CNBC: Why Men Date Dumb and Women Don't:
Note the negative title on this article. Men date across the spectrum of intelligence, women prefer smarter men. Smarter men are more monogamous, yet they date "dumb" women. Isn't there a better title than "Men Date Dumb..."? That's derogatory towards both men and women. Is it just to make the smarter women feel better?
As it turns out, intelligence in men is correlated with valuing sexual exclusivity. A 2010 study by London School of Economics professor Santoshi Kanazawa established the relationship. More intelligent American boys are more likely to grow up to value sexual exclusivity in early adulthood than less intelligent boys......
Smarter women are no more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent women.
Note the negative title on this article. Men date across the spectrum of intelligence, women prefer smarter men. Smarter men are more monogamous, yet they date "dumb" women. Isn't there a better title than "Men Date Dumb..."? That's derogatory towards both men and women. Is it just to make the smarter women feel better?
posted by Helen at 5:06 AM
24 Comments:
Welcome to the sheconomy, where the media hammers facts like clay until it meets "her" approval. And it also supports the Woman Good / Man Dumb/Bad meme.
Only slightly off-topic: A female writer for Mad Men posted a column in Huffington Post titled "Why You're Not Married."
It went viral. And it pissed off every feminist in the country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-mcmillan/why-youre-not-married_b_822088.html
Question of the day: Why would this article piss off a feminist?
In light of all the Kay Hymowitz bullshowzah, it makes for VERY funny reading!
Hasn't been established that men are far more visual creatures than women? Men value a way a woman looks. A man may make part of his mating choice on visual stimulation. A woman doesn't have to be smart to be pleasing to they eye.
I'm not sure how it would make smart women feel better! Or did you mean bitter? ;)
Thag Jones,
I thought that smart women could tell themselves that men just liked dumb women and this is why they didn't have a guy. It's easier to say "I'm too intelligent" than to think that there is something wrong with you.
ZorroPrimo,
Thanks for the article, I'm surprised the Huffington Post published it.
With regard to men, "intelligent" seems to be more straightforward. Deeper understanding, ability to see connections others can't see, patented inventions, math, physics, insightful, Einstein, Edison, that kind of thing.
With regard to women, though, "intelligent" means "opinionated" quite a lot of the time. Women who can simply talk faster than you, throwing out any and all connections to see if one of them gets traction in the argument, frequently describe themselves as "intelligent". They are also described that way by others, although I think it is closer to "bitchy, self-opinionated and self-righteous" than it is to intelligent.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hasn't been established that men are far more visual creatures than women?
I believe so. I think for reasons more than just selecting mates. Being able to go on long hunting trips and find their way back and other tasks requiring acute visual recognition was important to cavemen.
Hasn't been established that men are far more visual creatures than women?
Possibly it has. I'd like to see a link or other pointer to research establishing that. I am aware of research that says that men are better at, for example, evaluating how an object looks from other vantage points by tilting it, etc., in their heads. I'm not aware of research that says that men are, in general, more visual than women.
Men will not, for example, spend half an hour trying to decide which of three very similar shades of blue to paint a wall.
Men value a way a woman looks. A man may make part of his mating choice on visual stimulation.
Yes, and women may value a way that a man looks, and a woman may make part of her mating choice on visual stimulation. Is there any research that says that your statements about men are any truer than mine about women?
A woman doesn't have to be smart to be pleasing to they eye.
True. It's equally true that a man doesn't have to be smart to be pleasing to the eye. I rather doubt that current heart-throbs George Clooney, Johnny Depp, and Leonardo DiCaprio are among the intellectual elite.
"intelligent" means "opinionated"
And "opinionated", more often than not, means "manipulative". Maybe it's me, but the HufPo author's definition of "angry" seems also to correlate highly with manipulative. And she's right about men being scared of it. An "intelligent" woman is fine when she's you're ally, but what happens when she turns to your enemy? Why should men take the risk?
And then a Kay Hymowitz comes along and calmly and politely tries to manipulate men. I sent her an e-mail, citing the Robyn Blumner 2000 paternity fraud column, and asked here when she had ever discussed it (in print). I never got a reply. I don't know if Hymowitz is actually smart enough to realize just how badly she blew it in the current legal environment. I doubt it.
Men will not, for example, spend half an hour trying to decide which of three very similar shades of blue to paint a wall.
That's because it would be a waste of 29 minutes an 57 seconds that could be better used elsewhere.
And the article was even written by a man! (Although who knows where the title of the article came from....)
The difference in the visual between male and female. Maybe this video will help.
Men will not, for example, spend half an hour trying to decide which of three very similar shades of blue to paint a wall.
This could be an argument that men are more visual. Because of their more acute visual nature, men can more easily make up their minds what colors and shades of colors they like. Taking a half hour to decide is a sign of confusion, not visual acuity.
Cham wrote: "A man may make part of his mating choice on visual stimulation."
The part of the brain that responds sexually to visual information is 250% larger in men than women.
And I think you have a gift for understatement!
Trey
Hey ern, here ya go.
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/MestonLAB/Publications/brain.pdf
Google gender differences in visual sexual excitement and you will find all the hard science you wish.
Trey
Thank you, TMink.
I love this line:
'In other words, when women date less intelligent men they pay a cost: a diminished interest in sexual fidelity. Men don't pay this cost...'
It fails basic logic, Men pay the same cost, the difference is women can avoid the cost while men just have to deal with the lower value women place on monogamy...
Dadvocate: Humor!
ZP - that was excellent, thanks for posting the link. However, given it was the Puffington Host, I can't help but wonder how many heads exploded from reading it.
I just watched some repulsive footage on CNN of a new book titled, "Man Down: Irrefutable Proof that Women are Better Than Men."
WTF is going on in this country?! Is the human male the Jew of the 21st Century and feminists the new Nazis?
I thought this crap ran its course in the 80s. Somebody wake me up from this nightmare.
Zorro - I found a sample chapter of the book you mention. It looks really lame. Women are better than men because men are struck by lightning more often. More here.
DADvocate: Thanks for the links. It would appear that the Parade of Stupid marches on.
I checked the book page on Amazon. Even a number of women reviewers assailed it for being ridiculous.
Still, it sickens me that network TV gave such a piece of excrement airtime. I guess there were no Klansmen to interview that day.
I guess there were no Klansmen to interview that day.
LOL. A slow day at the studios.
FTA: "Smarter women are no more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent women. "
Funny how they didn't title the article:
"Smart women just as likely to be town bicycle"
Post a Comment
<< Home