Men threatened by smarter women? Really?

[EasterJoy]

“Men threatened by smarter women? Really?”

Yes! That would be me. If I’m walking in a dark alley late at night and I see a smart woman approaching, I make sure I have my hand on my pepper spray and look for an escape route. The best rule for dealing with trouble is to avoid it to begin with. I try to avoid places where I may encounter a smart woman, such as libraries, book clubs, laboratories, universities, etc. If I absolutely must go to one of those places, I make sure I’m packing heat. If one encounters a smart woman out in the wilderness, it’s best to make lots of noise and try to make yourself bigger than the smart woman so she goes away. Alternatively, make sure your hiking buddy can’t run as fast as you can so that you can escape while your buddy is being eaten.

Good plan. You can feel secure that you won’t be pursued by any women at all!

 

[Faxero]

:nope: I wasn’t joking.

Scripture is quite clear that Men are to be leaders. My personal sensibilities incline me to believe that a proper spouse would be less intelligent than I am. She must certainly be intelligent, no doubt, but not more than myself.

I’m not trying to sound misogynistic . If you are offended, than note the key term: ‘personal sensibilities’. I am aware of my feelings not being facts.

Just curious – how would you do with a woman as a supervisor at work?

The woman in question is not vying for top dog of a household. She is merely fulfilling her duty as a supervisor. I’m willing to submit to women under those circumstances.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

The woman in question is not vying for top dog of a household. She is merely fulfilling her duty as a supervisor. I’m willing to submit to women under those circumstances.

I’m smarter than my boss, and we both know it. That’s one of the reasons he’s so happy with me and my performance. But I’m not vying for “top dog” at the office (he owns the practice!), nor does he ever submit to me because of my intelligence. I respect his experience, position, and authority and we work very well together. Intelligence isn’t everything at home, work, or school. It’s a small part of a whole.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think in general most couples are of similar intelligence levels.

 

[Xantippe]

I think in general most couples are of similar intelligence levels.

Yes. Nowadays, at least.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m smarter than my boss, and we both know it. That’s one of the reasons he’s so happy with me and my performance. But I’m not vying for “top dog” at the office (he owns the practice!), nor does he ever submit to me because of my intelligence. I respect his experience, position, and authority and we work very well together. Intelligence isn’t everything at home, work, or school. It’s a small part of a whole.

You have to be smart enough to accept legitimate leadership, yes.

The thing that is sometimes forgotten is that sometimes more intelligent people are more capable of leading and accepting leadership than people who are not nearly as smart as they think they are!

 

[pensmama87]

Yes. Nowadays, at least.

So do we need to worry about you being hauled out to a secret government lab, too?

 

[Xantippe]

So do we need to worry about you being hauled out to a secret government lab, too?

That would only be a problem if I were smart*er *than my husband.

So, I think I’m pretty safe.

I bet they don’t have a Starbucks or Carters in Area 51 and definitely no Panera’s, so that would be a big bummer.

 

[PLinz]

So, what are your grounds for disagreeing with my statement that “If people are too stupid, they can’t follow you”?

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. Again, you’ve provided nothing to substantiate your claim.

I gave an argument based on my experience as a parent and common sense. What do you have?

“The plural of anecdote is not data.”

 

[EasterJoy]

And your basis for such a claim?

The military, a vocation that cannot function without people who can take orders, requires prospective recruits to pass a vocational aptitude test that includes sections on arithmetic reasoning, vocabulary, reading comprehension and mathematics knowledge . Enlisted personnel have to have high school diplomas. There is a minimum score for recruits, but they don’t reject anyone for being too smart. They do reject people for being too ignorant or too mentally incapable to be effectively lead.

The military has very competitive entrance requirements for the academies that turn out their lieutenants and spend a lot of money training them, even though they know that the vast majority of these recruits will not become generals, but will spend their lives taking orders from generals.

OK–that is my example. I could provide others, but how about you provide examples where lack of mental capacity makes someone being lead a superior helpmate–because remember, a wife is not supposed to be a man’s child to take care of, but his helpmate. That’s in Genesis. Show one example where mental incapacity (aka “being too stupid”) makes someone* easier to lead in the role of being one’s helpmate.*

 

[PLinz]

If you disagree, perhaps you could provide an alternate point of view? Why, for example, would less intelligent or competent people be easier to lead?

That’s not the point. The point is that someone is making a claim and pretending that people here will accept anecdotes as evidence (and “common sense” as a catch-all for “I have no data, please believe me”).

Let me give you an example: American military service tradition versus pre-Fall-of-the-Iron-Curtain Russian military service tradition.

