[civilian_number_two]

Finally, Civ 2, I think your identification of the "career driven woman with no outside interests" is equally applicable to men, and does not necessarily have anything solid to do with intelligence. I mean, dumb people can be successful in careers, too. I feel like truly intelligent people have a variety of interests and creative pursuits. (Although it's possible that the kinds of intelligence that are tested standardly are the same kinds that are valued in high-level jobs.)

Finally, the thing about how there are women who "can't distinguish what they need from what they think they need"-- that's true of HUMANITY, dude. TONS and TONS of men have no fucking clue what they really need.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote]


Yes, I agree there are tons of men who haven't a clue what they need. I wasn't comparing women and men. The survey was about women. I was comparing "career driven woman with no outside interests" with women not as career driven. not with men. And yeah ... the survey didn't mention careers, but I was throwing in my own perspective on it. I mean, this isn't shit I read in Cosmo or anything. I was talking about people I know.

But to give your point the once-over, I don't know ANY career-driven men who insist only on dating women who make more money than they do and who can lay out in twenty-five words or less where they want to be in five years. So, no, not "equally" aplicable, I wouldn't say, but sure: it's applicable. I think this is what I was getting at, and what study might have found: there is a good percentage of brainy women who have been sold this dumbass bill of goods that they need to fixate on careers and try desperately to be Donald Trump or they are losers. And these gals are all constantly complaining there are no good men to date. And yeah, the Don Trumps of the world don't know what they want either: they have no female friends, and a succession of trophy brides. It's sick; I can't imagine enjoying sex with a total stranger.

I only date intelligent women with common interests. I feel uncomfortable if I can't get through a conversation without having to constantly watch what I say or frequently explain myself. This should be true of women, too, I agree.

I don't know whether the study shows what some of us think it shows. From some of the other comments here, particularly yours and Jen's, I think I may have missed the point of it. However I am always intrigued by this sort of discussion, and I freely admit that comparisons of class and class, gender and gender, race and race, are more or less guaranteed to make an asshole out of me.

Peace.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 13 January 2005 - 09:14 PM

[Laura]

I feel like whatever you say about women, you're pretty much comparing them with men. I mean, even if you say "career driven women," you're automatically comparing them with career driven men-- why else would you specify women, instead of saying "career driven people"?

The study was about both women and men-- women less likely to marry, men more.

True, the study didn't specifically mention careers, but I don't think that they're irrelevant; I think it's likely that career vs. other interests (relationships and reproduction, at least) may be central to this dichotomy. There may be other factors at work, too, but I'm not sure what they would be.

(Of course, work isn't the ONLY non-relationship thing to be interested in, but I think we can fit life goals like "write a novel" or something under "career," even if you're not currently being paid for it.)

[civilian_number_two]

[quote=Laura,Jan 13 2005, 09:54 PM]
I feel like whatever you say about women, you're pretty much comparing them with men. I mean, even if you say "career driven women," you're automatically comparing them with career driven men-- why else would you specify women, instead of saying "career driven people"?


That doesn't follow. You're implying that if I say "Black men" I am comparing them exclusively with black women, instead of with, say, white men. And what would I have been comparing if I'd said "white people?"

I was comparing career-driven women with the other women I know who have good careers and who seldom talk about work. Women I consider more balanced, less boring. Women who read and can name their favorite movie. I made the distinction since I thought we were talking about what it might be that makes "brainy" women less likely to marry. I was following the idea of the article somewhat in that I don't think that the women actually want to remain single. At least none of the women I know want to be single forever; they just don't want any children. And yes I acknowledge that men can be imbalanced as well, even though I didn't start out talking about that.

However, to give up on what I started with, and to follow this new line you've brought up: career-driven men are just as boring as career-driven women. I think also that they are just as unlikely to end up happily married, even though they are probably more likely to be married at all. I think it manifests itself in a different, and differently pathetic way. For instance, who cares what you drive? Men on the west coast seem obsessed with cars; I can't tell them apart: the cars or the men. It's like blowing a lot of money on a car is the point of having a high-paying job. Whereas I always thought the point was so that you could work less, enjoy your hobbies more, travel, save for retirement, and put aside money to send your kids to college. But then I am not what I would call "career-driven." So I guess I'll never understand cars.

