Sex and smarts have always been at odds with each other culturally for some reason I haven’t been able to identify yet. Everyone is aware of this fact and yet, despite my many inquiries into the subject, no one I’ve talked to seems to fully understand this odd relationship. That makes me feel at once smart and stupid, which makes me feel at once sexy and unattractive. And that is, in fact, quite a strange relationship, wouldn’t you say?
There is a double standard in this. Smart people are considered sexy, desirable, and clearly wanted for their smarts. At the same time, smart people are the ones most often considered to be the least sexy for all other reasons. When we are younger, the smart people are the nerds and dorks who are bookworms, loners, and considered “losers,” and are most certainly part of the populous that is most unfuckable.
After all, schooling and education has never been thought to be about intelligence but rather preparation for the great, holy, more-important goal of becoming a productive member of society. Well, it certainly does a good job of trying to make you conform to fit its molds, and it makes most people miserable in the process. It’s not about you, it’s about what you can do for your country: school is patriotism at its worst.
Yet, when we are no longer in school and no longer find ourselves in environments where a sense of belonging (wanting to be “one of the popular kids”) is more important to us than a sense of safety (“how am I going to pay these bills?”), suddenly being smart is a huge sexual asset. This is obviously because “smart” people are generally far more capable at providing safety than dumb ones.
Or are they?
Let’s take a look at that assumption for a moment. I was taught, even threatened, throughout much of my life that intelligence is what I needed to make my way through the world. “If you don’t get straight A’s,” I was once told as a boy, “you’ll never get into a good college and you’ll have a harder time of finding a good job and then you’ll never be able to make it as an adult.”
Parenting tip from me to you: if you ever want to really scare a child, tell them they’ll never make it as an adult. It’s not going to make them do what you tell them to, but it’s certainly going to give them second thoughts about wanting to wake up the next morning. Or maybe they’ll just become obsessed with Peter Pan.
As we become sexualized, we are indoctrinated with another gem of a truism: “Women’s value comes from their sex appeal: To succeed as a woman, just be sexy.” According to conventional gender wisdom, all women in positions like CEOs, businesspeople, politicians, or other leadership roles probably got there by fucking the real decision-maker’s brains out (who was obviously a man). Likewise, women who are actresses, models, or any other field based largely on looks have to be a very specific kind of beautiful, and, naturally, sexy in some way.
Even though we know intellectually that this just isn’t always accurate, it’s still considered to be implacable. Today, after long, hard battles fought primarily by feminists, women are allowed to be smart—they just also have to be sexy. If they’re not, their smarts stop being a good thing and turn into a bad thing. As a woman, if you’re too smart, suddenly your brain has become a huge liability.
And what’s “too smart”? A recent New York Times article, Should Hillary Pretend to Be a Flight Attendant? makes the case that “too smart” means “smarter than men.” As part of his conclusions on a two-year speed-dating study, Mr. Fisman, who is a Columbia economics professor, is quoted as saying the following about men’s perceptions of a woman’s intelligence:
…even in the 21st century, many men are still straitjacketed in stereotypes.
[…]
“We found that men did put significantly more weight on their assessment of a partner’s beauty, when choosing, than women did. We also found that women got more dates when they won high marks for looks.â€
He continued: “By contrast, intelligence ratings were more than twice as important in predicting women’s choices as men’s. It isn’t exactly that smarts were a complete turnoff for men: They preferred women whom they rated as smarter — but only up to a point … It turns out that men avoided women whom they perceived to be smarter than themselves. The same held true for measures of career ambition — a woman could be ambitious, just not more ambitious than the man considering her for a date.
This is hardly surprising, though it is rather depressing and the short New York Times article makes this point with such starkness that it is also very remarkable. I can imagine most feminists are seeing this as a battle cry to “protect the rights of smart women,” a noble and important goal to be sure:
Catalyst, an organization that studies women in the workplace, found that women who behave in ways that cleave to gender stereotypes — focusing on collegiality and relationships — are seen as less competent. But if they act too macho, they are seen as “too tough†and “unfeminine.â€
Ms. Belkin said that another study shows that men — and female secretaries — are not considered less competent if they dress sexy at work, but female executives are.
