Stupid Smart Women

ntlbell

G'em by highly educated do you mean you have a degree?

How do you judge the level of your intelligence? IQ tests?

Nuravictus

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Basically what I was trying to say in my OP :P

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know guys who do the same it's not just women.
If they don't want to interact at that level when they are out then it is their right
to live thier lives that way. If you prefer more stimulating friends and aquantices
who can have those types of gregarious conversations then then surround yourself
with them and quit worrying about other people.

ntlbell

Thaedydal wrote: »

If you prefer more stimulating friends and aquantices
who can have those types of gregarious conversations then then surround yourself
with them and quit worrying about other people.

It sounds like he all ready does.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nevyn

ntlbell wrote: »

It sounds like he all ready does.

I'd be the same, got asked recently did I not know anyone 'normal'
and my reply was 'nope I'm blessed that way'.
But I don't see the point in getting worked up about people who are not
into living life the way I do, unless they are causing some serious harm
and we have laws for that mostly.

Yes the amount of apathy and lack of awareness on certain issues and
lack of activism can do my head in but people are who they are
and it's up to me to then leave them to it or agitate as I see fit.
But I am not going to get bent out of shape over it, as it's beyond my control.*


*

At least until my minions take over the country and I can make some drastic changes.

CDfm

Nuravictus wrote: »

I did it for 3 months when both my parents were ill, yes its that easy. Your breaking all my Stereotypes btw, Would you mind stopping.

Me too. I thought it was a guy thing:D

Nevyn

I don't see it as being gendered at all.
While I do acknowledge men and women can communicate in vastly different ways
as I have alread menting debate vs discussion and that they can have different
priorties when it comes to socail interactions and the ammount of information they glean from them I do not think the lack of want or need to enguage on current affairs is a strict gender divide.

I think most men will find ANY non personal topic to talk about for hours
and many women will be while on the surface talking about soaps be gleaning info
about each other and their lives and the lives of people in their life's.

That I think is the gendered differences when it comes to social conversations.

g'em

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh Lordy it's not snobbery to talk about it, no. But I find it snobbyish to look down on those who choose not to, which is a feeling I find to be quite prevalent in the thread.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

That's a very good point actually, I suppose I picked up on the current affairs/ politics theme because it was the example being used most, but in the subjects that I do choose to talk about (9 times out of ten it's the science of lifting) I would talk about them in an intelligent way. To a lot of people talking about weightlifting or going to the gym wouldn't exactly be seen as rocket science, but when you're as heavily involved in it as I am you invariably end up discussing various elements of physiology, biochemistry, chemistry, physics, sociology and engineering to further your training.

\goes off to ponder that post and reassess my stance in the thread...

ntlbell wrote: »

G'em by highly educated do you mean you have a degree?

How do you judge the level of your intelligence? IQ tests?

I have a Masters and I suppose I'd use a variety of different parameters and testing methods. I've got strong intrapersonal, interpersonal, kinesthetic, verbal & linguistic and visual intelligence but weak logistical/ mathematical intelligence - I don't see intelligence as one single measurable entity to be honest. Why do you ask?

Dragan

donegalfella wrote: »

Is it really "intellectual snobbery" to talk about current affairs?

Nope, but it IS intellectual snobbery to think that the reason other people don't is because they are stupid, or unable to keep up. They simply just may not be interest. My own interest in things like economics and politics would be limited, it is just not something that floats my boat. Give me Art, Photography, Physics, the natural world etc and i am far more inclined to become involved in the conversation.

Is expressing an opinion on the Gaza conflict or the global economic downturn—events that are perennially in the news these days—akin to striking up a conversation about the Byzantine influence on early Venetian Renaissance art, or the New York Philharmonic's latest interpretation of Mahler's Third Symphony?

The answer to this is striking circumstancial...if the person you are talking to has no interest in any of the above topics then yes....they are the same...to that person.

What I personally find odd about this thread is the number of women who have stated some version of: "I'm a highly educated and intelligent individual, but when I'm not at work I only want to talk about lighthearted things that entertain me." I say this is odd because most educated, intelligent people of my acquaintance don't apply their knowledge and insight only to their work lives. Even when socializing, they can have thoughtful, stimulating—and, yes, entertaining—conversations that touch on any number of topics, from literature, music, and cinema to politics, science, and current affairs. They don't see a rigid dividing line between intelligent conversation and social conversation. So I find it odd that so many posters here are insisting on this delineation.

