#63507 - as god is my witness, I'll never go hungry again

[Katya]

So I think that being too independent or seeming to be too independent could very well be getting in her way.

Which is not to say that I think she should become helpless or needy, but if she does want to be in a relationship, then she needs to do a good job of communicating what she would like a guy to contribute to the relationship, or guys are going to assume that they don't have anything to bring to the table that she would value.

Any suggestions for how to do this? I think it's something I need to work on myself.

Hmm.

Well, think of your friends and think of why you get along with them or why you like being around them. The attorneys I've known tend to be pragmatic, rational and tenacious, but not necessarily very creative, impulsive, or nice. Does that describe you? Do you tend to make friends with people with those opposite qualities? (Opposites don't always attract, so don't go looking to date someone impulsive if you can't stand people like that.)

Once you've identified some of the qualities you don't have (but tend to be drawn to), I'd really just be more vocal about admiring those qualities. Like I said, I don't believe in playing dumb or helpless, but I'm all about making an effort to say or do something if I can do it honestly. (E.g., I wouldn't give a guy a compliment if it was a lie, but I'll absolutely vocalize something I genuinely admire about him because positive statements help a relationship.)

So, if you meet a guy who's a theater dramaturg, only he has a second job because he can't live on the theater work, he might be really intimidated by your profession and salary. But if you vocalize that you enjoy the theater or are curious about his work, that will help to level the playing field. Also, remember that we tend to undervalue the things that we're good at because they come naturally to us, so the guys around you are going to be naturally undervaluing a lot of their talents and skills.

I have no idea if any of this would actually work, but that's the approach I would try. (And if it does work and you get engaged within a month, I want royalties on your wedding presents. )

[Indefinite Integral]

This is kind of an interesting topic for me as well. I have dated 4 different guys since I graduated from high school and I can unequivocally state that when it comes to school-related matters I have been "more intelligent" than every one of them. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be conceited here, I really never had a problem understanding the subject material for any class that I ever took (discounting writing English papers, which I can do well, it's just extremely hard).

Most of the time this hasn't been a problem for me, I understand that school is my strong point and there were other things which they excelled at. However, there was one boyfriend, #3, who was super sweet, hard worker, all sorts of wonderful, but I could run circles around him when it came to most any conversation or game. In that case I did feel like I was dumbing myself down, so I ended that relationship. I don't think you should ever have to dumb yourself down for someone else.

So I think I am definitely one where I would have trouble dating someone significantly less intelligent than me because so much of my personality and social interactions are based on what I would consider to be a fairly high level of intelligence.

I hope I don't sound overly cocky or stuck up. Current Boyfriend doesn't do anywhere near as well in school as I did, but that's because he applies his intelligence in other ways. Also, he excels at things that I don't so we balance each other out very well.

[Cindy]

I have no idea if any of this would actually work, but that's the approach I would try. (And if it does work and you get engaged within a month, I want royalties on your wedding presents. )

Thanks for the advice -- that was very helpful. I'm going to try it out at the party I'm going to tonight. And it's a deal about the wedding presents.

[Katya]

I have no idea if any of this would actually work, but that's the approach I would try. (And if it does work and you get engaged within a month, I want royalties on your wedding presents. )

Thanks for the advice -- that was very helpful. I'm going to try it out at the party I'm going to tonight. And it's a deal about the wedding presents.

Sweeet. I'm eager to hear how it goes.

[Wisteria]

I agree with Katya. The best successes I've found have been when I play up my interests in what the guy does or is interested in, and while I don't necessarily play down what I do (being a research scientist in a genetics lab is a little more obscure than being an attorney but has gotten me responses on the "that's intimidating" end of things), I focus more on how I love what I do and use layman's terms as much as I can so it doesn't seem so scary and different.
I also like to focus on all the other things I like to do, since my career is only one facet of things that interest me.
And I know the feeling of being independent and not wanting someone to do something for me. But I am also learning a lot lately that it's only possible to serve someone if they'll let you, and allowing someone to serve me, even if it's something I can do for myself, is a very strong way to create a connection. I'm not talking about being helpless, I'm talking about letting someone open the door if he would like to, letting him pick up the check even if I make more money than him because he wants to, letting him carry things for me sometimes, etc. That's not the same as admitting that I'm a weak woman who can't fend for herself. It's allowing someone to serve me, especially if I respond with a grateful "thank you" and a smile.