Women still tend to be timid about negotiating salaries and raises. Men ask for more money at eight times the rate of women.
Victoria Brescoll, a Yale researcher, found that men who get angry at the office gain stature and clout, even as women who get angry lose stature because they are seen as out of control.
However, for all this research focused on women, I am wondering where the analysis of the men is happening, if it’s happening at all! Specifically, the question we need to ask is not (only) “why are women judged so harshly on looks,” but rather “why are men so afraid of their own shortcomings?” And indeed, men have stereotypically always been afraid of their own (ahem) shortcomings, haven’t they?
Whatever dating studies reveal, part of the key to empowering women lies with understanding men. Not just masculinity, but men. Not just their gender role, but their gender identity. Not just who they are and how they behave, but why they behave the way they do.
We always need to ask why. Always. And, we need to have solid reasons for our answers.
So why is a smart and sexy woman threatening to a man? I posit that it might have something to do with a perceived disparity of privilege and, more specifically, with the fact that our culture sees value in a woman’s appearance that it does not see in a man’s. A woman’s sexiness is based on (surprise!) sex, whereas a man’s sexiness is based on smarts, power, influence, or money, which is, let’s see here…not sex (though these things certainly can be made sexual and when they are I find them rather sexy).
The point is that a man can’t be considered sexy unless he’s also got something else going for him, and a woman can’t have something else going for her unless she’s also considered sexy. This is why my painfully-obviously brilliant friend Calico and I end up talking for hours about why I don’t feel sexy and why she doesn’t feel valued in non-sexual ways even though I’ve been told countless times that I’m sexy and wanted and even though she’s been told countless times that she’s supremely intelligent (and not just by me).
In the end, to the world at large, it doesn’t matter. I get judged on my smarts, and she gets judged on her looks. And that’s not fair to either one of us.
All of this begs the question: so what’s the value of intelligence? And what’s the value of sexiness? I don’t really know how to answer those questions (beyond elementary concerns) yet, but I’m starting to wonder if the answers we once thought had to be so different from one another actually may be more alike than we could possibly have imagined.
by Boston Boy
21 Dec 2007 at 01:10
I’m at a point of the year where I should be studying all the time, so of course instead I’m reading blogs. Sorry, there’s a fair chance I’ll be one of the first commenters on anything on your blog, Eileen’s, or Calico’s.
I’m glad to finally see I’ve escaped a common male stereotype…it’s about time! In every standard measure of intelligence I’ve come out below my girlfriend, and so far am quite ok with it. Partly because I’ve done ok in such things myself, and partly because I don’t put much credence in the value in those particular yardsticks–hopefully I won’t have to confront the fact that those two rationalizations contradict each other.
Your particular theory is a standard and accepted one in an evolutionarily psychology framework, in that health/fertility is thought to be a main quality desired by men, and this can be inferred from a woman’s physical appearance with some accuracy, to a large extent by looking at a woman’s waist to hip ratio: and in fact the waist to hip ratio is the main physical factor of female physical attractivess. Whereas men’s ability to provide for a mate and offspring is the most desirable one for women, and this has less correlation (though not none) with men’s physical appearance, and more with the other things you mention.
But that doesn’t explain what role intelligence should play in this framework. I have a hard time seeing why female intelligence should become a negative feature for women. One would think it would be seen as an asset, having demonstrable survival value that would be passed on to offspring. All that occurs to me is that, from an evolutionary perspective, men could be wary of more intelligent women, fearful that such women may be able to successfully cuckold them without the men realizing, thus wasting the men’s time or resources, and in extreme cases leaving him no offspring at all. But that’s extraordinarily speculative, pulled directly out of my ass, and the sort of thing that any schmuck with the right academic credentials could probably get a grant from a major university to try to prove, which is why a lot of people don’t like evolutionary psychology. Hell, someone’s probably already written a paper on it: nope, just checked the PsychArticles online database, I could still try to get this published, with a footnote acknowledgment thanking you for inspiration.