Don't be fooled that because g'em says she likes to switch off post work means all she does is sit around and watch tv and talk about shoes. I have had some conversations with a switched off g'em about all kinds of topics that have been both enourmously interesting, hugely entertaining and even a little bit educational.

Personally, i think that people are getting too hung up on the whole dividing line thing. Subjects will either be in an individuals sphere of interest or outside of it, and they will generally get involved in ones that interest them. It's human nature.

When i am at home i would consider myself to be switched off, work can take it's toll after all and i like to relax in the evenings. That said, when switched off i will both read and discuss elements of art and photographic theory, literary themes, science papaers, biological and chemist studies etc etc etc

Because these things interest me, it is far, far easier for my brain to assimilate information and produce returns in coversation. If i arrived home and people were talking about aspects of the EU, chances are i would find conversation and even interest to be much more of a struggle. I will keep myself up to date on happenings and world events, simply because they impact me and interest me on that very low level, that they exist within the same world that i do, but that is it.

I think part of the insistance of the difference is due to the fact that we are trying to express ourselves in text, and that is not always easy. I think another part of it is that it is natural to do so, you draw a line between work and play and the majority of people that post here will have a job that taxes them mentally.

Personally, i find a large part of ME not getting involved in a conversation is when the person who instigates it appears to be doing so purely to use it as their own vehicle, they are not interested in conversation or debate, only in expressing their view and having someone listen to it.

brianthebard

g'em wrote: »

Although Nuravictus has somewhat hamfistedly brought the biology card into play I don't see that the argument is oversimplistic at all. Perhaps it is for a sociolgoist (I forget what kind of -ologist you are brian, but it's an artsy one isn't it? )

I'm special.

Neither does appreciating that we're driven by primal biological forces in any way suggest that we're living in the Stone Age. We are, after all, animals, no matter how much you try and argue otherwise.

I could equally argue that by refuting the theory you are doing a disservice to the many generations of scientists and great thinkers who have created the foundations of thinking upon which many of those gender nonspecific roles are built. Are you saying that evolutionary theories and the role of biology cannot be married with sociological theory? As a scientist who strongly believes in basic biological teachings (and teach it myself) are you saying that I am doing disservice to myself to do so, and that I am incapable of questioning my role as a result? Am I not capable of believing and questioning at the same time?

And vaguely back OT I find the intellectual snobbery in this thread absolutely hilarious. I'm a highly educated individual and intelligent to boot (although not without y share of blonde moments). I rarely, if ever, talk about current affairs or politics in my down-time. It's not because I want to dumb myself down or appear a certain way, it's simply that I have limited interest in it, and would much rather be talking about what genuinely entertains me.

What I'm saying is science should not be an explanation for society, because it is too constraining to use it as such and leads to attempts to immobilise people. I'm not going to go into nineteenth century examples, but even what the poster above was saying earlier about gender suggests that because men and women have always been x,y,z, they can only ever be x,y,z. Butler attempts to show the limits of how far this sort of social theory can go and does it quite well imo (but is by no means universally accepted).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ntlbell

g'em wrote: »

I have a Masters and I suppose I'd use a variety of different parameters and testing methods. I've got strong intrapersonal, interpersonal, kinesthetic, verbal & linguistic and visual intelligence but weak logistical/ mathematical intelligence - I don't see intelligence as one single measurable entity to be honest. Why do you ask?

It was out of curiosity it's not often I ever hear people claiming themselves to be highly intelligent so if one does I'm curious to what brought them to that conclusion.

I have excellent recall for example and can pass exams without blinking an eye I excel in my job because of it but the truth of it is I'm not very bright.

I just have good recall nothing more nothing less so on paper I look impressive when you look at how I perform in work it looks very impressive but the fact is I'm a moron with a good memory.

ntlbell

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

couldn't agree more.

g'em

brianthebard wrote: »

What I'm saying is science should not be an explanation for society, because it is too constraining to use it as such and leads to attempts to immobilise people. I'm not going to go into nineteenth century examples, but even what the poster above was saying earlier about gender suggests that because men and women have always been x,y,z, they can only ever be x,y,z. Butler attempts to show the limits of how far this sort of social theory can go and does it quite well imo (but is by no means universally accepted).

And this is the difference between scientists and other -ologists. Sociology is the application of biology. Biology is the application of fundamental theory (or maths and physics, depending on how purist you are). We come up with fun ideas to try and explain what's before our very eyes in a logical, provable way. You take our ideas and strive to deconstruct them

g'em

ntlbell wrote: »

It was out of curiosity it's not often I ever hear people claiming themselves to be highly intelligent so if one does I'm curious to what brought them to that conclusion.

