Geeze, I pity any woman who has the unfortunate circumstance of being related to you. I sure hope you do not have any offspring that you have infected with your neanderthal ideas. Bleck...
Do smart women have to play dumb for men?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Geeze, I pity any woman who has the unfortunate circumstance of being related to you. I sure hope you do not have any offspring that you have infected with your neanderthal ideas. Bleck...
Pretty spiteful.
But lol, sexism can give a tactical a benefit eh?
http://ca.music.yahoo.com/blogs/mus...ave-somali-pirates-saying-arrr-174010868.html
moron.
But lol, sexism can give a tactical a benefit eh?
http://ca.music.yahoo.com/blogs/mus...ave-somali-pirates-saying-arrr-174010868.html
moron.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Speak for yourself. I find quite a chasm between those two qualities.
And let's not forget that women who nag, bitch and complain usually have husbands who deserve it.
Just as the dumbest man can be an uncaring, irresponsible, self-centered asshole.
Some men need changing. If it weren't for the efforts of our wives, many of us would still be little boys.
It's easy to identify them: they're the ones with guns. The rest of us learn to solve our problems without violence.
You've sure had some rotten experiences. Marriage is like any other kind of relationship: you get out of it what you put in. I wonder what you've ever done to earn a woman's respect so she'll treat you like an equal, instead of a sixteen-year-old who happened to get a halfway decent job and spends all his free time getting drunk and watching and/or playing sports.
As I've said many times, it was a colossal mistake to take the South back. They were 100 years behind the times when the Civil War was fought, and a century and a quarter later they're still stuck in 1765.
Do you really feel this way, wellwisher?
From his previous posts - definitely.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Depends.
Many smart men prefer smart women. I think that most men aren't just looking for a sex-object. They are looking for a friend. That means somebody that they can talk to. Somebody who shares some of the guy's interests, somebody who can produce some interesting ideas of her own. That means an intellectual equal.
We often see male scientists married to female scientists.
But problems might arise if the woman is significantly smarter than the man. She might intimidate him. It's especially bad if she's always correcting him or dismissing his ideas as less valuable than her own.
That might create problems for the small percentage of intellectually elite women out there. They might have trouble locating men who are their intellectual equals, who they can talk to freely without the guy feeling subtly or not so subtly put-down. Unusually smart guys are unusual too.
Again, we often see female scientists marrying male scientists. The same is true for lawyers, university professors and the like. Peers get along best with peers, I guess.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Yazata said:
There are a number of husband-wife philosopher teams.
The Churchlands, Paul and Patricia, both of them very big names in the philosophy of mind. They hold very similar views on the subject and I get the feeling that regardless of which one's name is on the cover of a particular book, there's lots of the other one in it too.
The Warnocks, Mary and Geoffrey. The late Geoffrey was Vice-Chancellor (equivalent of American university president) at Oxford in the 1980's and was knighted. Mary is former Mistress of Girton College Cambridge and has been made a life Baroness. Bigtime British intellectuals, both of them.
And I remember one of my old professors, a former student of Peter Geach at the U. of Leeds, telling us of British philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe saying of Geach, 'Oh Peter, he never changes his clothes!' She was his wife.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Yes. I had a female friend whom I loved dearly. She was kind, fun-loving, practical, even-tempered, a good parent, and tolerant of my idiosyncrasies. Not to mention one of the hottest hotties I've ever known personally, she could dance like Shakira. But she was not intellectually oriented at all. Things I like to talk about just bounced off her head. I had to make a sad decision because I knew that after a year or two I'd be really frustrated.
Not after they survive adolescence anyway. For some guys that seems to last into their 40s.
Indeed. Although there are also plenty of quite happy couples in which one is an intellectual giant and the other lives for sports, cooking, travel, etc. People are all different, fortunately.
Women aren't as likely to feel that way. Some men are learning that skill. Having a really smart spouse who uses that intellect to make a lot of money ought to feel just dandy.
These days more and more women feel the same way.
Mrs. Fraggle has more education than I do, and it is much more academic: literature rather than accounting. I enjoy it. She can explain movies and books to me.
Sometimes. Many people like to forget about their day job when they come home.
Linda Ronstadt was often asked why she never got married, since probably half the male population of America has proposed to her, if only by e-mail. She said, "You have two choices. If you marry someone who is not a musician, there's 90% of your life that you can't share with him. But if you marry someone who is a musician, you can't help being in competition with each other."
This is the paradox of the chicken or the egg, which came first? If is hard to be happy and responsive to someone who nags.
Females often have more needs then men, which is why very few discussions in these forums that ever involve the female changing to accommodate the special needs of the males. It is usually what the men have to do to accommodate the extras of women. She will try to assign him things to do meet her needs. If he does not comply she will nag and blame him for being lazy or not caring enough.
As an analogous example, I had a roommate, when I was just out of college who was a neat freak. He was a mother's boy and he learn this from her. He was so clean he would need to wash the kitchen floor each day. My needs were much easier, so I was not so inclined. Because his needs created so much extra work and necessity for him, and because I used the kitchen, too, he began to nag at me to help wash the floor every other day. I told him, how about we both do what we think we need to do and not involve the other.
I let him overload himself until he was cured; finally would wash it once a week. His extra needs created more work for me, which I did not choose. Was his nagging justified because I was lazy by his standards?
