Do smart women have to play dumb for men?

Intelligent women are molded by their intelligence and experiences. Some of that experience comes from men, some come from women. If they are intelligent engineers, most of what they read was written by men. If they are intelligent poets, most of what they read was written by women.

That is your own bigotry showing through. Women really don't depend on men as much as you think they do.

So you equate "women dumbing down" to "a purer female." That kind of misogyny gives a lot of insight into your other posts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was quoting the title of this topic, where women associate dumbing down with anything they do not consider female intelligence. Why do women wear make-up? It is to appear more than they are? It makes them feel better about themselves to hide behind the mask. They are not as happy with natural but need fake and will resist it taken away. Often female intelligence, although real on any test scale, is worn like eye liner. Other women may not see this, since they all wear it or feel they have to wear it or other women will force them back into uniform. Guys would prefer see what is beneath , like the morning after, so they are not surprised later. But women assume beneath is not as good as make-up (dumb down in their subjective words). Maternal requires each women be unique to her situation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why do you cut your hair?
Why do you shave?
Why do you put on deoderant?
Why do you wear clothes?

Why are you such and idiot?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can't you argue without the liberal trade mark of insulting the messenger. Use critical thinking.

 

lol

 

Let me introduce you to a few women I know. You'd hate them all but bear with me.

First is a woman I will call H. She has PhD's from Yale and MIT in philosophy (specifically mathematical philosophy and logic). She was a rock climber and then an alpine climber when she was younger, and has climbed Kanchejunga and Gasherbrum, both 8000 meter peaks. We once biked across Europe for two weeks, and were averaging 100 miles a day towards the end. Today she has three daughters; the oldest just graduated from Harvard and is already a critically acclaimed poet. She works as a professor in a Connecticut college.

She doesn't wear makeup. Are you going to tell her she's stupid? Or not maternal enough?

Next is K. She has a birth defect; a nonunion of her skull that's given her a ridge down her forehead (a little like a Klingon) and a cleft lip/palate. She's worked as a stuntwoman and is a professional skydiving photgrapher. She coaches a girl's volleyball team and tutors high school kids in physics and math. She has a son and just had a daughter.

She rarely wears makeup. Are you going to tell her she's stupid, or not maternal enough? Or perhaps that she's ugly?

Next is J. She is a chemical engineer who has been working in the field for over a decade. She's written a bunch of papers on chemical processing (specifically in fermentation for food products) and is highly respected in her field. She is now expecting her first child.

Do these women not fit your conservative mold? Not "purer females?" Too smart, too ambitious, too maternal, too intimidating? I can see why you might think these woman don't exist - smart women can sense misogynists after a short time and learn to avoid them.

 

wellwisher, please enumerate the factors that you believe are part of "female intelligence", as such differs from male intelligence. Please...

 

Women do not need to pretend. Everybody knows their brains are smaller.

 

I have no problem. I am brain storming the reasons why the topic is brought up. I am not trying to maintain propaganda but rather attempting to figure the truth by turning over many stones. I assume intelligent women want the facts, data and new angles, even if this is not what they wish to hear. This is how you come to truth.

One possible problem that is not discussed, that could lead to the premise of this topic, are called quotas. These are legal forms of discrimination based on sex and race, regardless of what any individual male ever did. Smart women, like the above exceptional women, will get lumped into the quota scam, simply for being female, just like all the men get lumped into the quota scam simply for being male. I understand what I say violates the dual standard, but intelligence can see this make-up job.

There is no direct cause and effect for most individuals in that scam. It is all based on abstract lumping. Picture if these smart ladies were on the crap end of the quota scam, in favor of men who are less qualified. Their skills would go unrefined, as the system dumbs itself down to make these males look even better (maintain the curve).

Say we decided to use the quota system in the NBA, to reflect demographics instead of a system based on natural selection of talent. We need more whites, women, children, elderly and handicapped people on the teams. We do this with a quota system, by saying the black males fixed the system and need to be punished even if can not prove any individual did our accusation. It had nothing to do with talent and ability, so they must pay. Intelligence should be able to infer this.

After the system is redistributed and the remaining good players dumb down their talent under the new rules to accommodate the new demographics, players feel insecure because the fans are not as excited. To make them feel better we need to censor anyone who shows disapproval and/or does not cheer. Not everyone will join the program, so we may need to insult them less their logic awakens dead brain cells and intelligence has to think in logic. Are women intelligent enough to scrap the quota scam? If we added more talent, this would alter the curve so it would need to be make harder to regain the curve.

 

The original quota idea worked under the assumption that quotas were needed to balance past discrimination because the white male rigged the system and justice needed to be served. Even if the premise of rigging was true, for the sake of argument, anyone who is intelligent would know how there is cause and effect within time and space.

My skin color or sex does not create a magic portal within time and space, which somehow allows me to go back into time, create injustice, and them come back, allowing me to get caught and then have to pay of my injustice while time traveling. That is how the illogic adds up. The modern male is discriminated based on evidence of a nebulous connection to a past time and space, like they can time travel. Women who can't see that or can't admit this illogic, either lack intelligence or have manipulative intelligence, either of which is not respected. One is required to use irrational emotion in place of intelligence so time travel will work. That is not intelligent.

Say my grandfather told me a story if being bitten by a dog when he was young. According to the illogic, accepted by intelligent women, I can pick any dog of today and punish him for the bite of the past, since being a "dog", is enough to allow time travel making him there and therefore responsible for the past. I just happen to catch him as he teleports back to the present. Do I have the illogic right?