[Slade]

Hmm... there are points I'd like to defend here, but I can't get into them without getting far too personal than I care to be on an Internet forum. I also lack any knowledge or experience on this subject, having only been in one relationship which in hindsight was the entirely wrong thing to do, and not expecting another one to come along ever.

I would like to add that I prefer women who are both beautiful and intelligent. Although I have to rank intelligence higher because that's where the emotional bond comes from, but there has to be physical chemistry too.

Icey - Due to my ideals, I would never even consider cheating on a signifigant other. I can't really help having hormonal urges, but I'm not going to try to sleep with everything I see. It would be a purely physical thing, and I would be in a relationship for much more than just that. Ok, that's as far as I'm willing to go.

But I'm still dispairing at the statistic, although a bit less so. Jen said it best with the circumstances and luck thing. There are too many factors to reduce something like this to black and white.

Chyld - Again, speaking out of my ass, it's not neccessarily a bad thing that you're arguing. Depends on what it's about, why, etc. Could be an opportunity to solve problems.

Does anybody else find it as absurd that here I am trying to have an intelligent conversation on a subject which I have openly professed no knowledge to?

[electricprune]

(Warning: This post is made slightly drunk. The views expressed may not be attributable to those of regular, sober Chyld. Thank you.)
Its true, that is the issue at heart here, I jsut corrupted this thread with my penis and his isolation. I put this aforementioned question to the 30+ ladies of this forum, but the only one I can think of that fits this description is electricprune...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I'm 29. Close enough.

Personally I'm not in any rush to get married, although it would be nice to be in a relationship. I'm at a point where I have found a fairly stable, satisfying career but I wouldn't say it detracts me from my social life. Although I've always had a few close friends though, romance has always been an extreme struggle. I can honestly say I've only had one true boyfriend (who I've since broken up with), and feel kind of behind in my development as far as that kind of stuff goes. Otherwise I'm a pretty stable person. I guess I do have a hard time distinguishing between what I "want" vs. what I "need" or what would be good or healthy for me.

In general, maybe the reason "smarter" women (and "smarter" men as well) have a harder time finding a mate is because they've set impossibly high standards and don't want to settle for someone who they see as mediocre or less than their equal. And some probably feel that they don't need to live down to society's expectations and do the get married and have kids thing. They realize there's other options and don't feel like a failure if they haven't gone through that. I don't know, I'm probably just babbling here..

This post has been edited by electricprune: 14 January 2005 - 01:15 AM

[SimeSublime]

No, I'm with you there. There are a large group of people waiting for "Mr/Miss Right" to come along. Hell, I can easily be accused of being one of them. Everybody has standards, and some just have them higher then others.

Call me shallow if you will, but I think looks are important. That being said, beauty is definatly in the eye of the beholder. I don't care what others think of a girl, but I would find it hard to date somebody I didn't want to look at. Alternatly, I often find girls good looking that my friends consider either ugly or plain.

Intelligence I think is a lesser concern when deciding who to go out with. Personality is much more important. Theres no point going out with a smart, dumb or average person who bores you. Intelligence only comes into the issue in that it helps define somebodies personality.

So on the 'choosing somebody to date' part of this debate, I would say the most important things are personality and looks.

I've been thinking about the stats that are in the article. To be honest, I can't see them reflected in real life. I look at the people I know, which are single, which are dating, and can't see any correlation with intelligence or whether they are nice/bastards(taking into account though that I know more nice people then bastards). I find whether people are single or not are more based around confidence and personality.

[Madam Corvax]

I put this aforementioned question to the 30+ ladies of this forum, but the only one I can think of that fits this description is electricprune...

Well, I am 34.

And you know what? I never dated anyone except my husband(s).

And I think electriprune has a good point - it may be because I just set impossibly high standards.

[Laura]

Admittedly, this is now a point rather faded into the background, but I feel it's important to clarify myself here.

That doesn't follow. You're implying that if I say "Black men" I am comparing them exclusively with black women, instead of with, say, white men.

No, not exclusively. It's not that you CAN'T compare one "type" of men or women with another "type" of the same gender (given that the "types" you specify are real and useful classes, which is another argument). But when you DO specify that you're talking about a certain kind of women, that automatically invites comparison with men. This is not instead of comparisons with other types of women, but in addition.

Whatever else you specify, when you make a statement about a type of person, and you specify their gender, that automatically creates a contrast between the genders. It is less obvious when talking about men because men are the dominant class, but it's still there.