[Katya]

And I know the feeling of being independent and not wanting someone to do something for me. But I am also learning a lot lately that it's only possible to serve someone if they'll let you, and allowing someone to serve me, even if it's something I can do for myself, is a very strong way to create a connection. I'm not talking about being helpless, I'm talking about letting someone open the door if he would like to, letting him pick up the check even if I make more money than him because he wants to, letting him carry things for me sometimes, etc. That's not the same as admitting that I'm a weak woman who can't fend for herself. It's allowing someone to serve me, especially if I respond with a grateful "thank you" and a smile.

Right. If you set yourself up to be helpless, then you really limit your choices because you have to get married ASAP so that you'll have a man to take care of you. But for those of us who are really independent or who have been self-sufficient for a long time, it's also easy to set yourself up as someone who doesn't have room for anyone else in her life. But you can make a space in your life for someone to serve you in a way that works for both of you.

[Marduk]

Can I be honest here?

The whole idea of independent and self-reliant as being contrary to being capable of being in a relationship is something I don't really understand. Every single one of us needs other people, and desperately. We need people to befriend us, to help us, to be around us, etc. So why does being in a relationship necessitate giving up any self-reliance?

Is it a "being a woman" kind of thing? I have never been ashamed to admit that I need someone: a friend, a significant other, a family member, or whoever. Any insight?

[Portia]

Huh. This has been a very interesting thread. I was especially surprised to see Imogen having issues as a young single career woman in the "real world," as I thought this was more a Utah-centric phenomenon (TAMN, anyone?). However, the travails of young, smart, single career women form the basis of every chick lit book ever.

I never dated in high school, but once I moved on to college, I was rarely single/unhappy with my dating life, whether that was a serious, committed relationship or more "NCMO." The guys I seriously dated were all book smart; all skipped grades (like me) and had earned merit scholarships (like me). Their backgrounds, specifically what their fathers did with their careers, seemed to have a striking correlation with what they did:

Boyfriend 1 liked "fun" things like music, acting, and cooking a lot more than the hard graft of studying: he is sort of floating currently. Very social, though. His dad racked up hundreds of BYU credits but never graduated
Boyfriend 2a was the most like me in terms of chosen field: "we both love the humanities but think with the scientific method," was how he put it. He struggled somewhat with more economic- or mathematics-based courses; languages and writing come very easily to him, so he graduated in that and is now going to go to Law School or get an English PhD or something. His dad is also an academic. Average social.
Boyfriend 2b scores lowest on the social scale, but highest on the professional scale. He is well-rounded and quite bright at just about everything; especially anything with numbers. Has a career, not a "job." Father had a couple hiccups young but by 30 was a professional chemist; this boyfriend is probably from the wealthiest background of any of them (which I think is a whole lot more salient to your life/potential conflicts than your GPA!); they're all along the range of middle-class, though.

Am I "smarter" than 1a because I didn't lose my scholarship my first semester? He's a very attractive person and we had very strong chemistry! Am I "dumber" than 2b because I happen to not fill in excel spreadsheets and use calculus on a day-to-day basis? He's very good at piano, too!

I guess, yeah, I'm not going to date (or even let my lips touch in short-term dalliances) a complete idiot. But if I had dumped a guy because I understand the Krebs cycle better than him, or a guy dumps me because I didn't take linear algebra, well, that seems like crappy behavior to me.

I suppose I should consider myself lucky (is it that I'm curvaceous and have straight teeth? that I'm outgoing and aggressive in the pursuit of males of the species? who knows!), seeing as how much was "counting against me." O_O

Then again, board females [ETA: question askers, the writers are a bit less moony] overestimate the desirability of a relationship by a factor of about 500.

And yes, I am responding to my own thread, it's a miracle.

Conclusion: in a perfect world, I'd have a gorgeous, passably smart husband, who inherited wealth from his Ketchup or Steel empire, to praise my brilliance and publish my books through his connections and that I could lust after.

So if you can avoid dumber people than you, what about less hot? I'm a solid 7 and could ratchet that up by toning my abs to at least 8 territory, so I guess all comers better pass a hot-or-not.com test with a large sample size.

