# Who wants to Marry a Clever Woman?



## Arthur_Vandelay (Jan 2, 2005)

Those of you wanting to take a husband or wife in future may be interested in the following information . . . 



> *High IQ cuts women's marriage prospects*
> A high IQ is a hindrance for women wanting to get married while it is an asset for men, according to a study by four British universities.
> 
> The study found the likelihood of marriage increased by 35 per cent for boys for each 16 point increase in IQ.
> ...


Source: ABC News


----------



## HLGStrider (Jan 3, 2005)

Doesn't surprise me. I was doing some research earlier this year on how career and education effects women's decisions on having children and I found that men and women are poorly matched on what they want as far as picking mates.

Ambitious women want ambitious men (I think they used the term Career-Orientated, but I am going with ambitious).

Ambitious men, however, were more often attracted to non-ambitious women. 

Non-ambitious men were more likely to be attracted to ambitious women, I think, but I am not sure. This statistic sort of led away from my point so I didn't research it much further. I can't remember if non-ambitious women rounded off this delightful love triangle by being attacted to non-ambitious men or if they liked ambitious men as well leaving the non-ambitious men out in the dust.

I can think of a lot of different reasons why this might be. 
The more I look at Ambitious the more I think I misspelt it. . .hmm. . .Nope. Spell-check says it is fine. What a funny looking word.

Anyway, the idea was the men wanted their opposites in life goals, generally, and women wanted their twins, generally. 

I think I am that way a little bit. I have never wanted an ambitious man and I don't see myself as being ambitious. I'm DEFINITELY not career orientated. I do want an intelligent man. I don't know if I'd want one who I consider to be smarter than myself.

That's an interesting question.

Would you want a mate who is smarter than you are?

I mean, right away I can see advantages to such a mate, but I can also see a lot of disadvantages. I mean, imagine having a life partner who was better at everything than you. You'd want to kill him after the first year!


----------



## Niniel (Jan 3, 2005)

I know from experience that it is so. I have qa quite high IQ, I won't say how high, but it would mean that I have about a 10% chance of a relationship. It has happened to me that guys have said they felt 'intimidated by my intelligence' even though in my view I wasn't saying anything very smart at all at the moment. Last week I was dicussing this with my colleague, and we found that of the female professors at my university (where I work), none has a husband, while most of the male professors have. 
The same goes for PhD students, such as I am: we went out for dinner with 4 girls, all aged about 25,and none had a boyfriend. I at least have had a boyfriend once, but some of them hadn't even had one ever. I don't know why; it's not that I don't want a boyfriend or that I think my career is more important. I have a busy life but I'd be able to fit a boyfriend into my schedule. It's just more difficult for intelligent women to find a man that's at the same level.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 3, 2005)

Niniel said:


> I know from experience that it is so. I have qa quite high IQ, I won't say how high, but it would mean that I have about a 10% chance of a relationship. It has happened to me that guys have said they felt 'intimidated by my intelligence' even though in my view I wasn't saying anything very smart at all at the moment. Last week I was dicussing this with my colleague, and we found that of the female professors at my university (where I work), none has a husband, while most of the male professors have.
> The same goes for PhD students, such as I am: we went out for dinner with 4 girls, all aged about 25,and none had a boyfriend. I at least have had a boyfriend once, but some of them hadn't even had one ever. I don't know why; it's not that I don't want a boyfriend or that I think my career is more important. I have a busy life but I'd be able to fit a boyfriend into my schedule. It's just more difficult for intelligent women to find a man that's at the same level.



Wow...in my life, I have had profound experiences with three women, one of whom was my first wife, another a deep friend, and another my present wife.

In one experience, we both appreciated the other's high IQ. In another, it was proven that high intelligence and common sense do not always go together. In yet another experience, reasonably high intelligence does not compare to integrity of the person and the purity of their heart.

I'm afraid that's all I will say to that, but to Niniel I say: find a guy who appreciates all your good points including your intelligence; a man who is his own man, and whose self-esteem is high enough so that he is intimidated by nothing (including intelligent women), and is secure and happy in his own skin. And oh yes: who's nuts about you! It may take some time, but it'll be SO worth it! 

Barley


----------



## Eriol (Jan 3, 2005)

Contrary to the article, I enjoy intelligent women immensely. One of the main pleasures of life is speaking with beautiful, intelligent women, and they are quite common, luckily enough .

Nevertheless, I prize a good heart far more than intelligence. I'm sure that I would be happy with a wife that is good-hearted, with or without an Einstein IQ. If she has an Einstein IQ, even better!


----------



## Eledhwen (Jan 3, 2005)

It makes sense really; women require much more conversation than men to stay sane, and intelligent women require intelligent conversation. 

Men, however, seem to be blissfully capable of switching off when the flow of words is not of interest to them, and don't need to talk so much anyway. So, clever women need clever men, but clever men only need their socks washing and they marry accordingly, leaving a whole bunch of unmarried, intelligent women, and low-IQ men in dirty socks.

Now, where's that 'tongue in cheek' smiley?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 3, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


> ...clever men only need their socks washing and they marry accordingly, leaving a whole bunch of unmarried, intelligent women, and low-IQ men in dirty socks.