In short, if you made a statement about black men, and someone responded "What about black women?" that would be EQUALLY valid as "What about men of other races?" Not more, and not less.

[civilian_number_two]

Ok Laura, I know you don't agree.

It's impossible to test, but I bet if I said "Black men are really violent," people wouldn't jump in with "What about black WOMEN?" I bet 100% of them would say, "Hey, what about WHITE men?"

So I think it depends on the context. Obviously in the context I offered, you were able to think of women. But let's not go saying it's inevitable when you talk about women you have to think of men as their foil. I sure wasn't thinking about it that way. I think of types of women all the time.

Say ... here's another case in point: "I'm really attracted to brainy women with strong career drives."

Now I KNOW you immediately wondered whether I were drawing a comparison to brainy, career-driven men!

[Laura]

It's impossible to test, but I bet if I said "Black men are really violent," people wouldn't jump in with "What about black WOMEN?"  I bet 100% of them would say, "Hey, what about WHITE men?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That doesn't mean that you would be wrong to come up with the black women thing. Most people probably wouldn't, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so.

Let me give you a less loaded example. I can say "Fuzzy cats attract fleas the most" meaning opposed to other types of cats, but that doesn't mean it's inappropriate for someone to mention other types of fuzzy animals that are equally at risk.

In short, either interpretation is acceptable, regardless of what "most people" would do.

Say ... here's another case in point: "I'm really attracted to brainy women with strong career drives."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really the same thing. When you discuss "women with trait X" in the context of what kind of person you're attracted to, there's no reason why I'd be like "What about MEN?" because most people are attracted only to one sex, so the other sex is irrelevant in those discussions. In fact, I wouldn't say "What about" anything, because the traits that attract someone are very personal things. They're just not up for debate.

On the other hand, if you say that women with trait X also have condition Y, and I want to convince you that it's not their womanhood that causes condition Y, it makes sense to point out that men with trait X also have condition Y.

I think a lot of times people make generalizations about women or men that are less about their gender than some other attribute(s), and it's important for the cause of equality to point out that in many cases gender is irrelevant (or at least not as important as one might think). The genders are not as separate as many people believe, and much of what is considered "feminine" or "masculine" has a lot less to do with biology than with culture and bias.

Generalizations about "women" push my buttons, whether they're positive or negative ("Women are bad drivers" and "Women are more understanding" both aggravate me). Most of the time they're just not true. Even if they do reflect a general trend, it's not cool to generalize like that. "Women" nothing. I really think there's very little you can truthfully conclude about a group based on shared genital shape that isn't specifically related to said genital shape.

[kdogg]

I think a lot of times people make generalizations about women or men that are less about their gender than some other attribute(s), and it's important for the cause of equality to point out that in many cases gender is irrelevant (or at least not as important as one might think). The genders are not as separate as many people believe, and much of what is considered "feminine" or "masculine" has a lot less to do with biology than with culture and bias.

Generalizations about "women" push my buttons, whether they're positive or negative ("Women are bad drivers" and "Women are more understanding" both aggravate me). Most of the time they're just not true. Even if they do reflect a general trend, it's not cool to generalize like that. "Women" nothing. I really think there's very little you can truthfully conclude about a group based on shared genital shape that isn't specifically related to said genital shape.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gender is a cultural creation and is inherently full of generalizations. I'm not saying that these generalizations aren't arbitrary, but the classification of certain attitudes and behaviors is pretty much built into the roles. Remember that the article was about gender and not sex.

This post has been edited by kdogg: 14 January 2005 - 06:41 PM

[electricprune]

Call me shallow if you will, but I think looks are important.  That being said, beauty is definatly in the eye of the beholder.  I don't care what others think of a girl, but I would find it hard to date somebody I didn't want to look at.  Alternatly, I often find girls good looking that my friends consider either ugly or plain.

Intelligence I think is a lesser concern when deciding who to go out with.  Personality is much more important.  Theres no point going out with a smart, dumb or average person who bores you.  Intelligence only comes into the issue in that it helps define somebodies personality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm with you there, Sime. Although I try not to be superficial, looks do somewhat matter to me although I'm no supermodel myself. I'll probably just end up an old lady with a houseful of cats as a result of being so dang particuliar. -_-Good point about personality over intelligence. I know a few folks who would be considered "highly intelligent" who have poor people skills or are just plain rude. But don't get me wrong, I also know some very bright folks who are very modest about their abilities and are very sweet people.

