Friday, December 11, 2009

Friday afternoon social argument: Why do smart women have trouble dating? 

In my fairly limited experience, there is more than a little truth in this list of reasons why there seem to be a lot of very smart, single, and frustrated women floating around. Number 5 strikes me as especially true, but your results may vary.

Release the hounds!

CWCID: Linkiest.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Dec 11, 01:02:00 PM:

Re: Number 5.


But, in a new and improved effort, I'm not going to think about it anymore.

No, really. Really.  

By Anonymous silvermine, at Fri Dec 11, 01:14:00 PM:

Sounds more like a list of why self-involved type A women can't find love.

Or, maybe notices you're "smart" if you decide to quit your job and stay home with your kids. Stay at home moms can be smart too. ;) They just have different priorities. I'd rather lavish my brains on my husband and kids right now.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Dec 11, 02:31:00 PM:

I think the problem is more #6. Smart women tend to overlook the importance of being seen to enjoy the sensuality of life. They often seem to want to avoid looking too interested in food, wine, friendship and even sex.

I advise my children to really indulge themselves in enjoying life. Go out on dates. Seek out practice relationships. Develop civilized social skills, like conversational skills, and really enjoy interactions of all kinds. Don't be judgmental, and don't be snobbish. Smart women are too often less concerned with sensuality and more concerned with being perceived as "smart".  

By Blogger DEC, at Fri Dec 11, 02:35:00 PM:

"Why do smart women have trouble dating?"

Smart women are more likely to catch you when you cheat on them.  

By Anonymous Mr. Ed, at Fri Dec 11, 03:01:00 PM:

7. Smart women are waiting for love to show up versus showing up as love.

Dumb men have the same damn problem.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Dec 11, 05:13:00 PM:

I'll steal verbatim from Joan Rivers for my answer:

"No man ever put his hand up a woman's dress looking for her library card."

'Nuff said!  

By Blogger Sara (Pal2Pal), at Fri Dec 11, 08:39:00 PM:

I would say #1 only the article has it ass-backwards. My experience is that men are always setting up competition with smart women. It takes a strong, self-assured man to appreciate a smart partner and in today's world, we seem to have p.c.'d away strong, self-assured men.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Dec 11, 11:05:00 PM:

Well, this is inline with the general overuse and abuse of the term "Smart" in this society.

It may be that they merely mean "clever" rather than smart, but if we look at total record of IQ scores without the PC glasses on, and look at the the true outer edge of the envelope while we are at it, we will find that high intelligence in a statistical anomaly in the female sex. They tend to cluster much more around a mean, and even that mean is at a lower level than that of the male sex.

Smart? Turns out that they are not really that smart after all. Nor are most of the men we call "Smart" these days are either for that matter, but at the high end the gals are not much to be found. We live in such a narcissistic, degraded society--one obsessed with mediocrity--that we care not to look at just what the high end of human capabilities and capacities are. In our vanity we do not like being confronted with our mediocrity. This was not always so. Once we where ot so quick to believe our own PR, but that was when we cherished the high and the great in Mankind. Now, these things embarrasses us. Once our limitations embarrassed us, even the women.

This notion of "smart women", like "strong women" is one of the comic vanities of the age, and it is telling that the discussion of "smart women" is coming from HuffPo.

Note the notion of "smart":

I love smart women. I love it when she can write a sonnet, use Euler's formula, code Perl, play a concerto, speak half a dozen languages, run a company, quote Chaucer, diagnose diabetes, compose a quartet and converse brilliantly.

Sounds like he is describing an modern, pseudo-intellectual, AA academic. There are few creatures dumber than that no matter what the sex. I mean, this sounds like a feminist for Pete's sake.

This is of course not intelligence they are talking about here but a level of education, glibness, perhaps certain skills, and fluency in the cliches that pass for "culture" for today's liberal.
(Quoting Chaucer as a sign of high IQ? Now that is a rich one. Straight out of some 1930's comedy of manners movie. Coding in Perl? Too funny. Few things dull the mind more than programming, but Perl? Goodness Gracious! As for "string quartets" one can be assured that high IQ is not a factor here, particularly in the modern music departments in our Universities, which is about the only place a string quartet gets written these days. Obviously, charity is a much more common--and useful--virtue in such a place nowadays.)

All this has little to do with truly high intelligence, expect perhaps a talent for memory.

What happens with the "smart women" nonsense is that the really smart men have to squint their eyes and keep up the pretense. But of course, reality intrudes eventually. The "smart women" cannot bear that, and as reality sets in, the "Smart Women" (read psuedo0intellectual feminist) skedaddles straightaway.

Women in their natural predilection for egoism assume as a matter of course that they are smarter than men. Nothing destroys a relationship faster than the discovery that reality is rather a different matter altogether, particularly if they happen to be feminists.

They are not really looking for "smart men" They are looking for duller men who tell them how smart they are. A rather stupid thing to desire, all things considered.

If on the upper reaches of intelligence men and women were equal the history of the world would be quite different. Women discover the truth this in old age, if they are lucky. Often they do not like it much

As our society rots out we will find that we too will return to the eternal truths of the sexes.

Everyone will be happier, even the "smart women".  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Dec 11, 11:35:00 PM:

Sara, no, you have got that wrong. Some men make the mistake of trying to point out to women that it is their ego that is above average, not their IQ.

This is of course not the brightest thing to do, however morally correct it may be. (That these men so err here though is really a matter of ignorance and innocence rather than one of actual stupidity.)

The poor dears rationalize this away as "competition".