Hey, I _resemble_ that remark! And I have a foolproof dirty sock check: I throw 'em against the wall and if they stick, I wash 'em whether they need it or not! 

Barley


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Jan 4, 2005)

> Claire Rayner, writer and broadcaster, says that intelligent men often preferred a less brainy partner.
> 
> "A chap with a high IQ is going to get a demanding job that is going to take up a lot of his energy and time," she said.
> 
> "In many ways he wants a woman who is an old-fashioned wife and looks after the home, a copy of his mum in a way."



Even if Rayner is making a sweeping generalisation about "intelligent men," I find it rather sad that attitudes such as this persist. Men who adopt this approach in searching for a partner deserve to be disappointed.


----------



## Arvedui (Jan 4, 2005)

Who wants to marry a Clever Woman?

I have done it. And if any other has the possibility, they should try it. Most recommended!


----------



## Valandil (Jan 4, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> I have done it. And if any other has the possibility, they should try it. Most recommended!



What is it anyway...???  

Their way of keeping us blissfully ignorant?


----------



## HLGStrider (Jan 5, 2005)

Eldhwen brings up an interesting point with the talking. 

In my experience, the more intelligent a man is the less he talks. This is not always true, but it has often been the case with the guys I know. The quiet ones do better academically. The loud mouth ones do better socially. 

Therefore and intelligent woman looking for conversation is going to be harder to satisfy. She will need a man with the intelligence to carry a convesation on her level but with the social ability to carry a conversation period. 

I also think that intelligent women often have a desire to put men in their place. I often wince at my friends because the first chance they get to put a guy down, with a sharp comment, they do it. Smarter girls are able to do this much quicker, and I think this is why they intimidate guys. These same girls can be very kind to women but with guys they seem to see it as a duty to sabotauge their egos.

Has anyone here read "The House of the Seven Gables?" There is a bit in there about why the man, Holgrave, an artist, chooses to marry Phoebe who is sweet but not considered his intellectual equal. 

"Because, probably, at his highest elevation, the poet needs no human intercourse; but he finds it dreary to descend, and be a stranger."


----------



## Eledhwen (Jan 5, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> I often wince at my friends because the first chance they get to put a guy down, with a sharp comment, they do it. Smarter girls are able to do this much quicker, and I think this is why they intimidate guys. These same girls can be very kind to women but with guys they seem to see it as a duty to sabotauge their egos.


Just as a black belt in martial arts has a duty not to use their skills to hurt people unnecessarily, so a 'black belt' in the art of repartee should also restrain themselves. It is not clever to prove you have a sharp knife by stabbing people with it (even if they are men); indeed a really mature and intelligent person would have the confidence not to need to show off in this way.


----------



## Thorondor (Jan 5, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


> Just as a black belt in martial arts has a duty not to use their skills to hurt people unnecessarily, so a 'black belt' in the art of repartee should also restrain themselves. It is not clever to prove you have a sharp knife by stabbing people with it (even if they are men); indeed a really mature and intelligent person would have the confidence not to need to show off in this way.


 
As a man that works with on a team that consists of me and eight other women, I think you and Elgee have hit it on the head. It seems they delight in making sharp comments at my expense...which I normally ignore. When I do return fire( usually in the form of twisting their words around to make them look foolish) they generally get mad and claim that it isn't right to make jokes like that about women, even though the same would be fine about men.  

And just to add my two cents, I prefer a partner with an intellegence as high or higher than my own. Of course I know I'm anomaly in almost every regard, but I get bored if I am with a guy that I can't talk with on the same level. And I think that holds true for most of my friends with their wives/girlfriends as well.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Jan 6, 2005)

Nóm said:


> I think more women than men want a spouse who is also a friend and companion. Someone they can do things with.
> 
> I think I have also observed that less men than women enjoy the non-romantic company of the opposite sex.
> 
> I do think a lot of men are intimidated by intelligence, and it doesn't surpise me that intelligent or succesful women (High IQ doesn't always equal successful) have trouble finding a man.



I must say that, given my own experience, I find these observations (not just yours, Nom, but others') surprising. Among my "coupled" friends I observe a high degree of intellectual compatibility--but beyond that, these people are each other's best friends as well as lovers. The same, I am happy to say, holds true for my own relationship. I believe that partners in successful relationships--and by extension successful marriages--at some point get past "the relationship 'thing'" (if you take my meaning) and see each other as friends. (Some would say that at some point along the way this stage involves the breaking of wind . . . but I admit nothing).

We should be cautious, however, about generalising from our own experiences. As Bonnie Erbe writes in _Newsday_:


> Let's hope, however, British women do not buy into the theory that females must be less intelligent, less interesting and less successful in order to marry smart, accomplished husbands. If in fact that is the case, it's not just the women who lose. It's the men, as well. After all, why would an intelligent, charge-ahead type, man or woman, want to spend her/his life with a partner so radically dissimilar and out of touch with the world the other partner inhabits? That sounds to me like a recipe for divorce.
> 
> Not all smart men find or want smart wives. Not all smart women find or want smart husbands. But generalizations that get much more detailed than this are dangerously fraught with the likelihood of decidedly unscholarly error.