And now I see where I went wrong a few months ago: I should have tried to pull Calico into an e-mail correspondence chess game, not you. I’m not sure I’m wired properly to physically appreciate you as you deserve, except to say you were real fun to wrestle that one time, and showed a ridiculous amount of potential.
by Rona
21 Dec 2007 at 07:14
Boston Boy:
Did you see the article that came out about a month or so ago that, actually, also linked waist/hip ratio to female intelligence and intelligence of offspring? (It has to do with that type of weight distribution providing more of a certain neurochemical that’s important for brain development than what is found in apple shaped or, for lack of a better word, linear women.) I pulled the paper expecting to pull it to shreds on methodology, but it was actually far more interesting than the newspaper coverage.
May:
There is a ton of stuff to think about here. I need to comment when I’m less sleepy.
by Toni
21 Dec 2007 at 10:48
I don’t see why you have such an axe to grind about intelligence and desirability you are clearly very smart, (although I doubt you are anywhere near as clever as you think you are) and the depth of your sexual experiences relayed through your blog suggests that you have little trouble in attracting partners. Despite knowing little, (or caring little), about womens feelings and emotional needs I have had no trouble in attracting females throughout my life and I can assure that if you have as much female attention as your blog suggests then it is not just about your smarts.
I understand that you are challenging stereotypes, but these exist for a reason, despite coming from a family that has a number of over-achieving females, (my mother for example is a human-rights lawyer who speaks several languages and her mother was even more highly regarded), I make no excuses for my misogynistic viewpoint. I retired 10 years ago, when I was 27, but due to my reckless lifestyle I have had to accept consultancy roles to earn some money and have worked for a number of women, at the UK division of a leading US bank, I think my boss was, at the time the most senior woman in American finance. She fitted every sterotype of the agressive business woman and when she was sacked for massive trading losses, I didn’t revel in her downfall like some of the old school men did but I do recall thinking “hey she took it like a man” one of her female underlings in New York who ran the emerging market desk whined like a bitch and tried to blame everyone but herself. I suppose, because of the way you identify yourself, that you look forward to the blurring of the gender roles, but to be honest I am glad they still exist. If I had my way the differences would be even more defined, although it is clear that the sterotypical male role is being increasingly marginalised.
Anyway good luck in Australia, I have never been there, the nearest I got was Papua New Guinea. Oz is the stranger in Asia, so I recommend you to pay a visit to your neighbours. Bali is so close and so beautiful, Fiji is incredible and if you are that close, you should pay a visit to my second home – Bangkok.
by Chris
21 Dec 2007 at 16:35
I found you post interesting, Toni, although I am having a little difficulty figuring out exactly where you stand. I would say that if you would prefer stronger gender roles, it would be difficult for Maymay or others to convince you otherwise in this sort of forum. However, I will simply say that constraining gender roles may have certain benefits, but they can also have real costs. You might enjoy reading some writing on the issue that takes the other perspective. If you enjoy theory, the book I mentioned in a previous post “Contemporary Perspectives on Masculinity” by Kenneth Clatterbaugh might raise some interesting questions. Even more so, however, I would recommend “Gender Outlaw” by Kate Bornstein. It is well written, has a sense of humor, isn’t preachy… yet still makes a pretty good argument for why gender roles might be best seen as flexible. Hope that helps…
by Toni
21 Dec 2007 at 17:13
Thanks for the reading list Chris, but I have little time left for books and if I am going to read anything I will reread old friends like A Tale of Two Cities or anything by my favourite yank author, Thorne Smith. I thought I was fairly clear that I believe in more traditional gender roles, but it is clear that the world is moving to a more gender neutral place. I have little problem with that, because I doubt I will be around to see it. The quacks already believe I will never see 40. My experiences are strange, but nobody knows what will happen next – I personally believe that Bernanke and Paulson are setting the stage for the biggest crash since the inbetween years. I am probably wrong, I hope so.
