worldview that he was desperately trying to process.
That’s what I object to: this ridiculously narrow definition of femininty that’s set in oppostion to intellectual life. Do we think men are less masculine if they like to learn things?
As I think you brought up a long time ago, JKS, whatever intelligence is, it covers a lot of ground. No one’s smart at everything, and a good marriage can often be built on complimentary, rather than identical, forms of smartness. My husband’s very good at business and administration, two things that I’m both bad at and bored by. I love the humanities, but when I get excited about Latin syntax he absolutely could not care less. On the other hand, I also think it’s good that we have some areas of intellectual overlap. We both have some interest in philosophy, and we’re both stubborn and opinionated and sure we’re right, which leads to fun debates far into the night about the limitations of behaviorism. Personally, I’d feel sad and lonely if those conversations weren’t possible.
April 21st, 2006 23:06
112 — I wonder if part of the issue here is that we’ve all seen smart men who will date and marry only not-so-smart women, but how many times have we seen the reverse?
Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher.<