American service personnel are generally encouraged in the pursuit of knowledge as relates to their career area, and are (generally) rewarded accordingly in the services. Someone who starts off at the very bottom tier of mechanics, for example, isn’t going to be told that his job is to change the oil on a jeep, period. He’ll be encouraged to learn about how engines work, why changing the oil is important, why tires being rotated regularly is important, how an internal-combustion engine works, and so on. If he demonstrates skill, maturity, and a willingness to learn, the Army/Navy/Marines will notice this, and will (again, generally) offer him more opportunities to learn: classes he can take, the promise of promotion for competence, and so on. There’s a strong tradition of self-improvement in the US service, and in the US at large, a sort of “if you’re willing to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, the sky’s your limit, go for it” attitude.

In comparison, Russian submariners were not encouraged to know anything at all about the boats on which they served, or about anything beyond the very narrow scope of knowledge they needed in order to perform the particular task to which they were assigned. As a society, pre-fall Russia frowned on self-education: if the State determined that you were going to be a torpedo-loader, second class, then you’d better not have any ideas about how to load that torpedo better, faster, or more efficiently, much less about how to clear a clogged torpedo tube without blowing the ship up in the process. That wasn’t your job or your area, comrade–are you trying to take away Seaman Petrov’s job? And most Soviet enlisted submariners had a fairly minimal education at best, so even if they wanted to broaden their minds, they couldn’t–they simply hadn’t the background.

As a result, there were a lot of problems in the Russian military. For example, it happened that only their officers had the education or qualification to do even simple repairs on a ship. As a result, you could have only two or three people on board who were capable of, for example, doing anything from basic welding to diagnostic procedures on a nuclear reactor. There are some very nasty stories about the result of that idea.

Not quite. Soviet military doctrine focused on numerical abundance of forces (which continues, to a certain extent, to this day). There are many stories from WWII and the Soviet-Afghan War of the absurdly lethal things that Soviet soldiers were sent to do, simply because they were seen as disposable (and I’m not talking about simply participating). “Who educates cannon fodder?” would be what a Soviet officer would ask. German soldiers during WWII, particularly the elite units, were trained in ways similar to the American military service tradition that you mention - they were given the best training, the best equipment, the best leaders. And yet, they were overwhelmed by (literal) swarms of Russians. Now, that is in contrast to what you seem to be claiming (and a different angle, too).

In short, having intelligent, well-educated people in your command make your job easier. A Russian officer would be threatened by intelligent, well-educated subordinates, while an American officer (ideally, at least) would welcome such subordinates because you can get a great deal more accomplished if you aren’t the chief cook, bottle-washer, commanding officer, and deck-welder all rolled into one.

He wouldn’t have cared. Seriously. The fact that you wrote that makes me wonder where you’ve learned your history. That leads me to my question: Are you serving, or have you served, in the American armed forces?

 

[Kelfa28]

The military, a vocation that cannot function without people who can take orders, requires prospective recruits to pass a vocational aptitude test that includes sections on arithmetic reasoning, vocabulary, reading comprehension and mathematics knowledge . Enlisted personnel have to have high school diplomas. There is a minimum score for recruits, but they don’t reject anyone for being too smart.

The military has very competitive entrance requirements for the academies that turn out their lieutenants and spend a lot of money training them, even though they know that the vast majority of these recruits will not become generals, but will spend their lives taking orders from generals.

Exactly.

What is even more interesting is that more and more enlisted personnel have advanced degrees.

This is especially true in branches like the Air Force. The Air Force has the highest minimum standards for acceptance, is probably the most competitive for acceptance and require advanced degrees for promotions (in order to get to the highest promotion level…you need at least an associate’s degree…but keep in mind, that is on paper. You’re competing against a large pool of people).

Thanks to free schooling offered by the National Guard, a very, very generous GI Bill for Vets and a dismal job market for recent college grads…it’s becoming more and more common for enlisted personnel with Master’s, second undergrad degrees, law and med school.

It’s a far cry from our Grandfather’s military…where a BA meant you walked in as an officer automatically and there was a distinct difference between the enlisted personnel and the officers.

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s not the point. The point is that someone is making a claim and pretending that people here will accept anecdotes as evidence (and “common sense” as a catch-all for “I have no data, please believe me”).

Not quite. Soviet military doctrine focused on numerical abundance of forces (which continues, to a certain extent, to this day). There are many stories from WWII and the Soviet-Afghan War of the absurdly lethal things that Soviet soldiers were sent to do, simply because they were seen as disposable (and I’m not talking about simply participating). “Who educates cannon fodder?” would be what a Soviet officer would ask. German soldiers during WWII, particularly the elite units, were trained in ways similar to the American military service tradition that you mention - they were given the best training, the best equipment, the best leaders. And yet, they were overwhelmed by (literal) swarms of Russians. Now, that is in contrast to what you seem to be claiming (and a different angle, too).

