Ladies, The Smarter You Are, The More Likely You Are To Be Single

[SycamoreCircle]

We've been talking about intelligence like it's something some people have and something some people don't have. Generally, I don't feel I run across people that are noticeably deficient in intelligence. What stands out to me is selfishness, which I attribute to mismanagement of oneself and which we are all guilty of. We have all been that person who is too tired to take interest in something. We have all been that person who acts a snob towards something out of insecurity. Are we not really talking about the people who are, for the most part, masters of themselves and those who, for the most part, are not masters of themselves?

 

I live in a low-income section of Brooklyn. Two nights ago I attended a tenant meeting with the new owners of a group of residential buildings, of which my building is part. There were probably over 100 people in attendance. Lower-income, working-class, West-Indian immigrants and their children.

 

These people have been dealing with gentrification, buyouts, harassment, decaying substandard buildings, health code violations and skyrocketing rents. What I found remarkable was how, when people were allowed the opportunity to speak, their concerns were legitimate and real, they prioritized the interests of the multitude, and in the rare moment when fellow residents veered off-topic, or became too self-indulgent, they immediately identified this and collectively reestablished order within the caucus.

 

An impassioned mass that can self-regulate and collectively separate the wheat from the chaff is an intelligent cross-section, in my book.

[xxoo]

What is considered an asset is debatable. Also, some things that are assets at work for instance are not necessarily assets in dating.

 

For example?

[elaine567]

I think it's possible for a woman to find some middle ground between playing dumb and having an opinion, but if you're faced with a man who has a low opinion of the female gender generally, it's a far from easy task. Being able to debate and discuss in a way that won't be viewed as very antagonistic can be almost an impossibility, in some cases. The "know your place and know your limits, woman" mentality hasn't completely gone away.

 

Denis Waterman the actor, on punching his actress wife Rula Lenska.

 

“The problem with strong, intelligent women is that they can argue, well.

And if there is a time where you can’t get a word in... and I... I lashed out.

I couldn’t end the argument."

 

and

 

"It’s not difficult for a woman to make a man hit her.”

[thefooloftheyear]

For example?

 

 

I can say that a woman that is haughty ,overly assertive/aggressive or detail obsessive./analytical would probably make a great employee....but not too sure how many guys are going to find those traits all that wonderful in their wife or gf..

 

Some may, but many wont

 

TFY

[xxoo]

I can say that a woman that is haughty ,overly assertive/aggressive or detail obsessive./analytical would probably make a great employee....but not too sure how many guys are going to find those traits all that wonderful in their wife or gf..

 

Some may, but many wont

 

TFY

 

A person can be highly intelligent and none of those things.

 

Or, a person with high emotional intelligence (in addition to intellectually intelligent) will know when and where to use those traits appropriately. Approaching your personal relationships with that skill set isn't smart, for women or men.

[candie13]

I can say that a woman that is haughty ,overly assertive/aggressive or detail obsessive./analytical would probably make a great employee....but not too sure how many guys are going to find those traits all that wonderful in their wife or gf..

 

Some may, but many wont

 

TFY

 

I did have a guy who felt threatened because I was a good position and I was appreciated at my job. It's got nothing to do with intelligence, but with self esteem. He had a good job too, but was not passionate about it. He was expecting for everyone to fall off their arses only because he was working for a large financial institution. I wasn't even impressed, I was simply trying to find out what he was passionate about and what sort of satisfaction his job was bringing him....

 

My mom used to tell me there can only be one star in a family. And being a star has nothing to do with smarts, but likeability, ability to get along with people, love what you do, be appreciated, have results, irrelevant of who your employer is or if you have a stable job to begin with. I'm yet to see a man willingly give the lime light place to the woman.

[elaine567]

My mom used to tell me there can only be one star in a family.

 

...I'm yet to see a man willingly give the lime light place to the woman.

 

I have never heard that saying before, but I agree with it.

 

I know of one older couple where the wife was the star.

He had the money but he stayed in the background, steady and secure.

She was the sociable one, everyone knew her, she sparkled and shone and he doted on her. They were exactly the same age, but she looked about 20 years younger.

She used to go on "horse" holidays alone or with her horsey friends.

On one such holiday, he found out she was not alone, but with some other guy. She moved out the next weekend, to be with the new bloke, and her husband and son helped her pack, literally... still the star, I guess.