Maymay is a smart boy and I am sure he will figure out his perspective on the whole gender thing in time. I can almost guarantee that if he spends any time in Asia he will rediscover the joy of being a man, mind you I have seen some pictures of him and I would recommend he takes care to stay out of the sun!
by Tom Allen
21 Dec 2007 at 19:06
What? Another Thorne Smith fan?
Toni, I’d never have expected that. Hell, I’m surprised that anybody even knows who he is!
by SJ
21 Dec 2007 at 20:45
I have frequently felt like smart is the only thing I have going for me. I’m trying to feel less like that, because I’m told it’s not true. I still tend to avoid things which make me feel less smart. People who could be smarter than me are always at least intimidating, and even more so if they have a lot of other things going for them – as you and Calico both do.
It seems to me that as long as one fits a stereotypical role well enough, one is allowed more ‘quirks’ and ‘eccentricities’. The wealthy and the beautiful have their leeway, and the ragged, the lost, and the mad have their own expected measures of ‘bizarre’. If you’re ‘man’ enough, you can like lace doilies, and if you’re ‘woman’ enough you can dig trucks or be a brain – and it’s OK. As long as you do your ‘job’ and know your place and nobody has to think about what you actually are – as long as you’re close enough to the slot in their mind where they think you should fit, so they don’t have to think about you at all.
I think there are some hardware-level things going on here. I think there’s limited computational resources, and we’re evolved to be lazy evaluators. Yet another argument for becoming post-human.
by Dw3t-Hthr
22 Dec 2007 at 01:23
My experience is that … well, to be pithy: I was too smart to ever be pretty.
It shapes a lot of things.
by maymay
22 Dec 2007 at 02:59
Boston Boy:
While this is certainly plausible, it returns once again to my point, which is that we need to better understand men and their motivations before we can confidently say we truly and fully understand the reasons behind their demonstrable behaviors. In this case, that behavior is fear once again and again I refer to my post above where I ask: “why are men so afraid of their own shortcomings?”
As for the chess game I never got back to you about, you’re right, you should have tried to pull Calico into that. As you discovered when we wrestled (which really was a ton of fun!) it’s surprisingly hard to pull me into anything. ;)
Rona:
No, I didn’t! But I would like to! Link? Also, I am looking forward to your less-sleepy comments should you feel you want to share them with me, here or via email or however. :)
SJ:
Actually, if you’re man enough, you can get away with liking lace doilies, only up to a point. The common reasoning for this is simply because liking lace doilies is not something men do, so that makes you “less manly,” which is only counterbalanced by the fact that you also have your shotgun and deer’s head proudly displayed in your living room and you have thirty women hanging off your arm at any given moment. God help you if you ever stop being manly “enough,” and therein lies the problem: you’ve not defined masculinity or manliness, you’re living by someone else’s rules.
That’s hardly what I’d call a self-fulfilling lifestyle.
I can’t say I disagree with the notion that some people are simply not as capable in certain ways as other people, but I also can’t say I believe that this is as simple as the binary of “smart” and “dumb.” Intelligence is made up of many, many differing components in much the same way as sexuality; different “amounts” of the different kinds of intelligence evident in different people cause their smarts to be displayed more in some ways and not others (see, for instance, the brilliant (and hilarious) talk by Sir Ken Robinson on TED Talks, or Daniel Goleman’s work on Emotional Intelligence). Clearly, there is more to it than that.
by maymay
22 Dec 2007 at 03:19
Toni:
Thanks, though the fact of the matter is I do have significant trouble attracting partners. I don’t really have that much trouble attracting certain kinds of women (or some types of men), but there is a difference between a woman and a partner and (contrary to popular male belief) it is not always just about their genitals. Perhaps if you cared more about other people, as I do, you might see things differently.
Of course, seeing things differently is precisely what we’re talking about here, isn’t it? The trouble I have with your viewpoint is not that it exists, but that I am expected to give up my own and use yours instead, simply because, since I am a man, I have been told to do so. It is not blurring of gender roles I am trying to accomplish, it is freedom to choose one’s gender role. I enjoy some aspects of the masculine gender role and I would not want to give those up, but I do not enjoy others and I do not see why I should live by your rules or use your viewpoint when mine suits me better. Yet the kind of man I want to be is a second-class citizen in this culture, and I suffer for that, as do the millions of other men who, like me, do not see things your way.