He wouldn’t have cared. Seriously. The fact that you wrote that makes me wonder where you’ve learned your history. That leads me to my question: Are you serving, or have you served, in the American armed forces?

In what sense is one’s wife “cannon fodder”? It doesn’t take any intelligence to die for your country, but intelligence comes in handy if the goal is to make your adversary die for HIS country. There aren’t many things that a wife or mother does that are done better by someone who is handicapped in the thinking department. Of the ideal wife, Proverbs says, “She opens her mouth in wisdom, and on her tongue is kindly counsel.” (Prov. 31:26)

Nowhere in Holy Scriptures will you find anyone suggesting that a wise man ought to look for a foolish wife. Proverbs suggests avoiding all fools like the plague.

Your wife, having the legal privileges of a spouse, is capable of ruining your reputation, your home, your credit rating, your retirement plans, and your children. Choose your wife with that in mind. Choose one who is rich in intelligence, especially common sense and the gifts of the Holy Spirit such as wisdom and understanding.

 

[Xantippe]

Exactly.

What is even more interesting is that more and more enlisted personnel have advanced degrees.

This is especially true in branches like the Air Force. The Air Force has the highest minimum standards for acceptance, is probably the most competitive for acceptance and require advanced degrees for promotions (in order to get to the highest promotion level…you need at least an associate’s degree…but keep in mind, that is on paper. You’re competing against a large pool of people).

Thanks to free schooling offered by the National Guard, a very, very generous GI Bill for Vets and a dismal job market for recent college grads…it’s becoming more and more common for enlisted personnel with Master’s, second undergrad degrees, law and med school.

It’s a far cry from our Grandfather’s military…where a BA meant you walked in as an officer automatically and there was a distinct difference between the enlisted personnel and the officers.

PLinz–ball in your court.

There’s been a lot of evidence presented in the thread for the thesis that smarter people are easier to manage and are more productive.

What do you have?

(Also, come to think of it, what in heaven’s name are people thinking who a) want their wife to be dumber than themselves and b) want her to homeschool their future offspring? I don’t get that!)

 

[Kelfa28]

Coming in to correct my previous statement.

The Air Force does not have the highest ASVAB minimums…the Coast Guard does and by a whopping 10 points no less.

I stand by the rest of my post.

More and more enlisted personnel have advanced degrees. Not only that but they are encouraged to earn these degrees.

You are rewarded with promotions, extensions, bonuses and so on.

 

[Xantippe]

In what sense is one’s wife “cannon fodder”? It doesn’t take any intelligence to die for your country, but intelligence comes in handy if the goal is to make your adversary die for HIS country. There aren’t many things that a wife or mother does that are done better by someone who is handicapped in the thinking department. Of the ideal wife, Proverbs says, “She opens her mouth in wisdom, and on her tongue is kindly counsel.” (Prov. 31:26)

Nowhere in Holy Scriptures will you find anyone suggesting that a wise man ought to look for a foolish wife. Proverbs suggests avoiding all fools like the plague.

Your wife, having the legal privileges of a spouse, is capable of ruining your reputation, your home, your credit rating, your retirement plans, and your children. Choose your wife with that in mind. Choose one who is rich in intelligence, especially common sense and the gifts of the Holy Spirit such as wisdom and understanding.

Right–you’re especially right that the hunt for the dumber wife is unscriptural.

I never heard a guy say any of the following:

“It’s too bad my wife is so good with figures. She’s saved us hundreds of dollars a year on our insurance and thousands on our mortgage. What are we going to do with all this money?”

or

“It’s too bad my wife understands so much about school curriculum and educational philosophy. Now our kids are winning academic prizes and making straight As. I just don’t know what I’m going to do.”

or

“It’s too bad that my wife saw through that crooked mechanic/plumber and got a second opinion and saved us a bunch of unnecessary work.”

or

“It’s too bad that my wife is good at planning ahead and making sure that we have everything we need while staying within a budget.”

or

“It’s too bad that my wife knows how to do basic repairs and maintenance. Man, I was hoping to spend next Saturday working on the minivan sliding door, cleaning the dryer hose and hanging pictures.”

I have, on the other hand, heard a relative suffer agonies while trying to explain fairly simple concepts to his wife. Intellectual incompatibility between spouses is a big deal–you have to spend the next half century sharing a bed and a checking account with this person. Not having to wonder what stupid shenanigans your spouse has been up to is a great comfort.

 

[EasterJoy]

PLinz–ball in your court.

There’s been a lot of evidence presented in the thread for the thesis that smarter people are easier to manage and are more productive.

What do you have?