I'm the same tbh, and I don't even like labelling anyone (myself or otherwise) as intelligent at all, because it's such a multimodal concept. If someone is great at maths but has terrible kinesthetic awareness does that make them more or less intelligent than me? And don't get me started on IQ as a determining parameter... I wouldn't for a second try to pass myself off as a more or less intelligent person on anyone in the thread, but I know what I can do well and in the context of what we're talking about, meh, sure, I'm intelligent

brianthebard

g'em wrote: »

And this is the difference between scientists and other -ologists. Sociology is the application of biology. Biology is the application of fundamental theory (or maths and physics, depending on how purist you are). We come up with fun ideas to try and explain what's before our very eyes in a logical, provable way. You take our ideas and strive to deconstruct them

This is maybe why I'm not a sociologist. But I see your point.

g'em

brianthebard wrote: »

This is maybe why I'm not a sociologist. But I see your point.

It was a fairly tongue-in-cheek point ology's.

consultech

g'em wrote: »

You're either flame-baiting or trolling. Either way, I don't like it. If you would like to continue posting in the thread please make your next contribution a more appropriate and intelligent offering.

I have already contributed to this thread in a sufficiently eloquent, "intelligent", and "appropriate" manner, whatever that is. My scoff (if you want to call it that) at your comment regarding the plight of the average female "home-maker" was in perfect keeping with the tone that has preceded it in this thread regarding men's average social conversation topic (Poker/footie etc) amongst other things - A tone which you saw no need to correct through similar moderator privilage flexing, as above.

My point was perfectly reasonable - and one that if taken in any way intelligently by the reader - should be clear of being in reference to the majority, but not all housewives. Of course there are full time mothers out there who juggle kids/job/housekeeping/life, but I am yet to see enough of a proportion of said women so as to justify a change in my opinion on the matter, be that stereotypical on my part or be it not. Oprah isn't a billionaire by accident by the way, hundreds of millions of viewers.

This is a little, but not entirely, off-topic. It's still relative to balanced expression of opinion on the issue, but feel to do what you wish with my privilages, that's your prerorgative.

ntlbell wrote: »

Just because you're not doesn't mean a _lot_ are.

Raising kids is tough the day to day grind before they go to school can be very hard depending on your kids.

But it's not as difficult as some like to make out, regardless of job very few people come home and talk about how easy they're day is they all make it sound like they were just in iraq for a day... You're not going to hear a mother saying she sat around on her ass all day while the baby was sleeping and only got up off it when a bottle was needed or nappy changed.

It's for the most part not as hard as most make out.

Fair play Ntlbell - A refreshing and honest admittance.

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree that they do tend to have a predisposition but there are always exceptions. I have found that I have a rather blokey brain and there for have been neither fish nor fowl in a lot of social situations esp growing up.
So I have gotten to watch, observe and learn from the outside.

Yes I do think that we are moving towards having a less gender divided society but there will all ways be some differences and honestly
Viva Le Difference but never at the expense of limiting other people.
Be it those who sightly like me ( shut up I know I said slightly ) fall out of what is considered the gender roles or those who are transgendered.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes/no social class can play a factor in the upbringing and if education is valued in the home but if a person had an inquiring mind they will find a way to seek out knowledge and people to have such conversations with even if they are just barstool philosophers.

I would like to think that we are moving beyond the telling little girls that
they need to hide how smart they are to fit in and to telling little boys it's
shameful if a girl is smarter then they are.

It's a tricky one one of making allowances for gender differences on a sliding scale rather then being black and white, but not letting children and people be limited by them.

g'em

consultech wrote: »

My scoff (if you want to call it that) at your comment regarding the plight of the average female "home-maker" was in perfect keeping with the tone that has preceded it in this thread regarding men's average social conversation topic (Poker/footie etc) amongst other things - A tone which you saw no need to correct through similar moderator privilage flexing, as above.

If you saw posts which you feel were innapropriate, report them - your post was the only 'scoff' of its kind to be reported thus far and was one that I took issue with too as it didn't add to the debate, only seemed to attempt to derail it so I assume that no-one else has had issue with tone you're describing? Besides which, it kind of reeks of playground antics ("she called me a poopyhead so I'll call her a fart-face").

consultech wrote:

My point was perfectly reasonable - and one that if taken in any way intelligently by the reader - should be clear of being in reference to the majority, but not all housewives.

