Every so often, while walking through the hallways of the various buildings at my school, I find myself examining the photos of graduating classes from decades past. One thing that always stands out is the conspicuous absence of women in most faculties prior to the 60’s. It’s as though pursuing an education was something women just didn’t do back then. Based on these and other observations, I would hazard to say that 50 years ago, it wouldn’t have been uncommon for society’s most towering male intellectuals, such as university professors and supreme court justices, to come home everyday to wives who hadn’t graduated high school.
Fortunately a lot has changed since then. Now almost every faculty, with the exception of a few math-intensive disciplines, pumps out graduating classes comprised of mostly women. And just as women have changed to become more engaged in the intellectual and professional arenas, many of today’s young, educated, urban males are looking for women who are not only beautiful but women with whom they can match wits. The problem is a lot of us have found that finding these women is much easier said than done.
Because the words beautiful and smart are so relative, I should probably clarify what each word means to me. I’m definitely not talking about women who are above average. Perhaps the best way to illustrate what I mean is to use the 10-point system. For those out of the loop, the 10-point system is a grading scale used to rate a woman’s physical attractiveness. For humanitarian reasons, I never rate any woman lower than a 5, although other guys are less gracious. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the so-called dime, which is slang for 10 out of 10. These women have virtually no physical flaws to speak of. Additionally, they complement their god-given aesthetic, with a gym-sculpted figure, and an up-to-the-minute fashion sense. In recent years, as a reflection of my evolving list requirements for a potential partner, I’ve taken the liberty to define a similar scale to rate a woman’s intellectual fortitude. A dime on the intelligence scale is a woman who is witty, worldly, and well-read - someone who has the ability and the willingness to discuss life’s more abstract topics and ideas just for the hell of it.
Generally speaking, if you took the all the women in an average North American metropolitan area who can individually boast a combined score of 18 out of 20 or higher, these women probably wouldn’t fill an elementary school gymnasium. These are the women I will refer to in the list that follows. The reasons for such scarcity are plentiful, but I believe I’ve identified 5 of the most influential ones. The motivation behind the ordering of the reasons is a based on a combination of impact, intrigue and literary flow. I’ve tried to present a somewhat detached analysis of this question since, personally, I don’t think it would be wise for me or anyone else to limit their search for partners using such arbitrary metrics. Also, I recognize that there are many other important traits men look for, that don’t fall under either of the beauty or intelligence headings. Rather, this question of why we never see legitimate 19’s and 20’s is a purely intellectual one, similar to the question, why don’t we ever see any baby pigeons? So if you’re as curious as I was, read on for my take on the situation.
5) Not as many fish in the sea as one might think
Any woman who is exceedingly intelligent or exceedingly beautiful is going to garner attention from a lot of men. Whereas a young male with high market value may use this status to play the field and rack up a high number of partners, women in the same position are more likely to use their status to snag the most desirable man possible and hold onto him. Once this happens, complacency begins to set in, and with no further need to compete for men, these women can slowly begin to look more average. While their intelligence remains intact, their diminished appearance makes them much harder to spot.
4) It’s a numbers game
To a large extent this entire phenomenon can be explained by basic statistics. Let’s assume that the fraction of really hot women is 1 in 50 (this varies according to ones standards, but I think 1 in 50 is reasonable). Now let’s assume that the fraction of really smart women is 1 in 20 (for the record, I think this number is the same for men, lest I get accused of being sexist, god forbid). This means that, at most, 1 in 1000 women is both really hot and really smart. And this assumes no inverse correlation between looks and intelligence, which, as we shall see later, may be a tad bit optimistic.
3) There are only so many hours in the day
Reason number 4 suggests that beauty and intelligence are innate. And this is true to an extent. But as we get older, this statement becomes less and less valid. In the vast majority of cases, beauty and intelligence must both be cultivated through hard work and dedication. Most (physical) dimes, for example, regularly get their hair done by professionals, visit the gym several times a week, spend prodigious amounts of time doing their make-up, invest exorbitant amounts of money on designer clothing, all while keeping abreast of the latest fashion trends. Needless to say this translates into an enormous time commitment, to say nothing of the financial cost.
On the other side of the coin, most really intelligent women are prevented from spending this amount of time on their appearance because they’re too busy reading books, traveling the world, and keeping abreast of the latest trends in politics, social justice, the arts, or whatever their thing happens to be. Considering the conflicting lifestyles of these two groups of women, it a wonder any women manage to attain membership in both camps. It’s almost the equivalent of an athlete going pro in two sports with vastly different skill sets.
2) A conflict of interests
There are many different types of intelligence. This discussion focuses on two types in particular. First, there is what I call functional or pragmatic intelligence. This includes things like common sense and the ability to interpret social settings. This type of intelligence can be vary useful for climbing the corporate ladder, and it may actually help to bolster physical attractiveness, especially for women, who tend to be judged more heavily on their looks. Therefore an astute woman with a high functional intelligence will pick up on this and navigate her surroundings accordingly. The other type of intelligence is what I call reflective or inquisitive intelligence. Women with a high reflective intelligence index are witty, insightful, and intellectually challenging.
When combined with drive and ambition, functional intelligence can be very attractive in a partner, since their success serves to inflate ones own self-worth by association. But reflective intelligence is much more rare and has more tangible benefits from a relationship standpoint, since it’s a type of intelligence that is constantly and display to be enjoyed by whoever is in its presence.
Women with reflective intelligence tend to be more plain in appearance as they’re more likely to view the process of cultivating beauty through a critical lens. Many of these women will repudiate the whole enterprise for being superficial or sexist or both. Others may be less extreme in their stance but will avoid going all out as a sort of partial boycott.