And intelligence doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with being book smart. People can be "emotionally intelligent" for instance and have a strong sense of compassion and sensitivity for other people, which is something I value a lot. Or creativity is another form of intelligence, someone might do very poorly in one part of their life like academics or sports, but excel in other areas.

This post has been edited by electricprune: 14 January 2005 - 07:06 PM

[Laura]

...the classification of certain attitudes and behaviors is pretty much built into the roles. Remember that the article was about gender and not sex.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But people didn't choose their gender or even do anything to earn them, other than to be born with a certain sex. Everyone is classified as either "man" or "woman", whether they want to be or not. There's very little wiggle room, here, so I don't understand why calling the M/F dichotomy "gender" rather than "sex" makes it any more excusable to make these arbitrary generalizations.

There is a difference between gender and bio sex, but for the most part, you're going to be assigned into a gender group based solely upon the sex you were born with (or if not, the sex you reassigned to). I'm sure that the men and women in this study were not given any more complex choice than two boxes labelled "Male" or "Female". So for the purposes of this discussion, there is no real reason to distinguish between the two.

As far as "gender roles", there is no reason for them to exist.

[OneWithStrange]

I'm willing to bet that intelligent people (perceive that term as you will) simply have a displaced value system in that a career makes them more happy than marriage. Maybe they prefer an easy social life as opposed to the hassles and committment that come(s) with marriage.

I personally favor helping other people (whether this is done directly [social work, my major] or indirectly [adding to the vast body of knowledge]) over romance. I also see marriage or relationships as being more selfish, because one isn't helping or satisfying anyone else but his or her own needs.

That's my opinion, at any rate.

-Ben (OneWithStrange)

[civilian_number_two]

I'm sure that the men and women in this study were not given any more complex choice than two boxes labelled "Male" or "Female". So for the purposes of this discussion, there is no real reason to distinguish between the two.

As far as "gender roles", there is no reason for them to exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote]


Except that from the start, this conversation was about the part of the study that had made conclusions about women. No-one was talking about men. Add to which the whole point of the study was to compare men with women. So there is some reason to distinguish between the two.


And yeah, no reason for gender roles to exist, but they do. No reason for SUVs either. Can we at least have discussions about things that happen to exist in the world, regardless of whether they are constructed, or artifacts of the patriarchy? What happened to our intellectual landscape? Used to be, you could go to Italy, and then come home and say, "The people there don't seem to be into fast food." All of a sudden that's followed by "Fast food is an entirely invented construction of the patriarchy. And you can't make generalizations about people like that."


Laura, you may be right about the furry-animal thing. SOMEONE could draw that conclusion. And you know as well as I do that that person would have missed the point about what you had been saying about cats. It would be their mistake for going somewhere completely stupid, not yours for not saying enough words.

Otherwise: yes, you would be wrong not to imagine that I may also be attracted to men. Gender roles are a construction of the patriarchy. In a less rigid society, we'd all be bisexual, right? There would be no gender roles, people would just be people? We could be attracted to minds rather than to bodies?

On the other hand, if you say that women with trait X also have condition Y, and I want to convince you that it's not their womanhood that causes condition Y, it makes sense to point out that men with trait X also have condition Y.

And yes yes yes, and I think that's what the study was after, and what I was after, to a point: brainy women, they say, marry less, not than other women, but than brainy men. I say, from my experience, that older unmarried women tend to complain a lot about men, but they themselves are not interesting women I would want to date, because they are too focused on carer. Men, you say, can also be too focused on career. Yes, the interesting thing is, all the career-focused men we know have wives. And that was the conclusion the study drew about "brainy" men: they marry more than brainy women.

So the conclusion was that women with condition X (brainy) also have condition Y (unmarried), while men with condition X (brainy) tend to have condition Y (unmarried) in lesser numbers. So the study, and let's all question its accuracy, please, defined a measurable behavioral difference between men and women. All I was saying from the start is that my personal observations bear this out, but that I don't think the women are hapy about it, like I don't think they're not marrying because they're "not the marrying kind."

I also made the admittedly erroneous connection between "brainy" and "career-driven," but that's because I tend to associate the two. Yes, dumb people can be career-driven. Beat up on me for that; go ahead. But I never said anything that should upset anyone about women.


As for me, I like smart girls.