_If_ it is true that many men are intimidated by intelligent/successful women, it suggests the persistence of old-fashioned attitudes about gender roles. The results of the British study (if reliable) might indicate, then, the collision of this residual sexism with women's practical advancement (to a degree) in the social, economic, public and educational spheres--another consequence of which, for example, might be something like the glass ceiling.

There are reasons, in any case, to take the findings of this study--at least, in the form in which those findings have been presented in the media--with a grain of salt. There is no universal agreement, even within the scientific community, about what "intelligence" is. Nor is there much agreement about whether IQ tests provide a reliable measurement of a person's intelligence. (You can find out more about this on a section of the BBC website devoted to the topic of "Intelligence"). And reportage appears to take it as a given that the results of a survey of 900 _British_ respondents generalises to men and women the world over (I suppose nuance never sold a newspaper).

The study, "Childhood IQ and marriage by mid-life: the Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan studies," is due for publication in a forthcoming issue of the _Journal of Personality and Individual Differences_. Here is an abstract of the article:


> The study examined the influence of IQ at age 11 years on marital status by mid-adulthood. The combined databases of the Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan studies provided data from 883 subjects. With regard to IQ at age 11, there was an interaction between sex and marital status by mid-adulthood (p = 0.0001). Women who had ever-married achieved mean lower childhood IQ scores than women who had never-married (p < 0.001). Conversely, there was a trend for men who had ever-married to achieve higher childhood IQ scores than men who had never-married (p = 0.07). In men, the odds ratio of ever marrying was 1.35 (95% CI 0.98–1.86; p = 0.07) for each standard deviation increase in childhood IQ. Among women, the odds ratio of ever marrying by mid-life was 0.42 (95% CI 0.27–0.64; p = 0.0001) for each standard deviation increase in childhood IQ. Mid-life social class had a similar association with marriage, with women in more professional jobs and men in more manual jobs being less likely to have ever-married by mid-life. Adjustment for the effects of mid-life social class and height on the association between childhood IQ and later marriage, and vice versa, attenuated the effects somewhat, but suggested that IQ, height and social class acted partly independently.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jan 6, 2005)

Eld: Most of my friends aren't mature by default. I'm only twenty and my friends are on average two years younger than me. While I suppose one can be mature at this age, it is harder. We're still learning the ropes. . .

EDIT: I just noticed that the age I gave myself in my post in the age on my status bar are different, and yes, I am really Nineteen, not twenty, but I will be twenty in four days and have been giving my age out as twenty whenever asked almost instinctively for the last two months. I guess I'm excited about twenty, but it is embarrassing when someone asks you your age and you say, "Twenty. . .uh. . .I mean, nineteen. . ." It's like you don't know how old you are, which you REALLY do it is just when you are so CLOSE to twenty you want to say it!

Anything I say based on my experiences is generally limited at this time. It has only been in the last two years that people in my group have started going for marriage at all.

Also, I think IQ probably doesn't tell the whole story about intelligence. I am fairly confident that I could score higher than my brother on any IQ test. I am fairly confident that he will do better in any field he chooses then I ever could because his people skills are outstanding. 
...

Another issue of concern. Has anyone noted that those discussing this survey seem to assume that a less intelligent woman will want to be a home maker (Washing socks?)? 

Now I am a 3.92 student who plans to devote her life to that field. My mother was likewise a 3.92 in highschool before she went into homemaking (I am in college. My mother opted out because she married right after graduation. I would have if I had met a guy). My mom would have been valedictorian had she not flunked chior (Honestly). 

I am currently in a similar position to another former school mate, sort of between college, not really sure what to do, wandering around. I think it would be fair to say that I was a much better student than this other girl, and it is interesting to note the different ways people react to us milling around. The girl considered less intelligent recently complained that she wished people would stop bothering her about "Getting a husband." I have recently been annoyed by people pressuring me to persue career.

I think people automatically try to presure high academic achieving females into careers and low academic achieving females into homemaking, even if that isn't what the person wants.


----------



## Eledhwen (Jan 6, 2005)

Having spent most of my adult life raising my five children, I think I can speak from experience on the 'washing socks' front :smug: Its something I said to a friend of mine who has walked out on 25 years of marriage to live with a younger man: "After a while, one man's dirty socks are much the same as anothers." It's a way of saying that the heady heat of romance blows away like chaff, and if what's left doesn't have something more, then it's doomed to failure.

I am married to a man who is very different from me. I'm an extrovert, he's an introvert. I'm from the country, he's from North London. I couldn't find 'x' if it jumped out and bit me, he has a 1:1 maths degree. But we complement (complete) one another, and that's what's important. 

One of the brightest people I ever knew was a poacher, who ended up in prison. His tales of how he used to avoid capture by the gamekeeper would make a best seller; but someone else would have to write it, as school to him was a four-letter word (especially the way he spelled it). If you read his CV (difficult, as he never had one), you would write him off as low intellect; and you would be wrong. It is cases such as this that make me instantly doubt research that compares people of different intellect.

Elgee, apparently in some countries you say you're 20 if you're in your 20th year (which you are), so take your pick!


----------



## HLGStrider (Jan 9, 2005)

Well, in an hour and thirty-four minutes no one could debate that I am twenty. . .actually, if they wanted to get into "No because you were born at seven in the morning" they could but I would hit them with my stuffed leopard.


Anyway. . .