[hotpotato]

I will tell you what people told me when I used to generalize about women. Your past relationships do not reflect every relationship in the world. Like I said before it is statistical fact that women with higher education marry more often and divorce less. If men are so much against being with smart women why does being educated seem to increase a woman's chances of having a lasting relationship?

 

It actually doesnt where I live. From what I seen, it's actually the more average girls who get married first and stay married. The smarter girls I know, are just now getting married, at closer to 30. So it's not just *me* it's also my observations about others.

 

People generalize about people because there is often some truth to what they are saying. It may not be true in every instance, but there are reasons generalities exist.

 

I'm not saying that no man would like a smart woman. I can find them, I just have to go for a very specific type of man. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it is a lot harder. This is the downside of being smart, strong, etc, having to go for a very specific kind of man. Even then it's still easy to intimidate. And yes, it happens. I had one man who didn't know much about me ask if I was a ninja. lol

 

I'll give you an example not involving romantic partners. The women I worked with would ask random questions about random subjects and I would know about them. After awhile, they got tired of it. I was coming across as know it all , smarty pants, etc. This same thing can happen in relationships if a smart woman isn't careful. Just answering seemingly harmless questions can make a woman come across like

 

haughty ,overly assertive/aggressive or detail obsessive./analytical

 

I know people don't like it when i talk about playing dumb, but there's truth to it. It does help. What did you do last weekend? Oh, I ran a half marathon, went to a sword class, and read a book about european history. There you go, bragging. It's easy to come across as haughty and not humble, just for answering simple questions.

 

It comes down to, do you want to be liked or do you want to be right?

[xxoo]

 

My mom used to tell me there can only be one star in a family. And being a star has nothing to do with smarts, but likeability, ability to get along with people, love what you do, be appreciated, have results, irrelevant of who your employer is or if you have a stable job to begin with. I'm yet to see a man willingly give the lime light place to the woman.

 

It's a good point about there being one star.

 

I do think there are men who are willing to give that place to a woman, but they are not the type of men than ambitious women desire.

 

On the other hand, ambitious men often marry for the relationship itself. If he loves the woman, if she offers him love, comfort, sexual satisfaction, and deep emotional connection, that's enough. She doesn't have to be a star in the work world to be highly desirable to him. It's completely optional. This is why it's easier for successful men than successful women. Successful women tend to have more requirements.

 

It comes down to really wanting a relationship, for the sake of a relationship. Some people value that more than others. Some people would prefer not to have a relationship if it isn't a good business merger.

Edited June 4, 2015 by xxoo

[hotpotato]

For example?

 

Like being a go getter and task oriented being capable and smart enough to get the job done on your own. Most men want to add something to a womans life. What is a man going to add if she's "got this?"

 

Also, relationships are not linear. One could put in the hours, be a stellar employee, work really hard, and reasonably expect this would up ones chances of being promoted. The working hard part can actually make things worse in relationships.

[hotpotato]

I can say that a woman that is haughty ,overly assertive/aggressive or detail obsessive./analytical would probably make a great employee....but not too sure how many guys are going to find those traits all that wonderful in their wife or gf..

 

Some may, but many wont

 

TFY

 

Esp that assertive one will get a woman called manly. Most men do not want to be with manly women.

[elaine567]

This is why it's easier for successful men than successful women. Successful women tend to have more requirements.

 

 

Women are still brought up with the notion that they need to find a man they can look up to, a good provider, a strong man, a man that will protect them and their children.

 

Men are still brought up with the notion that they need a loving, caring woman who they can protect, who they can essentially "control" and who will spend her life pandering to him and his needs and his children's needs. A women, who will most times prioritise him and his family over herself.

 

Successful women tend not to want to be "controlled", they have their own priorities, yet are still looking for strength and protection, so it is a big ask.

[candie13]

It comes down to really wanting a relationship, for the sake of a relationship. Some people value that more than others. Some people would prefer not to have a relationship if it isn't a good business merger.

 

you've just described me and my ex - in the sense where we both wanted a relationship. I was - and still am - seeking love, first and foremost. I thought, because he was doing all the right steps, that he was inlove as well. Turns out we were much more a "good merger" than a loving relationship. I refuse to intellectualize and calculate to that degree my personal relationships. I refuse to stay with a guy only because i am a good deal and he is a good deal and we happen to have the same end goal. I am seeking for the "happily ever after" and for a guy who believes in it as well.

