Were women bright to play dumb?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Background:
I couldn't find my references on this, but there's a guesstimated 85% chance that the published background data regarding the physiology of male vs female brains is from Newsweek, 10% chance it's from Psychology Today and 5% chance it's from Scientific American; timeframe at least 2 years ago but not more than 6 years ago. The data is from more than one of these sources. The unpublished background data is from interviews with people from 2 groups:

set one - those who are currently in their late teens to early 20s, and the interviews were done when they were elementary through high-school age.

set two - elderly, some of whom are since deceased.

There is also information gathered from who knows where. I apologize for not realizing early in life that I ought to pay attention to where data comes from. I used to just cross-reference information to justify validity, and not pay virtually any atention to the source. (truth comes from many places, but I now realize that acknowledging the source is important).

*******************************

Women used to be coached to "play dumb" and were told that they would never "get a man" if they let the men know how intelligent they were. One of he rules was to always let the man win. Women repressed themselves.

Why? And was it a good idea?

Okay, women didn't have to worry about getting a job. They had employment as a wife and mother with little chance of being fired, they provided a good service by nurturing the next generation (and if you look at what's wrong with the industrialized world today, you might conclude that some better nurturing might have helped a significant number of situations) and making the men's lives go nicely.

The men could go out and do whatever it was that needed to be done in the interactive world, and the women didn't have to deal with all the politicing and other nonsense that went on out there. The petty sqabbles amongst the children was the biggest "problem" but she was an authority figure, and only if she couldn't handle it would the man of the house come to the rescue, and even though she couldn't do her job that day, she didn't get fired because she was sleeping with the boss - which wasn't bad as long as she could keep the love alive, which was more her responsibility than his. All he had to do was go out and bring back what was needed, and all she had to do was keep everything nice.

So what went wrong? Did women get dumber from believing the lies they told, therefore not educating themselves (thinking is a use it or lose it proposition, and thinking more increases intelligence while thinking less decreases it), or did men deprive women of an equal education out of a power trip? Knowledge, understanding, and confidence are powerful things, so what was the reason behind men disempowering women?

A smart woman could raise smarter children and contribute more to the overall family well-being, as well as provide better intellectual stimulation for her husband. Being isolated and dealing with children all day did not do much for her intellectual stimulation - did that make her dumber?

So what went wrong with the paradigm?

In WWII, there was enough of a labor shortage that women had to go out and work, which was where they started meeting a larger group of people, which prompted the women's movement, which seemed to actually increase the intelligence of women (early women's movement stuff doesn't look too intelligent, but look at the progression and the rate of progression).

In the last decade, attitudes of school children have reversed from 30 years ago. It used to be believed that boys were smart and girls were not (east coast American attitudes, especially in the New England area. I do not have enough data to speak for other areas). Now children beieve that the girls are smarter because they are the ones that get their homework done, study more, and get better grades (I have not verified these as facts, only as perceptions of children in various parts of Florida, USA. Florida is a good central barometer of American attitudes because of the influx of people from other parts of the country. Right now, very few people who live here are from Florida - to the point that a customary greeting of a newly met individual is "So, where are you from?").

Scientific discoveries about the human mind have shown that boys have a greater need for approval than girls do, and will do less well if they lack confidence in themselves than girls will do who lack confidence in themselves. The article (that I could not find) seemed to suggest that perhaps coeducational classrooms are now more damaging to boys than they used to be to girls.

It seems that the structure that connects the left brain to the right brain is substantially larger in females than in males. This allows females an increased ability to have emotions and still be able to think clearly. An article also pointed out that since society taught boys not to show emotion but taught girls to let it all out, that boys misinterpret girls emotional reactions based on what it would mean for them to break down like that (a significant miscommunication due to disparate definitions - my interpretation of the article's statements). This leads males to think that females are more emotionally unstable than they actually are. Without the scientific understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the brain, females had no idea what they were actually communicating to males by crying.

(This part I learned in the applied behavioral sciences program) When teachers assumed that girls were dumb and boys were smart, they paid more attention to the boys and provided them with a better education. This was due to the fallicious belief that the girls wouldn't get it anyway, so they didn't want to waste their time on girls when they could "make better use of their time" by focusing on the boys.