Someone said something about this being a recipe for divorce. I really don't think that is so. For one thing, IQ really has nothing to do with relationship handling. I mean if the guy is purposefully testing a girl to see if she has a low IQ before marriage, he is looking for the wrong thing in marriage and will have a lower chance of survival, but I don't think that's what is happening. I used to put intelligence high on my husband-trait-check-list, and I went for a very intelligent boy when I fell in love, a very intelligent boy who is incapable of developing emotional attachments. To make a long story short, when I told him how I felt he did the intellectually smart thing. He gave me a very nice "I'm not ready for it" which managed to stop me from making an emotional display and carried the friendship tenderly, parrying me with very well thought out assides whenever I got too personal or emotional and finally when he couldn't avert my advances anymore, he ran. 

I still want a smart one, but just because a person has an IQ doesn't mean they will be a good mate. 

Also, different people get their fulfillment from different places, and I think that you and your mate don't necessarily have to share your source.

My grandma and grandpa really don't. My grandma is home-orientated, my grandfather very career-orientated (Loves his job. Finds banking entertaining somehow). My parents, on the other hand, are both home-orientated, my mother being a stay-at-home mom, my dad having given up at least one promotion because it took away from family time. My parents did match. My grandparents did different. Parents are married 21 years. Grandparents married I think 40. Both can work.


----------



## Beleg (Jan 9, 2005)

Slight detractment: 


Happy Birthday Elgee. Here's a hoping for sweet tweens for you.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Jan 9, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> Someone said something about this being a recipe for divorce.



Yes, but note the qualification: "Not all smart men find or want smart wives. Not all smart women find or want smart husbands. But generalizations that get much more detailed than this are dangerously fraught with the likelihood of decidedly unscholarly error" (Bonnie Erbe, _Newsday_).


----------



## HLGStrider (Jan 11, 2005)

It doesn't seem like much of a qualification to me. 


I personally don't believe in divorce, but know marriages break up for so many reasons that the only way to make sure you don't end up divorced is never marrying. Of course, this is like saying the only sure way not to die is to never be born.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Jan 11, 2005)

The beauty of the qualification is that it prevents us from making categorical assertions that can be easily refuted by counter-example. From the point-of-view of the reader, it is important that we take note of such qualifications, so that we don't commit the strawman fallacy by misrepresenting what has actually been said.

Erbe is not claiming that intellectual incompatibility in a marriage _is_ a recipe for divorce--only that it _sounds like_ one (i.e. intellectual incompatibility _might be_ a recipe for divorce). Nor indeed is she denying that marriages break up for many reasons (nor is she arguing one way or the other whether divorce is a good or a bad thing). All she is suggesting is this: even if it were true that less intelligent women will find it easier to secure a more intelligent and successful husband, such a combination _might be_ detrimental to the success of the marriage in the long term. 

Acknowledging that some smart men do indeed marry less smart women, and that some smart women do indeed marry less smart men, Erbe warns that "generalizations that get much more detailed than this are dangerously fraught with the likelihood of decidedly unscholarly error." If Erbe is claiming that marriages between intellectually incompatible spouses _will_ end in divorce (i.e. "All marriages between intellectually incompatible spouses are marriages that will end in divorce"), then she is herself making a generalization dangerously fraught with the possibility of unscholarly error. But she is not making such a claim--and her caution about the perils of making hasty generalizations highlights this.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 11, 2005)

Now ten years into my second marriage (at the present age of 68), I have a few comments on marriage and divorce.

I believe that the primary reason for divorce is that there are too many unresolvable differences between the spouses complicated by an _unwillingness_ to resolve them. I further believe this is so because the two weren't honest with each other (and themselves) about the reasons they wanted to get married in the first place.

I believe that marriage should be first of all based on _solid friendship._ Without the tree of friendship, firmly rooted, there will nothing to bear the blossoms of real and lasting love. Sounds a bit corny, but that has been my personal experience, and over the years have seen to be true.

On my office wall is a sign that says: 

*IN MARRIAGE​it's better to be happy​than to be right.​*
_—Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers_​
Just below that is a small article I spotted in _USA Today_ over a decade ago:

*Sweet nothings help marriages stick*
Study keys on how couples talk, not what they say

By Karen S. Peterson
USA TODAY

How newlyweds talk to each other, more than what they actually say, can predict which couples will divorce with 87% accuracy, new government-sponsored research says.

The results of the 10-year study from the University of Washington, Seattle, add to the growing body of research sponsored by the National Insitute of Mental Health that seeks to identify what saves marriages.

Interviewed within six months of marriage, couples who will endure already see each other through "rose-colored glasses," study co-author Sybil Carrere says. "Their behavior toward each other is positive." Those who will divorce already see each other "through fogged lenses," seeming cynical and unable to say good things about each other.

Researchers followed 95 couples in the Seattle area for seven to nine years, beginning six months into their marriages. The initial hour-long interview together probed their relationship, their parents' union and their philosophy of marriage.

More than what was actually said, researchers logged "if they expressed fondness and admiration for their partner, if they talked about themselves as a unit, if they finished each other's sentences, referenced each other when they told a story, and whether what came to minde was pleasant," Carrere says.