There is a hidden issue here: the mistake in the evaluation of women as dumb because they are less assertive and direct, and the mirror delusion of more confident, assertive men as being smarter.
Looking back, I think it took me a few years longer than I care to admit to completely separate confidence from competence, and either from intelligence, in my fellow men. I had to learn by experience what should have been clear by immediate observation. So it's possible in some cases that a woman apparently "playing dumb" is in some respects putting out feelers for intelligence in men - revealed by the ability to recognize hers.
Probably a minority of the situations, but not an empty category.
Looking back, I think it took me a few years longer than I care to admit to completely separate confidence from competence, and either from intelligence, in my fellow men. I had to learn by experience what should have been clear by immediate observation. So it's possible in some cases that a woman apparently "playing dumb" is in some respects putting out feelers for intelligence in men - revealed by the ability to recognize hers.
Probably a minority of the situations, but not an empty category.
There are also studies that show that a self-deprecating manner is generally more attractive (not only to men), especially in contrast to how accomplished the person. It is a matter of likeability, which makes for better cooperation in general.
Just saw that today, and I very much relate to it.
I wonder ho she keeps the house in order ?
Does he cooks ?
The smartness or intellect can be discussed at diner table
Perhaps she does, or he does, or they hire a housekeeper.
See above.
Yep. And your intelligence can be discussed while you do the dishes!
I'm not a sociologist or anything, so what follows is purely my opinion. I think that any type of falseness in a woman is a huge turnoff. At the same time, I hate women(and men) who are absolutely sure of themselves AND wrong. That's the worst type of person to have a conversation with. It's not conducive to anything. Also, consider this. It's not uncommon in our culture, for women to inflict their will on their mates. We've all heard things like 'the wife is always right' and the like. Many women flaunt this, they openly brag about the obedience of their men(tell me you've never met any women like this). In that respect, a more insecure man might fear that an intelligent woman, with that level of emotional control over him, may take advantage of him, or even deceive him in regards to her own feelings, in favor of whatever it is that she stands to gain from him. Finally, I'm pretty sure that stupid and humble translates to easy and submissive in the minds of most men. I'm not generalizing here, everyone's different, but these are the things I've seen most often in my experience of life. Feel free to critique.
If you think in terms of the personality firmware, which define human nature, the female intellect is actually middle level. Men prefer their women operate from their highest level firmware. The liberal propaganda, which lies to women, have them believing their intellect is at the top. But men who have not bought into the lie, require the women up their game.
For example, a women 50 years ago could raise eight children, take care of elderly parents and her husband, and run a home on a shoe string budget, by using her highest level firmware connected to her maternal instincts. That is a lot of needs to integrate requiring intuitive ingenuity and maternal drive. Today the middle level female intellect reads books but has a hard time taking care of one child without drugs, a village and high social costs.
Men don't buy into the liberal lie, that many women wanted to hear (maternal instinct is lower than female intellect), but continue to prefer the best of a women. Women have to find that within, to hold their men; she shifts gears. Maternal is soft but very adaptable. Her maternal instincts make her unique for the situations of her life, while her intellect makes her a social clone who tries to force fit others into a template. Then she needs a herd of village idiots. If a women demonstrates her highest level archetypes men don't mind of she brings her intellectual A-game to the team.
For example, a women 50 years ago could raise eight children, take care of elderly parents and her husband, and run a home on a shoe string budget, by using her highest level firmware connected to her maternal instincts. That is a lot of needs to integrate requiring intuitive ingenuity and maternal drive. Today the middle level female intellect reads books but has a hard time taking care of one child without drugs, a village and high social costs.
Men don't buy into the liberal lie, that many women wanted to hear (maternal instinct is lower than female intellect), but continue to prefer the best of a women. Women have to find that within, to hold their men; she shifts gears. Maternal is soft but very adaptable. Her maternal instincts make her unique for the situations of her life, while her intellect makes her a social clone who tries to force fit others into a template. Then she needs a herd of village idiots. If a women demonstrates her highest level archetypes men don't mind of she brings her intellectual A-game to the team.
The is basically the framework of the consevative right wing lie that intelligent men and women do not buy into.
Here is my logic. Intelligent women are molded that way through reading and studying, things that are mostly written by men. Even if they read female authors, which is a smaller percent, even her exposure and references are mostly male. The net addition adds up to an intelligent women being a male clone but with a female twist that comes across less than natural to many men.
Maternal instinct is different in that it was a woman's culture passed down from mother to daughter, with grandmother there to make contribute through the wisdom of experience and the past. This is something that is not male in origin, but rather used to be of women and by women. Men can study and read other males the same as women. The liberals made women feel that the uniqueness culture of women was second rate, and that somehow the boys have the better toys. Not all men have bought into this, since they prefer more exposure to the mysteries of women. When women dumb down this means they try to shift from male mimic into a purer female. Men like this because it is natural.
Maternal instinct is different in that it was a woman's culture passed down from mother to daughter, with grandmother there to make contribute through the wisdom of experience and the past. This is something that is not male in origin, but rather used to be of women and by women. Men can study and read other males the same as women. The liberals made women feel that the uniqueness culture of women was second rate, and that somehow the boys have the better toys. Not all men have bought into this, since they prefer more exposure to the mysteries of women. When women dumb down this means they try to shift from male mimic into a purer female. Men like this because it is natural.