The difference between you and I, Toni, is that you would rather not see me as a man, whereas I would rather not see a man as one homogeneous thing. That is why where you see the stereotypical male role being marginalized, I simply see the male role being given more expressive options.
All that would do is show me what your joys of being a man are like, and frankly I am not that interested in learning too much about you, though your continued presence on this blog circuit is admittedly quite the interesting puzzle.
by Toni
22 Dec 2007 at 07:22
Maymay, I am sure you are right in everything you say. My views on masculinity and on life in general have been shaped by the unique circumstances of my life, as everyones are. I wouldn’t wish my life on anybody, on reflection I have had some good times but it has been a constant struggle. You are right that I have little interest in other people of any gender or orientation, I fully realised this about 3 years ago when the ex-girlfriend, the Thai princess, stated, matter of factly to me “you are unkind” she didn’t mean it as an insult, just as a character flaw she had identified. It threw me a little as I had always considered myself a decent enough person. Another time, after her and her sister had been making merit, which is a thing that wealthy Thais do, I think they had taken money and gifts to the orfanage for retarded children nd I made some cynical comments, she pointed out how disconnected from real people I am. I don’t believe I am but I accept I have a somewhat blinkered view and this is why it matters little to me what you think about my viewpoint and I certainly would not try and impose my values on you or anyone else. As for why I remain on this blog circuit, while it is true I have far too much time on my hands and am currently incapicitated, I do enjoy reading and there is a surprisingly high level of interesting content on this section of the internet.
Tom, I can’t believe you are a Thorne Smith fan. I started reading his books when I was 11, my first was Rain In The Doorway and then, inevitably, Topper. I still reread them constantly but lately I am most drawn to The Stray Lamb and Skin and Bones. What is your favourite? No one writes the way Mr.Smith did, I have a collection of beaten up first editions and when I open up Nightlife of the Gods, I am transported to the decadent 20’s.
by Rona
22 Dec 2007 at 11:50
I don’t think that these days society necessarily has that much trouble valuing women for their brains without them being sexy… I think it has trouble valuing them as both. Just speaking personally, I have rarely had a problem getting anyone to take my brain seriously (there have been exceptions, but they’re exceptions, not the rule). I don’t think that would have been the case, however, had I looked like Calico. Beautiful girls, girls men want to possess, are threatening to a lot of men if they’re also smart. You don’t want your possessions competing with you. On the other hand, ugly, or even plain, girls aren’t potentially possessions, so their intelligence isn’t as problematic. They just get their femininity dismissed. They’re valued as long as they don’t try to act like women. Personally, I think that’s more where the gender divide lives. I don’t know, though. I was never a typical girl. The only thing that I was raised to think of as important was success – and success in a field that values brains.
by Tom Allen
22 Dec 2007 at 12:10
::laughs::
Toni, I started on Nightlife of the Gods when I was a young teenager, drawn, I’m sure, to the cutely sexy pictures of Herberrt Roese. Some years later I discovered at my parent’s winter place the trilogy book that has Topper Takes a Trip, Nightlife of the Gods and The Bishop’s Jaegers. My favorite is still Topper Takes a Trip, and I think I re-read it once a year. I’ve got a decent collection of them, most given to me from an uncle who was amazed that I knew of them at all. Somewhere on the net I even found a number of them in e-book format, which I converted to read on my Palm.
What amazes me is that even though many of the situations and dialogue are dated, there is so much that is just as fresh and … naughty almost a century after the books were written.
I’d be a Thorne Smith fangirl if I were a girl. He’s like, um, a 1920’s Douglas Adams, but a bit more risque.
by Toni
22 Dec 2007 at 12:51
Rona, you may be right – when I worked in the city plain girls were not seriously regarded as a threat no matter how ambitious they were.