(Also, come to think of it, what in heaven’s name are people thinking who a) want their wife to be dumber than themselves and b) want her to homeschool their future offspring? I don’t get that!)

Just for the record, the premise PLinz is quibbling with is not “smarter people are easier to manage and more productive.”

The premise being doubted is “If people are too stupid, they can’t follow you.”

If the person you are leading is a wife, there is definitely such a thing as being too foolish or too slow-witted to follow directions. I find it extremely hard to accept that people who are bad at following directions are in some sense still under the sway of “leadership.” They can be manipulated, they can be physically driven in a mob like sheep, they can be intimidated, but that is not following leadership. That is merely compliance.

Having said that, and just to be a devil’s advocate,
a) there is a lot of real estate on the intelligence scale between not being able to reliably follow directions and being the intellectual superior to someone competent to give directions
b) intelligence, whether in a horse or a dog or an employee or a soldier or a junior officer, is necessary but by no means sufficient to make someone else easy to manage and a more productive working partner. The one you are leading must have both the intelligence to understand the leader’s goals and methods AND the willingness to comply with the leader’s directions.

It is axiomatic that the best police dog, cutting horse, soldier, employee, or cabinet minister under you will be more rather than less intelligent. It is also axiomatic that finding someone under your leadership who is both intelligent and non-compliant is a leader’s worst nightmare.

Back to marriage: There will be days when you are not terribly impressed with your spouse’s “intelligence,” because spouses do not agree on everything and when we are at our own stubborn worst we are all just that impressed with our own perceptiveness.

Choose someone you want to find on the other side of the breakfast table from you when he or she is just plainly and stubbornly wrong. Choose someone you can face when you yourself have been just plain wrong. That is what I think it means to be “equally yoked.” It doesn’t mean equal intelligence. It does mean mutual respect.

If you find that members of the opposite sex who are “more intelligent” or “less intelligent” (whatever that is) than you do not respect you or if you find that you do not respect them, then don’t marry one. Don’t blame IQ for the problem, though. It is a fatal problem in giving and receiving a feeling of respect, not an incompatibility in intelligence.

 

[EasterJoy]

… Not having to wonder what stupid shenanigans your spouse has been up to is a great comfort.

Some of the most stupid shenanigans are the shenanigans that the most intellectually capable people get themselves into.

It is valuable to find a spouse who is smart. It is vital to find one who reliably looks to be wise. Of that kind of a wife, a husband says, “her value is far beyond pearls.” (Prov. 31:10)

 

[Xantippe]

Just for the record, the premise PLinz is quibbling with is not “smarter people are easier to manage and more productive.”

The premise being doubted is “If people are too stupid, they can’t follow you.”

If the person you are leading is a wife, there is definitely such a thing as being too foolish or too slow-witted to follow directions. I find it extremely hard to accept that people who are bad at following directions are in some sense still under the sway of “leadership.” They can be manipulated, they can be physically driven in a mob like sheep, they can be intimidated, but that is not following leadership. That is merely compliance.

Yes, good catch–it did kind of drift.

As with the US military examples, it is important that your spouse not only understand what you said you wanted, but the reasoning behind it and the overarching goals and values that you have for your family. That way, if there is some sort of unexpected event (and there always is) your spouse is able to improvise in a way that benefits the entire family.

(I remember reading about this, that in the US military, this particular quality is valued. I don’t have the time to dig up the particular cite, but I remember reading that if a person in a low-level command has a mission, but on the way to the mission, they turn up some sort of hostile activity, they’re expected to improvise and deal with both.)

This improvisation does require a certain amount of intelligence and freedom for each spouse.

As Easter Joy suggested, the qualities of mind required for a good wife more closely resemble the US Army’s soldier more than they do a WWII era Soviet Army cannon fodder approach. After all, you’re not trying to overwhelm the kids with wave attacks of moms…If mom is alone with multiple kids for much of the day, mom needs all her wits about her.

Dealing with toddlers requires a certain level of cunning and strategy. Granted, even a person of moderate intelligence can master it, but I think there is such a thing as a person too dim-witted to deal with toddlers. (I think they account for a lot of the horrible abuse cases you read about in the news.) I also find that as children get older, parenting them is less and less a physical exercise and more and more an intellectual exercise. Without a certain amount of wit, parenting a 13-year-old would be TERRIBLE.

 

[Xantippe]

Some of the most stupid shenanigans are the shenanigans that the most intellectually capable people get themselves into.

It is valuable to find a spouse who is smart. It is vital to find one who reliably looks to be wise. Of that kind of a wife, a husband says, “her value is far beyond pearls.” (Prov. 31:10)

One of the family legends we share with our children is the one about the physics major undergraduates who decided to open up a coconut by microwaving it and letting expanding gasses do the job.

The blew the door off of the microwave.