(my observation and thoughts from applying the data) About a decade ago, it seemed that although teachers no longer had a predisposed belief about gender and intelligence, the children did and the boys started to feel bad about themselves and not do as well (due to the lack of special attention, supposedly). Now many children - almost all boys - are being diagnosed with ADHD. The boys are no longer getting special attention just for being boys, and due to their special emotional needs they are not paying attention back.

So were women smart and giving to let men think that they were smarter to feed an emotional need that boys have to develop into the best men they can be, but then it got out of hand?

[emma]

Any thing that is not true to self becomers harmful. Any role played lessens the integrity of the player. "All the world's a stahe" perhaps so, . but that's why it can be a difficult place to live

Men have role played too, the macho, strong type and that has lead to women thinking thery were without sensitivity ....and yet men can be so very sensitive

[David Quinn]

I think women still play dumb to men because it is in their psychology to want to be subservient to men - or at least to their boyfriend or husband. This psychology is reflected in the fact that women still prefer to be physically shorter than their boyfriend or husband, physically weaker than him, earn less money than him, be more flippy and emotional than him, etc. At root, they still want to be able to snuggle up inside his rock-like strength and protection.

Also, it is significant that women have evolved juvenile physical features, such as slighter builds, softer skins, less hairy bodies, child-like faces, higher-pitched voices, etc. Evolution has clearly been forcing women down a particular path for tens of thousands of years, which has profoundly shaped their psychology.

From Elizabeth's article:

Scientific discoveries about the human mind have shown that boys have a greater need for approval than girls do, and will do less well if they lack confidence in themselves than girls will do who lack confidence in themselves.

I very much agree with this. Males are brainwashed to believe they are undesirable, repulsive, evil creatures unless they have the acceptance of society, and women in particular. Women form the centre of society and automatically receive acceptance and approval as long as they conform to the feminine ideal. Men, on the other hand, have to earn their acceptance and approval by achieving significant goals and devoting their lives to working for the common good.

Men are far more insecure in this way, which is what drives many of them to strive for greatness, and even genius.

-

[Matt Gregory]

I don't know if men are more insecure. It's probably just more visible. When women get down on their luck they tend to sit around and hope for things to change instead of actively going out and trying to change it.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Matt wrote:

I don't know if men are more insecure. It's probably just more visible.

It is actually not very visible to most women.

[Matt Gregory]

Yeah, I can see how most women can't detect male insecurity, but most men can't detect insecurity in women either. When I was in high school, thinking of the attractive girls as insecure was unimaginable to me. I was very insecure then, though.

I think we tend to not want to think about how insecure we are and that also makes us blind to the insecurity in others. I think that principle goes for pretty much any psychological trait.

[Tomas]

.


-schweetie-
emma - Any thing that is not true to self becomes harmful.

-tomas-
I get back to that one in a while.




-schweetie-
Any role played lessens the integrity of the player.

-tomas-
No. We only have our self to draw a comparison with. The alter-ego tells that inner-voice what to do.




-schweetie-
"All the world's a stage" perhaps so, . but that's why it can be a difficult place to live

-tomas-
Be yourself - everything will be o.k.




-schweetie-
Men have role played too, the macho, strong type and that has lead to women thinking they were without sensitivity ....and yet men can be so very sensitive

-tomas-
Mmmmmmm. my kinda girl........



Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

[slumsquirrel]

Women are subserviant socially as well. Maybe this attributes to a lack of intellectual ability, but they seem to have a difficult time even toying with the idea of our inefficient moral system. They like to believe they are masters of transparent society; they want to believe every guy needs a girl, when its quite the contrary. Being a high school student myself, I'm often conflicted with the teenage stereotypes and lineages, but many a night I find myselft asking why? Why must we marry, consumate, or lust?

[Pincho Paxton]

Well, there is little gained from being intelligent in the wrong place. I live in an area where I have to tone down my intelligence most of the time. Most dating is role playing anyway, and women do a lot more than act dumb. They change their voices, they put on a show. Most women I have met like to be dominated, but it seems to get them into bad relationships. The most dominent men are the most aggressive men. So this part is a big mistake made by women. I think that women learn more about men in their 40's, and finally get things right, but I have also noticed that 40 year old women with daughters will still like their daughters to behave the way that they used to behave when they were young. It's a cycle.

My final verdict is that women can act dumb, and it will not get them in trouble, but should be way more careful who they let dominate them.