The smart men have their hands full "competing" with the other smart (and often dangerous) men. They do not bother to "compete" with women but only, if socially pressed, pretend too. Too funny.

No not at all.

You are a case and point here.  

By Blogger Cassandra, at Sat Dec 12, 01:10:00 AM:

Aye yay yay :p

TH, where do you get some of these folks?

The author of that article should have read this comments section. He might have come up with a few other ideas about the nature of the "problem".  

By Blogger Georgfelis, at Sat Dec 12, 01:42:00 AM:

I'd add a sub-set for #3. Most “smart” women tend to be bitchy self-important self-centered pain-in-the-ass types with no ability to “connect” with others on a personal level, and such a concentration on themselves that they cannot focus on another human being without trying to subordinate him (or her). The minute they start to draw close to somebody, they subconsciously drive them away. And this is not strictly a female thing, I've met many a male with the same problem. (See Vulnerability, or Fear of Commitment)

Love (which is the foundation, most of the concrete, bricks, and mortar of a relationship) is not a 50/50 thing, its a 110/110 thing that requires you to give from the very depths of your heart. (Said as the long-term happy spouse of a Valedictorian wife with three degrees including a Masters. Who occasionally needs a spider squished.)  

By Blogger Cassandra, at Sat Dec 12, 07:24:00 AM:

There's a lot in what you say, Georgfelis. I have a slightly different theory. It's not incompatible with yours.

Working on a post :)  

By Blogger Assistant Village Idiot, at Sat Dec 12, 09:10:00 PM:

I reply cautiously. I am 56, and am married a third of a century this week, so my perception is necessarily slanted. However, the young smart women I encounter seem to have strong similarity to the women I knew when I was that age myself. Perhaps I misinterpret.

I liked the list in the article, and the comments here as well. I would add that smart (defined loosely) women place an additional burden on themselves that decreases their attractiveness. They are so conscious of not being "just a...(housewife, nurse, teacher, whatever)" that they communicate a) a condescension to a great many other women, some of whom the available males might be related to, fond of, or respectful of, and b) an immediate declaration to the male that no matter what happens, he is never going to be the most important thing in their lives. It seems to be a point of honor with some women. They feel they are letting the side down if they don't uphold the achieving standard.

One can argue that this is the result of previous inequities requiring a cultural compensation, or a necessary defense against subtle prejudice, or whatever you like. The fact remains: potential dates do not want to become some placeholder in your personal quests for cultural change or affirmation; potential dates want to become involved with an individual human being.

I dated smart women, and raised my sons to do the same (and they did). My experience is also that Sara has it dead wrong. Smart women set up the competition almost immediately, and often specifically relate rubbing it in to their being female and challenging male expectations. There is a constant subtext You males are going to put me down because I'm female. Not on my watch. Perhaps they do not realise it; perhaps men and women define competition differently; perhaps, perhaps. But gee, what guy wouldn't want to sign on for that kind of fun, eh?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Dec 13, 03:01:00 AM:

I have noticed that people often make themselves as busy as possible so they can ignore the big problems in their lives. This means that often people who are successful in business (due to their doing nothing but working) have major emotional issues. But also there are people who are successful because they love what they do, and are great at working with people around them. This goes for men and women. It would be interesting to do a psychological study on all the men and women who claim they can't find anybody, and see if perhaps they've been lying to themselves about their issues - they don't get dates, because their prospective dates can tell something's not right. I was married for 16 years, but my ex-wife (a lawyer) was never able to realize that what works in the courtroom against the other side (the enemy) is not what you want to do at home to your spouse and the kids (who are in theory on your side). She still doesn't realize what she did wrong, because it's not something she's capable of understantding. She really believes that the courtroom is real life...  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Dec 13, 11:06:00 AM:

You can only date someone who's at least half your age plus seven. Ask Roman Polanski.

Corollary is that you can date someone who is as young as half your age plus seven. Ask Jack Nicholson.

MILFs are rare animals. Which is why Sarah Palin gets so much attention. Most guys don't want older women -- unless they're Demi Moore. Ask Ashton Kutcher.

Women don't want men from a lower social station -- unless it's just a fling with the UPS guy or the pool boy. Men are less picky: "She might be a heiress to Rockefeller; She might be a waitress or a bank teller." Ask Tiger Woods.

Put that in a blender on frappe: You'd conclude that women over 30 are chasing a smaller pool of eligible men.

The Truth is Out There  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Dec 13, 12:19:00 PM:

Soory, should have been clearer:

Smart women over 30 are chasing a smaller pool of eligible men.

The Truth is Out There  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Dec 13, 01:43:00 PM:

This is not irrelevant to the topic at hand. Ashley Dupre -- who had Eliot Spitzer as Client #9 -- now has a weekly Q&A advice column in the New York Post. Here's some excerpts from today's:

"Guys are so easy to please and I don't just mean sexually." "Guys are primal. They're proud and need to be treated like they're proud and special."

Ladies, are you listening ... she's a professional.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Dec 18, 11:51:00 PM:

Shorter "Anon at 11:05:00 PM": Smart women have a hard time dating because men believe only dumb, servile women are worth having around.  

By OpenID redc1c4, at Sat Dec 19, 12:20:00 AM:

Fri Dec 18, 11:51:00 PM:

"Shorter "Anon at 11:05:00 PM": Smart women have a hard time dating because some men believe only dumb, servile women are worth having around."

FTFY! if you insist on making sweeping generalizations, could you at least make sure they are accurate?  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?