Strong patterns emerged that suggested divorce later: 16 couples have split in the study so far. UW psychology professor John Gottman co-authored this marriage study and many others. He has found that key predictors of divorce include a husband's unwillingness to be influenced by his wife, who is often the one trying to resolve marital problems; and the wife starting quarrels "harshly" and with hostility. Those tend to escalate into bigger conflicts.

===============================

I resolved to take this and other such advice to heart when I embarked on my present marriage; I have never regretted it.

Barley


----------



## e.Blackstar (Jan 12, 2005)

Heh. wow...pathetic.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jan 13, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Erbe is not claiming that intellectual incompatibility in a marriage _is_ a recipe for divorce--only that it _sounds like_ one (i.e. intellectual incompatibility _might be_ a recipe for divorce). Nor indeed is she denying that marriages break up for many reasons (nor is she arguing one way or the other whether divorce is a good or a bad thing). All she is suggesting is this: even if it were true that less intelligent women will find it easier to secure a more intelligent and successful husband, such a combination _might be_ detrimental to the success of the marriage in the long term.
> 
> Acknowledging that some smart men do indeed marry less smart women, and that some smart women do indeed marry less smart men, Erbe warns that "generalizations that get much more detailed than this are dangerously fraught with the likelihood of decidedly unscholarly error." If Erbe is claiming that marriages between intellectually incompatible spouses _will_ end in divorce (i.e. "All marriages between intellectually incompatible spouses are marriages that will end in divorce"), then she is herself making a generalization dangerously fraught with the possibility of unscholarly error. But she is not making such a claim--and her caution about the perils of making hasty generalizations highlights this.


 
All right. I understand now, but I think you were taking what I said wrong. I know that not all incidents of everything are true, and I assumed their would be some qualifier on the statement, and the one you gave is very little more than a general qualifier saying "This is not always the case." 

The fact that I forgot the word "Sounds" being in there makes a huge difference. When someone says something "Sounds like" something it is a hugely different matter than saying something "is" something.

For instance, if I said, "Having an affair is a recipe for a divorce." You wouldn't assume I was making the generalization that all marriages where one spouse cheets on the other will end in divorce. However, I would only use this phrase if I was confident that it INCREASED the chances of divorce. I don't think what this study is suggesting does increase the chances of divorce, and I was challenging it on that basis.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 13, 2005)

e.Blackstar said:


> Heh. wow...pathetic.



Just exactly _what_ are you referring to?

Barley


----------



## e.Blackstar (Jan 13, 2005)

Sorry...I meant the 'fact' that no one wants to marry a smart woman. Men are portrayed as the ultimate idiots on TV and other kinds of media and people complain that women are _too_ smart? Wow...very silly indeed. If the human race (excepting our lovely colection of specimens here at TTF, o' course) gets any shallower we may just all end up as incredibly profound philosephers by coming full circle.


----------



## elfgirl (Jan 13, 2005)

I think this is really depressing, because if it's true, and we start out with a 50% even chance, and every point over average (100) is 2.5% less, which by my calculations it should be, I have a -60% chance of finding someone, which is sad because I would like to have a family, complete with kids, and an SUV... it's rather odd that I'm saying this here, because it's really not the type of rep I like to get, I usually act very odd, but I suppose that's just me trying to be tough... *shrugs* It's especially depressing, because with my experience with men, it's horribly accurate... all of the guys I have dated have turned out to be... odd... not the type of guy I want at all. I've almost given up on the men... I'm willing to bet I'd have better odds with one-out-of-ten women...  lol...


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Jan 17, 2005)

elfgirl said:


> I think this is really depressing, because if it's true, and we start out with a 50% even chance, and every point over average (100) is 2.5% less, which by my calculations it should be, I have a -60% chance of finding someone,



Then take comfort in the fact that a study of 900 people in Britain can hardly be representative of men and women the world over.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jan 24, 2005)

It should also be noted that the people in this study seem to be mostly the type marrying in later life, women and men who have gone for carrier first and family second, who get set up in life and then look around to say, "Now that I am in a job and financially set, who is there to marry?"

Not everyone falls into this catagory. Some people go at it just the opposite way, find a spouse first, and make a life with them. My parents and grandparents did this. I would do this if I could find a guy.


----------



## Wolfshead (Feb 4, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> ...universities of Aberdeen


Woo! Ahem...

In the words of David Brent, and I paraphrase - "Ideally, she'd be as intelligent, or slightly less intelligent than me". And despite all David Brent's failings as a human being, that's probably fairly accurate for most guys. I'm not sure I could cope with a relationship where the woman was considerably more intelligent than me - it would get annoying, I think. And there's the other extreme as well - I get bored of people who have the IQ of a dead ferret and spend all their time talking about clothes and reading Hello! magazine.

But ultimately, whilst intelligence is a factor, it's not the deciding one. It's one of many traits that go into making a person who they are, and eventually, I hope, I shall meet the person that's the perfect match for my personality. She'd probably have a fairly high IQ, but that's because I'd be less likely to be attracted to some random ned, obviously...


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 7, 2005)

I don't think it is just a guy thing, though I think in initial dating a woman can either be attracted to how much better a guy is at her or something or by how much he admirers her being better than him at something.

I mean, there are two sides to the coin. For one thing, a girl can be all starry eyed about how smart a guy is. On the other hand, it is great when a guy thinks you are smarter than him. 