[slumsquirrel]

The sooner we begin to share (intellectually) in relationships, the better. I can't stand genuinely 'dumb' women, who believe they're intelligent simply because they can manipulate a shallow system; this is only accounts for their practice, a mere compensation for their lack of cognative understanding.

[Jamesh]

Males are brainwashed to believe they are undesirable, repulsive, evil creatures unless they have the acceptance of society, and women in particular. Women form the centre of society and automatically receive acceptance and approval as long as they conform to the feminine ideal. Men, on the other hand, have to earn their acceptance and approval by achieving significant goals and devoting their lives to working for the common good.

Sure, but this is an evolved situation as well. Due to men's additional testosterone, they tend to be more erratic and self-centred and the herd requires means to tame this for the benefit of the herd, rather than the individual. Due to their competitive nature, men will naturally be "undesirable, repulsive, evil creatures" if they were left to their own devices, however much of this is tempered by the stronger males who keep the lesser males in line. Men have to learn to be desirable, attractive, good beings to a greater extent than women, who cannot be that way due to the need to bring kids up in a safe environment. The love and adoration received from young children tempers a womans selfishness. She may still desire many things, but such desires are kept in check, as a result of the rewards obtained from children.

[xerox]

...

[Faust]

Acting dumb has its advantages. Too many to mention.

it's only advantageous towards dumb people. Smart people aren't going to reward it, atleast the genuine ones.

[Greg the Genius]

No, women r not dumb, they r very smart. i thnk taht all over 50% of the women r smarter than guys.

[Faust]

No, women r not dumb, they r very smart. i thnk taht all over 50% of the women r smarter than guys.

and where's your evidence for this? Excluding petty social manipulation and cunning?

[daybrown]

The zeitgeist has changed faster in some portions of modern culture; many smarter people have adapted to this faster; early adopters. Perhaps playing dumb worked better in most interactions, but if you are more observant, selective in who you chose to relate to, the question is passe.

I seem smarter than the women I know, but I dont have to spend my mental energy on case work, and focus more directly, with less distraction, on my own work. I dont see how to evaluate the question. Who getsta decide what the priorities are, or what aspects of talent add up to more or less intelligence? There are some areas where I seek advice, others where I give it.

Because I never made much money, dumb women, looking for economic security, ignored me. But smart women, who already had their economic house in order, sought my company for other reasons. What I had to say before bedtime indicated that I'd have something more appealing to say after it.

With the growing economic independence of women has come increasing numbers of fag hags, looking for men who have more interesting things to say than just that which was designed to get them into bed. However, were such men able to function properly in bed, I'm sure that would be agreeable.

The anecdotal evidence would suggest that men have been content with dumb women in bed. But in looking back on the men I knew who did this, I think they quickly came to regret it, taking on case work they didnt realize was in exchange for sexual services. Dumber men commonly resort to violence to break the contract; our prisons are full of them. That lesson has not escaped the notice of smart men, who therefore rarely have anything nowadays to do with dumb women.

[xerox]

...

[Faust]

Acting dumb has its advantages. Too many to mention.

it's only advantageous towards dumb people. Smart people aren't going to reward it, atleast the genuine ones.

Herein lies one of the advantages.

I guess, but I mean, it's pretty damn weak and pathetic to be needing to trick stupid people. Eventually the truth will oust.

[joesomebody]

no its true you act dumb people will treat you dumb and slip up, you act too smart and people will always be on guard, you can get away with almost anything by acting dumb. you see you act dumb and people are more likely to reveal themselves to you ultimately resulting in the end of your greater then all mind set.

[daybrown]

no its true you act dumb people will treat you dumb and slip up, you act too smart and people will always be on guard, you can get away with almost anything by acting dumb. you see you act dumb and people are more likely to reveal themselves to you ultimately resulting in the end of your greater then all mind set.

I've seen hillbillies try that, but it only works with flatlanders that are trying to take advantage. But there are more effective methods to detect deception. http://paulekman.com, or "Never Be Lied To Again", by Lieberman.

Both relate to autonomic responses manifest in facial expression and body language. I can see women pretending to be uninformed in order to feed some one's ego, but that kind of patronization is no longer useful in creating romantic attachment by the rational. Nor is it that useful in your business dealings. Its all too easy now to use the net to discover a reputation of deception or a fabricated past. Its easier than ever to follow the money.