If men are trying to get sex or are trying to keep their mate happy and not nagging, they may lip service this to the positive feelings it can create in a modern women. Yes dear it is true men can teleport. But it will create an unconscious shake of the head in the male, that women sense, and many feel self conscious about since not all women are dishonest with themselves.

Based on intelligent logic of time and space, the females of today directly discriminate against the males of today using law. They are doing the very thing they are accusing the males who can teleport, to have done. It is like the cheating spouse accusing the victim spouse to set up a smoke screen since a good defense is a good offense. An intelligent women or man should be able to see the cause and effect. They may not be honest enough to admit it, which shows motivations that can trump female intelligence.

Maybe i don't understand the physics of time travel and past/present.

 

Wellwisher:

No, spit valve, you will be targeted for inflicting those ghastly paragraphs on my person .

Stop posting, or be roasted like a spring hog.


Saturnine Pariah:

Question your premise:

First-- colorful males are only limited to a small section of the animal kingdom, primarily birds. You do not find this in mammals.

Second-- the evaluation of women as worth the strategy of having to impress at all is, at most, cultural, and, at best, recent.

For a Spartan, she was a vagina and a Spartan male would only frequent it in the dark. For an Athenian, she was a a ghastly vessel he'd reluctantly mate with as that was his duty as a citizen.

The human female did not '...walk beauty, like the night...." until around the Middle Ages when the Troubadour and the Templar Knight and the wandering minstrel evolved to channel natural male aggression into a budding concept known as Romance.

Only then did Western females become anything intimidating enough for a male to want to flatter.

That said, if that stuttering reticence of insecurity were only an artifact of sexuality, then you would not find it between men but you do.

Josh, that idiot sales guy who smelled like Fritos and never read his emails, would twitch like a broken dildo when he came upstairs to ask my boss a question.

It's a question of power, not gender.

Ever seen a hyena's pussy?

Totally.

 

Men also have to play dumb.
No-one wants to look a smart-arse do they?

Computers. Even they play dumb.
Pretending that they didn't understand what you wanted, and screwing up.
They know all right.

 

No reaction. I'll write it bigger for you.
"Women do not need to pretend. Everybody knows their brains are smaller."
Gnarf Gnarf.

 

I doubt it was just to "channel male aggression."

A hypothesis is that as the general outlook was becoming more and more secular, and old ideals like honor and virtue were becoming more and more nebulous and harder to live up to, what to speak of religiosity losing power, more mundane and previously considered lowly or less important concepts gained prominence.


/.../
The love of a man for a woman and a woman for a man is often the floor to which people fall after the collapse of other dreams. It is held to be solid when nothing else is, and though it frequently gives way and dumps them into a basement of despair, it still enjoys a reputation of dependability. No matter that this reputation is illogical — it still flourishes and will continue to flourish regardless of what is said in any book. Love, or possibly the myth of love, is the first, last, and sometimes the only refuge of uncomprehending humanity. What else makes our hearts beat so fast? What else makes us swoon with feeling? What else renders us so intensely alive and aching? The search for love — the sublime, the nebulous, the consuming — remains sacred in a world that increasingly despises the sacred. When the heroic and the transcendental are but memories, when religious institutions fill up with bureaucrats and social scientists, when nobody believes there is a sky beyond the ceiling, then there seems no other escape from the prison of self than the abandon of love. With a gray age of spiritual deadness upon us, we love, or beg for love, or grieve for love. We have nothing higher to live for.

Indeed, many take it on faith that romantic love is the highest thing to live for. Popular literature, movies, art, and music tirelessly celebrate it as the one truth accessible to all. Such love obliterates reason, as poets have long sweetly lamented, and this is part of its charm and power, because we want to be swept up and spirited out of our calculating selves. "Want" is the key word, for in the spiritual void of modern life the wanting of love becomes increasingly indistinguishable from love itself. So powerful, so insistent is it that we seldom notice that the gratification is rare and the craving relentless. Love is mostly in anticipation; it is an agony of anticipation; it is an ache for a completion not found in the dreary round of mundane routine. That we never seem to possess it in its imagined fullness does not deter us. It hurts so bad that it must be good.

Practically nobody questions the supremacy of romantic love, which is good enough reason to do a little poking around the foundations of its pedestal.
/.../

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/price/bl124.html

 

The more men (or women) succomb to sexual lust, the more intimidated they feel by the objects of said lust. Those objects can be women, men, various things; statistically, for men, it is probably most often women, though.

Some men hate women precisely for the effect that those men feel women have on them. It's a matter of a particular perception, one that a manly Spartan would probably not have, but more recent men tend to.

 

You have made a very generalised statement there.

Some males hate females because most people are not very nice, and whether you like it or not most people male and females are not nice people. Thats why you need police and gov.

 

Nonsense. The LESS men follow through on their lust the more intimidated they are by the things they cannot achieve. A man (or a woman) who finds it easy to find sexual partners is far less intimidated by the opposite sex. They are more partners and less unattainable, inexplicable objects of desire.

 

You're not reading what is written:

See that "Some" there right at the beginning of the sentence?

 

You just keep your political agenda rolling! Maybe you'll actually believe it yourself eventually.

 

well first we need to accept that depending on culture and individual preference, basically it boils down to do you want (assuming your a women) a man that loves your intellect, or a man that loves your stupidity? Some men like needy women, some men like intelligent women.

My brother for example likes this girl that is both needy and intelligent, she not a looker either, I don't know what really he likes about her, considering her mental conditions and physical aliments, other the that she is very needy and not likely to run off with another man I guess?