Either way it can lead to a bad thing. If a guy really is smarter than you he had better be smart enough to shut up and not correct you for the next twenty years.

If a guy is dumber than you you had better be smart enough to shut up and not correct him for the next twenty years.

No one wants to be constantly made a fool of. No one likes to be corrected. No one likes to be constantly out done.

It's similar to how you may be attracted to a guy who is so calm and collected, and then after a ten year period, you may just want to be able to make him lose his temper once in an arguement because you are sick of being the one who falls to pieces and starts yelling while he just stands there as if you were a child. . .


----------



## Annaheru (Feb 10, 2005)

Quite frankly, I'm looking for common sense. This goes for a lot of my friends too, we want a girl who doesn't do stupid/irrational things. Sometimes it seems like intelligence and common sense are diametrically opposed. Many people (guys and girls both ) tend to assume that because they're smart they know what o'clock it is, and that isn't always the case. Earlier in this thread someone talked about smarter women being better at verbal abuse: case in point. An intelligent woman can be truly attractive if they have enough sense to understand that a man and woman work _together_ in a relationship and that they are not interchangeable cogs. No one would use TNT to remove a tooth, no one would use pliers to remove a stump. In many cases intelligent women try to compete with men in business, and to do so they take on some masculine thought processes. By doing so they inhibit natural feminine common sense. Maybe you're thinking "he saying women belong in the kitchen", and to a certain degree I am. BUT, THERE IS NOTHING UNDIGNIFIED OR INFERIOR ABOUT THAT. I found the girl I want to marry, and I love her because she fulfills me, she can do/think/understand the things that I can't and her intelligence (she is pretty smart by the way) has nothing to do with it.

There got that off me chest. . .


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 10, 2005)

Annaheru said:


> ...Many people (guys and girls both ) tend to assume that because they're smart they know what o'clock it is, and that isn't always the case.



"It takes an intelligent person to do something _really_ stupid." —_Stan Forriner_ 

Barley


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Feb 11, 2005)

Annaheru said:


> In many cases intelligent women try to compete with men in business, and to do so they take on some masculine thought processes. By doing so they inhibit natural feminine common sense.



Perhaps I risk sailing too close to the ban on political discussion . . . but I could not let this pass. What, pray tell, are "masculine thought processes"--and for that matter, what constitutes "natural feminine common sense?" What is so wrong with women adopting the "thought processes" required to succeed in business? What is so inconceivable about the possibility that men can exhibit the kind of "common sense" required to exceed in the domestic sphere? And why should we assume that thinking or common sense have anything to do with gender in the first place?


----------



## Annaheru (Feb 11, 2005)

there is a certain ruthlessness to men's thinking, most men (not all) tend to look at life as a logic based puzzle (think strategy). Women (again not all) tend to interpret life through emotion and feeling. When a woman stops listening to her emotions in favor of looking at life as a battle I think she loses something very powerfull. Both men and women have a brand of common sense: men's is fact based, women's feeling based. When a man and a woman use these 2 seperate abilities in cooperation that makes an incredible team. I'm not trying to say that women are incapable of looking at a situation calmly or using facts and logic, nor am I saying men never listen to their emotions. I'm talking about averages, and specialization. I have seen women display extraordinary insight about things to be avoided, and when the men they expressed these feelings to were willing to listen and investigate they soon found facts and reasons to agree.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 11, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Perhaps I risk sailing too close to the ban on political discussion . . . but I could not let this pass...



Good to see you back! 

(Perhaps if we all started sailing "close to the ban" The Powers That Be might see sweet reason in lifting it. After all, none of us are simpleminded here, and I believe that if the ban were lifted, we could discuss things while keeping our heads. The world grows dark outside. And after all, The Censorial Sword hangs over our every post, we just keep forgetting it.)

As for women and men: as an ex-therapist, I can say that in general people marry those who give off "vibes" which remind the other of their family of origin. Some may not agree with this, but it is indeed so. 

If we are reasonably well-adjusted with a reasonable degree of self-esteem we will marry someone whom we can honor and admire as equally worthy, with their own uniquenesses. If we are to a degree dysfunctional, we will tend to marry someone who can "fill in the holes" — what we lack — and therefore not have two separate-but-equal peers, but a kind of pair of psychologically crippled Siamese twins: the dominant/submissive, the good girl/bad boy, the topdog/underdog, the victim/rescuer, the addict/enabler, etc. It is very difficult to maintain equal peer relationships. It takes two well adjusted people.

Barley


----------



## joxy (Feb 11, 2005)

It took four universities to work out this rubbish?
No wonder universities are a mockery and everyone else resents paying for them!
Anyway the statistics produced in such detail from only 450 individuals have to be highly suspicious.
Any number of factors are involved in any marriage, and with these numbers the figures offered may be nothing more than coincidence.
Still, they have given an excuse for this interesting discussion, so I suppose the UK taxpayer has *something* to show for his money....


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Feb 12, 2005)

joxy said:


> Anyway the statistics produced in such detail from only 450 individuals have to be highly suspicious.
> Any number of factors are involved in any marriage, and with these numbers the figures offered may be nothing more than coincidence.



_Finally_, something we agree upon.