 

I think this goes beyond smarts and brains. It has to do with strong inner values and living according to them. See, the way I see it, when it comes to businesses, there are always new bigger and better opportunities. I'm a person. I want to be treated as one and I intend to treat my partner as one.

[xxoo]

.

 

Successful women tend not to want to be "controlled", they have their own priorities, yet are still looking for strength and protection, so it is a big ask.

 

But why? Why not choose a more nurturing man, since the woman has the other strengths covered? I think it's pride.

[Got it]

Ouch, again. I wonder if someone could look at your life and judge it in such a cold, hard light. Or...am I missing something? Is "passion for life" for both you and Mini, an ongoing struggle to be exempt judgment from the people around you? Congratulations.

 

I wonder how the two of you look at the entire Cuban population. People whose food is rationed. People whose labor and salary is ordained by a pontificating, self-aggrandizing fossil, Castro. Are all of these people without passion? Without drive? Is the drive to own a Lexus the same as the drive to nourish your family?

 

Oh for goodness sake! Dramatic much?

 

How is it judging. And what I am discussing has nothing to do with those in a socialistic society where monies, position and power are predetermined. Just like I am not discussing those in a third world country where their sole focus is on finding clean water.

 

Nothing I stated said money. Actually if you actually read what is written in this post and others you would see I specifically stated that.

 

You are REALLY taking it to quite the extreme. You seemingly connect with this idea of not having passion? Is maybe this seen as hitting you by chance?

[thefooloftheyear]

A person can be highly intelligent and none of those things.

 

Or, a person with high emotional intelligence (in addition to intellectually intelligent) will know when and where to use those traits appropriately. Approaching your personal relationships with that skill set isn't smart, for women or men.

 

 

Agree on the first part, but men are generally expected to have traits such as those..Its often even a plus for them-as long as it doesn't morph into douche bag territory.....once you put them on a woman, then some(many) men find that off putting, regardless...

 

I think that's the point HP was trying to make....and Id generally agree..

 

TFY

[candie13]

But why? Why not choose a more nurturing man, since the woman has the other strengths covered? I think it's pride.

 

I think it's not knowing themselves very well and applying the same impossibly high standards that they are enforcing on themselves (to prove that they are good enough) to the rest of the world - in this case, their partners. That voice in the head screaming "achieve, achieve, achieve".

 

The moment you shut it out and start thinking as a whole, as a person who has needs first and secondly as an manager of your own finances, the priorities in terms of what you're looking for, in a partner, shift dramatically.

 

This is why i wouldn't talk about "smart women", but about how smart women handle the extra pressure - some pretend they're average and date average men, others seek achievers, like themselves, while others seek soulmates, like the rest of humanity.

[thefooloftheyear]

But why? Why not choose a more nurturing man, since the woman has the other strengths covered? I think it's pride.

 

Nurturing men rarely, if ever, get women wet..........Its as simple as that..

 

TFY

[hotpotato]

On various occasions, I recall seeing something about women who earn more/have higher professional status than a partner being more vulnerable to domestic violence.

 

Educated and well paid women 'more likely to suffer domestic abuse' - Telegraph

 

It doesn't sound implausible to me.

 

Yup. Maybe it's not such a bad idea than successful women try to date up, unless she can find a man who is cool with taking the stereotypical female role.

 

My mother and grandmother used to always tell me "a smart woman knows to play dumb." It used to really irritate me, as I saw it as a fairly smug decision to actively encourage low expectations of women's intelligence. However, something like that could easily be a self protective mechanism. On a very basic level, in order to survive as a woman/avoid being subjected to violence, play dumb. "Make him think it was his idea" etc. The tightrope between asserting oneself and minimising aggressive outcomes can be a very thin one.

 

Yup. A woman needs to use those smarts strategically.

 

Without going into too much detail, I had a client devote himself to trying to get me struck off for interrupting him to get to the heart of the issues he had come for help with (meetings being time limited). This guy clearly viewed himself as highly intelligent and from the outset his demeanour was of somebody who wanted to "pwn" me intellectually. Ethically you can't really go along with that - using billable time to debate and argue with a client. It's basically a case of "either you trust my competence in this matter or you don't. If you don't trust it, then you should find somebody whose competence you do trust." Anyway, he wasn't having that. As far as he was concerned, he was the paying customer and I was some sort of performing monkey. If he wanted to pay me to spend time arguing with him, then I should go along with that.