1) It’s all an act
The most recent issue of Glow Magazine features an article about how women feel compelled to choose between being pretty and being smart. The article posits that many attractive women play down their intelligence in order to be successful. It suggests that women like Jessica Simpson and other starlets who are known for their looks, intentionally play dump just to live up to the bimbo archetype. I would go even further than the article in saying that women, beautiful or not, have been socialized to accentuate their physical assets and downplay their cognitive ones. Many have learned that they can be rewarded for looking good while getting outright penalized for being too sharp. The reasons for this are, of course, rooted in sexism and male insecurity. Historically women have seen fit to accommodate the emotional deficiencies of the men in their lives, always being careful to avoid coming across as too threatening.
Unfortunately, this effect has led many talented women to re-route their entire lives and careers to avoid careening out of this allotted lane. For the women who, in spite of this, have achieved success with their brainpower, some of them still feel the need to play the ditzy role in the presence of potential suitors because they’re convinced that that’s what men want. And the sad truth is that, while things have changed, some men are still stuck in that 50’s mindset and this act will probably work on them. But it does kind of suck for the rest of us.
'Don't automatically assume that women who have "high market value" are only concerned with finding the best man to settle down with. It's silly to assume that men "play the field" while women have a natural desire to settle down.'
This may be partially true. I was trying to avoid implying that these observations would apply to ALL women. But based on my experiences, I believe my word choice was actually conservative. From what I've seen, women ARE 'more likely' to want to settle down. Who would argue with this? While women are interested in playing the field in some cases, I've rarely found that it's a woman's first choice. And the hotter the woman, the less likely she is to engage in casual flings. Less attractive women benefit more from this because they get validation form it.
But let's be honest, Intelligent, attractive, successful men routinely leave women who are great catches, just to play the field. This is why 90% of the time, it's the man who holds out on milestones like engagement, marriage etc. I've come across VERY few women who would walk away from a guy that they considered a great catch, just so they could play the field. Maybe there are more of these women than I think, but to suggest that men and women are equally prone to choosing the nomadic approach over stable relationships is a bit far-fetched.
I agree that, in general, you can't generalize! However women are still more likely to settle down early than men. I think the 'biological clock' explanation is pretty outdated, particularly with new fertilization technologies, so I'm sure it's some leftover sexist conditioning. Personally I would love to see more women adopt 'the nomadic approach' to relationships
I guess the problem is that men are raised with the idea that they need to "play the field" or be in "the game" while women are raised to think that if they play the field they're sluts. It ends up becoming an unlevel playing field as far as dating is concerned. It's unfortunate for women, but it's also unfortunate for some guys who actually do want to settle down and aren't interested in "the game."
But men have the option of not playing the game if they choose. Women don't have the luxury of 'playing the field' without stigma, so it's still more unfair for women
Men that don't play the game have to live with the stigma of not being "man" enough to go out there and score. If you've ever been single and gone to a club you know the feeling.
I think you're confusing beauty with packaging. Any woman in reasonable shape can be "beautiful" in the way you describe, it just takes a lot of time and money. For me, and I would imagine for a lot of women, investing that time and money simply isn't worth it since both clothes and makeup come off at the end of the day and if the guy doesn't like who you are underneath them, there's not really that much point in spending time with him. For me, the beautiful women are the ones that are beautiful when they haven't made any special effort. But hey, I'm not a guy, and so probably have no idea what you like.
OK but the club is kind of a special case. That is hypermasculinity at its worst. I don't see any stigma in not being the type of the guy that can step to girls in that environment. If you're at a mutual friend's party and you still can't step to a girl...problem.
there is little hope of finding a perfect 20. Like you said they are few and far between. I shall keep looking though.
I have a few different points. First, I think you are underplaying the importance of chemistry and attraction. Individuals are more attracted to a sense of mystery or intrigue than necessary stereotypical beauty. Second, there is also psychological and personality dimensions to attraction to consider.
Third, as an intellectual woman, I found your argument on beauty somewhat true. I agree if you are intellectual, you downplay the value of shopping, dressing, and packaging in general. Although, I think even intellectual women when they are interested in a guy try to look their very best.
I appreciate your analysis in this article. Maybe the problem is not that beautiful and intellectual women are exceedingly rare, but rather that you don't attract them. (When I say 'you', I just mean the world view presented in the article) First, the article is sort of objectifying 'intellectual' in a way which I find quite repugnant. Essentially, you admire intellectualism because it is 'challenging' and 'entertaining' for you. However, the whole point of being intellectual is that you have the ability to think and question the world in which we live including social constructs like 'objectification'. Intellectual women can spot right away a man who objectifies intelligence or beauty (they are probably better at this than most women).
In my experience, the minute I see a man like this, I run and I run fast. The reason is that this guy does not value me as a person and perhaps even thinks that he is better than me (because he can identify my intellectualism and perhaps benefit from it). So when I chose men, I tend to pick men who instead see me as equal, are obsessed with some type of academic pursuit, and never allude to my beauty or intellectualism when we first began talking. Perhaps, if you put yourself in the shoes of an intellectual and beautiful woman and think about what they are looking for in a man, you may have better luck. Just a thought.
tisk tisk! Don't automatically assume that women who have "high market value" are only concerned with finding the best man to settle down with. It's silly to assume that men "play the field" while women have a natural desire to settle down. Both genders tend to date around--until they find the right person to settle with.
Also, it's unfortunate that the 'hot bimbo' stereotype hasn't been entirely forgotten, despite the hard work of brainy hotties everywhere..
However, don't forget that every woman is different, and to broadly generalize like this is pretty unfair.. We're not just hot, or not, or smart, or not.. we're not JUST anything.