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 17, 2005)

I don't believe in divorce.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 17, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> I don't believe in divorce.



That was certanly the prevailing cultural sentiment of the generation of my parents and grandparents. Divorce was equated with "failure." So many folks stayed married for 40, 50, 60 years — and hated each other each and every minute of it! 

Speaking from personal experience, divorce is _better_ than living with someone you can't stand, and who can't stand you, and where none of it can be worked out. Thankfully, my second marriage is exactly the opposite: "There is no heaven like mutual love." —_Granville_

Barley


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 17, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> That was certanly the prevailing cultural sentiment of the generation of my parents and grandparents. Divorce was equated with "failure." So many folks stayed married for 40, 50, 60 years — and hated each other each and every minute of it!
> 
> Speaking from personal experience, divorce is _better_ than living with someone you can't stand, and who can't stand you, and where none of it can be worked out. Thankfully, my second marriage is exactly the opposite: "There is no heaven like mutual love." —_Granville_
> 
> Barley


 
That's fair enough. I also don't believe in flippant marriage.


----------



## Inderjit S (Feb 19, 2005)

Who wants to marry a clever man!


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 21, 2005)

I think I would like to marry a clever man. . .but I don't exactly like the word clever. When I combine the word clever and man I start thinking wiley, foxlike, cunning, sneaky. . .

When I combine the word clever and woman I start thinking foxlike but I usually go more for subtle than sneaky.

I do want brazenly intelligent, knows he is intelligent, is confident about being intelligent, not sneaky about it.

I like arrogance in a man. It is going to be a problem, but I find it attractive.


----------



## Inderjit S (Feb 21, 2005)

"I like arrogance in a man."

So do many women. Do you know that Mr. Darcy was seen as the literary character most women would like to marry? I, personally can't stand the man, but as many girls point out to me , I am not a woman and cannot possible understand why women find arrogant guys so atrractive. Which is a shame really. Plus whether or not a guy is intelligent is very subjective. Some regard (ed) Marx as a genius and others regard him as a fool. I follow the latter school of thought. (That is about as unpolitical as I can get, being a political person, and more importantly, a pedant. Though I dislike pedantry.)

BTW, if I was a woman, and (heaven forbid) I could marry any literary character then it would either be Dobbin from Vanity Fair or Faramir.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 21, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> "I like arrogance in a man."
> 
> So do many women.



???????!!!!!!!! "Many women" are tragically off the rails then... Methinks any woman with reasonable self-esteem and good adjustment at any rate would find that quality getting old in short order. In fact any reasonable woman would avoid arrogance in a man (or anyone) as one would avoid a ripe dead cat.

Barley


----------



## Inderjit S (Feb 21, 2005)

Indeed, I do not really understand or get the whims and taste of women, but I don't think women do either. But perhaps they just find nice guys boring? I don't know and I don't care much since it is no concern of mine what most women like. But nevertheless we all have our whims. I have been told I have a weird taste in women-I come from a family of VERY strong minded women who bully us poor weak men into submission and I would find it strange and frankly scary if I had a (in any way) subservient wife, hence my rather strong "thing" for strong-minded women who like to bully me. But then again lots of men find subservient women attractive and like to be the heads of the household-again I refer to Barliman's rather interesting analogy-subservient women should be avoided like a "riped dead cat." And I still can't get smilies on my screen. I have only realised now how witty they are.


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 21, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> I refer to Barliman's rather interesting analogy-subservient women should be avoided like a "riped dead cat."


Didn't he say that about arrogant men?


----------



## Inderjit S (Feb 21, 2005)

"Didn't he say that about arrogant men"

Yes, but I was using his analogy to describe my point. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 21, 2005)

Got it!  
I agree with the both of you.


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 23, 2005)

Men will never understand women.

Arrogance is a quality that can get old, but so is sensitivity, and I would rather be frustrated with a guy for being arrogant for him being so annoyingly nice to me.

Women don't want perfection. We find it frightening. I would find a guy who was nicer than me to be frightening.

I want a guy who can stand up for himself and myself at the same time, who can knock down other men verbally in a way I can't. I want a guy who knows who he is or at least thinks he does. I want a guy who I can smile at for being an idiotic braggart and feel superior when I let him have his way about an issue when I know I am right. 

It's a weakness, but it is an alluring one.

Girls want Mr. Darcy. They want Han Solo, the often stupid but very confident guy, not Luke who slobbers all over you. 

I don't want fawned over. I want overwhelmed.

Now that arrogance can be bad is undeniable. That a guy can be overwhelming in a good way or a bad way is undeniable. . .but it is worth the risk for the excitement.

I am what is considered a "good girl." I plan to always be one. There is a challenge to "bad boys" that there isn't to nice ones.


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 23, 2005)

What about Lando?


----------



## Inderjit S (Feb 23, 2005)

"Women don't want perfection. We find it frightening. I would find a guy who was nicer than me to be frightening."

Everybody should be scared of perfection because it is robot like, but being _nice_ is not the same as _perfect_, perfection is subjective for one, and no man, no matter how nice he is, is perfect. 

As I said, I will never understand women nor why they like arrogant guys, and I don't think I ever will, nor do I, to tell the truth, desire to.