 

That guy was, I suspect, a misogynist who couldn't get over his outrage that somebody like me should be working as a lawyer rather than satisfying myself with an admin role while men got on with the lawyering task. I haven't met many men like that. Some, perhaps, with a shade or two of it...but once they're satisfied that you know what you're doing, you can work well with them. I can remember having an instinct of "this is somebody who would beat the crap out of a female partner who argued with him. " Without going into too many details, he made a complaint about me to an independent body - and I'm glad he did, because the complaint handler encountered similar issues to the issues I had encountered though not personalised to the same extent (the complaint handler was male).

 

If a guy is really entrenched in the belief that women are stupid, illogical, inferior to men etc, any threat to that belief is an ego threat. As a woman you have to be cautious around that kind of thing....going back to my mother and grandmother's advice to "play dumb" (smile, don't argue, be compliant...). The upshot of women following that old fashioned advice, though, is that they help perpetuate the myth that women are generally intellectually limited in comparison to men.

 

I think it's possible for a woman to find some middle ground between playing dumb and having an opinion, but if you're faced with a man who has a low opinion of the female gender generally, it's a far from easy task. Being able to debate and discuss in a way that won't be viewed as very antagonistic can be almost an impossibility, in some cases. The "know your place and know your limits, woman" mentality hasn't completely gone away.

Agreed. A lot of guys are probably used to having a girl agree with him and massage his ego. He meets one that's different, and that's irritating and b*tchy.

[hotpotato]

But why? Why not choose a more nurturing man, since the woman has the other strengths covered? I think it's pride.

 

Sometimes they do choose the more nurturing man. But how many men want to be the b*tch in a relationship? How many women would even find that attractive?

 

Personally, I could do without the nurturing, softer man. For instance, if a man isn't protecting me, I'll just continue to be alone and continue protect myself.

 

I had a female manager who had a househusband. It happens. It wasn't planned that he would stay at home, but she made more money, he got fired, then he just stayed home. It was cheaper for him to be at home than to hire help, pay for childcare, all that jazz.

[Eternal Sunshine]

Women are still brought up with the notion that they need to find a man they can look up to, a good provider, a strong man, a man that will protect them and their children.

 

Men are still brought up with the notion that they need a loving, caring woman who they can protect, who they can essentially "control" and who will spend her life pandering to him and his needs and his children's needs. A women, who will most times prioritise him and his family over herself.

 

Successful women tend not to want to be "controlled", they have their own priorities, yet are still looking for strength and protection, so it is a big ask.

 

Deep down I can't respect a man that is less successful than I am. I can't help it. That's why I find most men undatable. My no 1 problem in being single has never been an inability to keep a relationship. It was finding a man that I want a relationship with in the first place.

[elaine567]

But why? Why not choose a more nurturing man, since the woman has the other strengths covered? I think it's pride.

 

I guess it is culture, women have not in the main taken the leap to view men, in the same way, as men view women.

Successful men can take a girl from anywhere, with any level of education including none, from any social background, from any country however backward, from any age group, and make her his wife and as long as she acts OK and looks OK and will look after him and his children, all is fine.

He is not usually burdened by wanting a top, successful or rich woman. He is "the star"after all

 

BUT women ARE bothered, they want top successful or rich men to compliment them and to underline their success.

As an educated and rich woman and with "a lot to offer", she is upset that the top men are marrying hairdressers and shop girls and passing her over.

She doesn't want to slum it and take a man "from the gutter" and make him her husband.

She as a top, alpha woman, wants a top man.

 

I guess it is still a basic insecurity amongst women in general.

Grabbing "the star" role, demands confidence and the ability to pull it off, and that is perhaps a leap many women, however successful they may be, do not want to take.

Edited June 4, 2015 by elaine567

[hotpotato]

Women who say men are intimidated by smart women are not much different than nice guys. Most men have no issue whatsoever dating smart women but most don't want constantly antagonistic cold hearted women with a misandrist streak and that is how many of these I'm too smart and independent for any man types come across. At the end of the day we want an equal relationship but not an antagonistic one and too many don't know the difference.

 

No, no, that's not how relationships in general work. They are usually not completely equal. Usually, there is someone who has the stronger personality. This is true even with friendships.

 

You can't have two alphas in one relationship.

[TaraMaiden2]

Oh yes you can.....

[GorillaTheater]

Oh yes you can.....

 

It's not always easy, but it keeps things interesting.