The majority? Just how many housewives have you observed in the course of their day?

consultech wrote:

Of course there are full time mothers out there who juggle kids/job/housekeeping/life, but I am yet to see enough of a proportion of said women so as to justify a change in my opinion on the matter, be that stereotypical on my part or be it not. Oprah isn't a billionaire by accident by the way, hundreds of millions of viewers.

Again, how many women (working mothers, stay at home mothers, single mothers etc.) have you observed at home or at work that allows you to make that rather sweeping generalisation? Admitting that you're sterotyping does not negate the fallibility of the message.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Muahahahahahaha



Stop trying to pigeon hole people to make dealing with them easier for yourself.

What about me - I get pigeon holed - as a misogynistic extremist- when Im a real sweetie -have a daughter who calls me with all her problems

Can clothes shop with her and her friends and go out and grocery shop for the latest food fads allergies,health issues and know where to buy cut cost fabrics for Home Ec.
I can also help with Irish,Home Ec, History and English homework.

Yup stereotype me

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree but we can't make people be civic minded.
Yes there is a hell of a lot that which can be done and imho needs to be done to encourage them to do but they can't be forced.

I think everyone should be registered to vote and failing to do so or even spoiling your vote should mean a fine.

donegalfella wrote: »

If we're all purely mired in discussions of lip gloss, soap operas, football, and cars, how do we keep functioning as a liberal democracy?

Sorry but the ideal functioning liberal democracy is just and an idea and a fallacy. Yes it is something we should maybe strive more towards but there will always be vested interests and lobby groups and 'political families'.

Yes it is is nice to ponder the possibility of us all logging on to a system to vote or taking the time to email representatives but I can't see it happening any time soon with out drastic changes. Wanna be one of my minions or cohorts

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know and I find that alarming as I have both a son and a daughter which means I am striving to do my best for both of them so they hopefully turn out to be well rounded individuals.

Dragan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The simple fact is that we not all mired in dicussions on lips gloss and football. The vast majority of people will have an interest in politics and economics to the same level that i will. They will be aware and keep up to date simply because it does affect them.

However, they may just come to their own conclusions and not really feel that inspired to debate it.

As i often maintain, far, far, far more people in this country get up every day, go to work, read the paper, inform opinions and dicuss issues that affect them. Simply because this is their choice and as long as they continue to do so, we will function as a liberal democracy.

However, hand in hand with the choice comes the responsibility to accept that not everyone will make it with you, not everyone will care. These are the people who may not be interested in politics and may not vote, but they still have a place within our society and the vast majority will still carry out some kind of important function.

I understand the argument that the right to vote is a gift, and that people should be informed about such things but the simple truth is that a right is NOT a requirement.

Should it get to the point where we ARE all talking about footy and makeup from dawn till dusk then we need to accept a failing in the system at the point where it should be engaging people and getting them interested?

Nevyn

CDfm wrote: »

What about me - I get pigeon holed - as a misogynistic extremist- when Im a real sweetie -have a daughter who calls me with all her problems

I haven't pigeon hole you at all, it's a pointless exercise imho and I don't have enough data and I am not arsed going looking for it.

CDfm wrote: »

Can clothes shop with her and her friends and go out and grocery shop for the latest food fads allergies,health issues and know where to buy cut cost fabrics for Home Ec.
I can also help with Irish,Home Ec, History and English homework.

Yup stereotype me

So you are a competent parent and householder, I would like to think most adults can be.
Sorry did you want a medal for being that and male ?

g'em

Thaedydal wrote: »

So you are a competent parent and householder, I would like to think most adults can be.
Sorry did you want a medal for being that and male ?

Less of that Thaed, the discussion is doing just fine without smart-arsery jeopardising proceedings.

Nevyn

I didn't mean it as being smart arsed, it is about gender roles with in what tends to be the most hetronormative of situations a family consisting of a hetrosexual couple and their off spring.

Both parents need to form bonds with their children irrespective of gender and both adults need to share the work and responsibility (granted this does get skewed when one of them becomes the primary carer ).

In being a competent parent and householder CDfm is breaking a lot of old gender roles
and setting up a good example for his daughter which she will due to the father daughter dynamic take on as her default for what a male life partner for herself should be ( if she turns out to be that way inclinded ).

But I do think it should be how it is rather then it being exceptional enough to warrant praise or for it to be strange enough for it attract derision.

Yes my take on this maybe slightly skewed as I did grow up in liberal equalist household where my dad was a stay at home dad for a portion of my growing up.