----------



## Valandil (Feb 23, 2005)

This comes close to touching on a memorable discussion I had many years ago.

What do you want more from the person you would be with: their love, or their respect?

Being 18 or 19 at the time, I thought it would universally be 'their love'.

However, the consensus of the group (many of whom were older than me) was that for women, the answer would be "(a man's) love" - while for men, the answer would be "(a woman's) respect".

I sort of see this in HLG's desire to give respect.

In other words, men seek a woman's respect from their relationship while women seek a man's love from their relationship.

Never been much of a 'bad boy' myself - unfortunately!  Not sure if it's better for an old dog to try and learn new tricks... or to just let sleeping dogs lie.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 23, 2005)

Valandil said:


> ...What do you want more from the person you would be with: their love, or their respect?



The question itself is a contrivance, like so many other either/or questions which try to force a decision for one thing at the loss of the other. To such questions I say _baloney!!!_ 

Love and respect go together as two parts of a whole constellation of desirable qualities.

It is my experience that the first thing that must be in place is a genuine and enduring _friendship_ — an element of which is respect — and from the tree of genuine friendship grows the fruit of true love.

Barley


----------



## Valandil (Feb 23, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> The question itself is a contrivance, like so many other either/or questions which try to force a decision for one thing at the loss of the other. To such questions I say _baloney!!!_



While I agree wholeheartedly that the optimum arrangement is the combination of the two, I disagree that the question itself is useless.

The answer we arrive at upon giving it serious consideration can tell us much about ourselves.

*EDIT: * You can be so... *arrogant!!*


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 24, 2005)

Valandil said:


> While I agree wholeheartedly that the optimum arrangement is the combination of the two, I disagree that the question itself is useless.
> 
> The answer we arrive at upon giving it serious consideration can tell us much about ourselves.
> 
> *EDIT: * You can be so... *arrogant!!*



I didn't say it was useless, I said it was a contrivance, a false structure forcing an either/or answer that may miss the point, and miss the true nature of the subject under discussion. 

Our entire English language is structured on either/or bifurcations that lack subtlety. Chinese and Japanese on the other hand can trod the razor's edge between with no difficulty, giving their speakers a decided edge (no pun intended) in terms of thinking in precise gradations of intention and meaning. Most English speakers can't even _conceive_ of such thought constructs. And "arrogant?" Are you talking to _moi?_ "Whatever we say, we are speaking of ourselves." —Anon.

Barley


----------



## Valandil (Feb 24, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> ... And "arrogant?" Are you talking to _moi?_



Oh - I meant that in the very best possible way - in light of how this conversation has progressed.  (though still, you do tend toward outright dismissiveness toward ideas with which you disagree or decide to take issue)



Barliman Butterbur said:


> I didn't say it was useless, I said it was a contrivance, a false structure forcing an either/or answer that may miss the point, and miss the true nature of the subject under discussion.
> 
> ... "Whatever we say, we are speaking of ourselves." —Anon.



You're not saying though, that you're a 'false structure' are you?


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 24, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Our entire English language is structured on either/or bifurcations that lack subtlety. Chinese and Japanese on the other hand can trod the razor's edge between with no difficulty, giving their speakers a decided edge (no pun intended) in terms of thinking in precise gradations of intention and meaning. Most English speakers can't even _conceive_ of such thought constructs.


That's what I love so much about English. You can pass an insult off as a compliment, you can insinuate without drawing to a conflict. It is possible to be deliberately vague so as to escape interrogation while appearing to answer the question. When the other person points out that you didn't answer their question, they have set _themselves_ up as hostile, giving you the high ground, and all sorts of conversational advantages. It's even better in England, because most British people will do anything to avoid conflict.
I don't doubt that these partisan conversational methods are used in other languages also, but I do love the vagueness of English


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 28, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> What about Lando?


 
Well, I just brought up Solo because it is an interesting point, a girls celebrity crushes.

Celebrity crushes are fantasies, what a girl wants to dream about but not what she wants in real life or what she will marry. If you trace my celebrity crushes, Han Solo was the first.

Followed by Indiana Jones, Aragorn, and most recently Tom Paris. All men with an extreme amount of confidence. Aragorn is the most humble of the lot. 

I think the love and respect question is interesting if you turn it around. 

I mean, you can love someone by showing them respect and you can respect somehow by showing them love.


----------



## Zale (Mar 1, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> most British people will do anything to avoid conflict.



Yeah, right. You haven't been talking to the right English people! Some of us like argueing as much as anyone else.

Back on topic: I suggest you try ladder theory (google it) for an interesting - if skewed - viewpoint on the subject.

From personal experience I would say that confidence counts for more than arrogance, and that you can't really love someone without respecting them.


----------



## Hammersmith (Mar 1, 2005)

IMO the ladder theory was created by a lonely and unpleasant loser, and I cannot see it applied in any of the people I know.

HLG - I asked about Lando because he's a sophisticated and smarmy version of Han


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 1, 2005)

Valandil said:


> Oh - I meant that in the very best possible way - in light of how this conversation has progressed.  (though still, you do tend toward outright dismissiveness toward ideas with which you disagree or decide to take issue)...You're not saying though, that you're a 'false structure' are you?



Oh, how wickedly clever you are, and at my expense, too...I'm crushed...  

Barley


----------