Tom, did you ever see the black & white movie of Topper, Cary Grant is perfection as George Kirby, I think I saw that website you are talking about, Thorne Smiths books are out of copyright protection now, I wonder why no screenwriter has produced a screenplay of The Stray Lamb or Turn and Turn and turnabout. I should do it myself. I used to know a very good screenwriter – mind you he despised his job, he still dreamed of winning a Pullitzer, I think he shot himself in Mexico about five years ago. He wrote a script called The Glass Cage and his agent sold it to Playboy who made it into a porn movie, it was probably his best pay day ever but it was the final insult for a man who regarded himself as a serious writer.
by Switch
24 Dec 2007 at 01:04
In the professional world women are valued there for being beautiful or intellingent or both. But a women who is more successful or intelligent than her husband boyfriend or lover makes a mockary of him just by existing. Why I do not know but couples in which the man is more intelligent than the woman pass without comment or censure. The reverse always inspires negative comment. The sin is not being brainy, but being noticably brainier than your man.
Pingback
by Meitar Moscovitz (maymaym) 's status on Tuesday, 20-Oct-09 18:01:41 UTC - Identi.ca
20 Oct 2009 at 14:01
[…] http://maybemaimed.com/2007/12/20/the-sexism-of-sex-and-smarts/ a few seconds ago from web […]
Pingback
by Maybe Maimed but Never Harmed › Breasts AND brains are good for humanity & deserve respect! Introducing: Femquake
25 Apr 2010 at 19:06
[…] smart is sexy, and sexy is smart, […]
Pingback
by Maybe Maimed but Never Harmed › Femquaker: Shanna Katz, Sex-Positive Sexuality Educator
26 Apr 2010 at 06:17
[…] boobs are often found together in competent, sexy women (whether female-assigned at birth or not). Don’t coerce women into being proud of one of these things over the other, or into feeling ashamed of […]
by dustin
22 May 2011 at 11:23
“Yet the kind of man I want to be is a second-class citizen in this culture, and I suffer for that, as do the millions of other men who, like me, do not see things your way.”
do you believe there’s a stature which, once attained, will “justify” the physical/emotional efforts involved in your existing? and, if society refuses to recognize you at this level (as “first class”, etc), is it your responsibility to change the way that society operates? i battle feelings of uselessness when i’m unable to create value – even within a community whose views i’ve redacted – but i don’t believe that these feelings are (or should be) intrinsically linked with something as ephemeral as social status.
if my intelligence has any kind of sexual appeal i’m not using it correctly. in this sense, i’ll be extremely lucky if i can create one meaningful, enduring connection with another person.
rationally, though – what i’d like to believe – is that, even if my path leads me away from the bright dreams of wealth, stature, success, fertility, etc, there are worlds of opportunity to take pleasure in nearly every aspect of reality. i think society’s goal-driven culture clouds, underrates and perhaps purposefully distorts these pleasures for the sake of increasing our productivity and improving the profitability of our economies.
which is not to say that gender stereotypes are not unfortunate, or that everyone gets “what they deserve” – just that social regard, wealth and beauty are not prerequisites for living successfully.
by Rididill
24 May 2011 at 15:17
Maymay, just discovered your blog and have been absorbed for hours now. Amazing stuff.
As much as I hear about this stuff being supposedly true, funnily enough I have spent most of my (sex) life considered both smart and sexy. Not a single time in my 25 years and many sexual partners have I ever felt that my intelligence was seen as a bad thing, or something that made me less attractive.
I’m not trying to say my experience is universal or anything like that, it just staggers me a little how this trope is supposed to be so common yet exists entirely outside of my personal experience and that of my peer groups.
This might sound a little intolerant I suppose, but honestly anyone who showed that attitude to me would be out the door in five seconds. I just don’t see, if you respect yourself, how you could be attracted to someone who considers your intelligence a liability. So why does this cause problems? Seems to me it’s only a problem if an intelligent woman is attracted to a man who doesn’t like female intelligence… so why do women find that attractive? Isn’t that kind of absurd? I don’t mean to sound insulting, but I would like to hear an explanation if anyone has one…