[Portia]

Something just (re-)occurred to me: me and el boyfriends were perhaps less "brilliant, world-changing minds" than "early bloomers academically, not necessarily socially." Of COURSE the "rah! I took calculus at 15!"-ers find each other: it's just sort of the way it goes. So there is my advice: you don't need to be stuck up about someone's "credentials" because like attracts like, whether it's in your ward, the Board, extracurricular teams, etc.

[Portia]

So I think that being too independent or seeming to be too independent could very well be getting in her way.

Which is not to say that I think she should become helpless or needy, but if she does want to be in a relationship, then she needs to do a good job of communicating what she would like a guy to contribute to the relationship, or guys are going to assume that they don't have anything to bring to the table that she would value.

Any suggestions for how to do this? I think it's something I need to work on myself.

Hmm.

Well, think of your friends and think of why you get along with them or why you like being around them. The attorneys I've known tend to be pragmatic, rational and tenacious, but not necessarily very creative, impulsive, or nice. Does that describe you? Do you tend to make friends with people with those opposite qualities? (Opposites don't always attract, so don't go looking to date someone impulsive if you can't stand people like that.)

Once you've identified some of the qualities you don't have (but tend to be drawn to), I'd really just be more vocal about admiring those qualities. Like I said, I don't believe in playing dumb or helpless, but I'm all about making an effort to say or do something if I can do it honestly. (E.g., I wouldn't give a guy a compliment if it was a lie, but I'll absolutely vocalize something I genuinely admire about him because positive statements help a relationship.)

So, if you meet a guy who's a theater dramaturg, only he has a second job because he can't live on the theater work, he might be really intimidated by your profession and salary. But if you vocalize that you enjoy the theater or are curious about his work, that will help to level the playing field. Also, remember that we tend to undervalue the things that we're good at because they come naturally to us, so the guys around you are going to be naturally undervaluing a lot of their talents and skills.

I have no idea if any of this would actually work, but that's the approach I would try. (And if it does work and you get engaged within a month, I want royalties on your wedding presents. ;))

You always have a knack of putting things well (that is what would intimidate me about you, Katya, were I a marriage-minded straight man asking for your hand. Your superior writing and reasoning skills). That is both the most diplomatic and the most hilarious way to describe lawyers I've read. :)

[Portia]

Am I safe in assuming that the girls here are the same way - that they would not want a guy who is more brilliant than them in every way?

That depends on how you define your terms. No one wants to feel like they don't bring anything to a relationship, but we tend to assign the word "smart" to people with a certain groups of qualities (well educated, well read, good at academics (perhaps especially math-based subjects), high IQ, generally knowledgeable, large vocabulary). For excellence in other qualities, we tend to use words like "skilled," "creative," "talented," etc.

Girls don't tend to have their self-worth or gender identity tied up in the qualities that fall under "smart." (On the contrary, smart girls get a lot of social smackdown for being smart.) So a girl can marry a guy who is generally smarter than she is in all those areas and not necessarily have a problem with it, so long as she feels like she's bringing other things to the relationship.

The reverse is not true. Guys tend to find the "smart" qualities more threatening than other qualities.

Sorry for the multi-posting! :\

But this is a really, really good way of elucidating the "intelligence" conundrum. My father is physically strong, works hard every single day of the year, is kind, is loyal, has a decent business sense, and is entrepreneurial. He also can't spell simple homophones, graduated high school late, generally dislikes reading, never went to a university, and works with his hands. Therefore, he's probably not considered "smart." I, on the other hand, excelled at AP courses, speak French, have graded calculus homework, enjoy reading erudite linguistics books, and spelled at the level of a 20-year-old at age 8. I'm "smart," never mind that I can't drive (nope. that is how maladjusted to the real world I am, folks!), could never have the self-control to work at 5 AM every day, lose things, etc.

I am very, very grateful for whatever my intellectual gifts may be, and I never forget that for most of human history I probably would have been stomped on by a mastodon while contemplating constellations or political intrigue among the cavedwellers. Being smart and getting to think lofty thoughts is a privilege, not a right, and it won't hurt to scrub a toilet or watch a baseball game every now and then. I would probably have my nose in a book throughout all my waking hours were it possible, but for one so smart, I sure can be dumb sometimes.

I think this economy should be a wake-up call to the smart but unskilled among us. ESPECIALLY the "breadwinners," for lack of a better term. My father's steady construction work doesn't look so bad now, does it, Philosophy major?

[Katya]

Can I be honest here?

The whole idea of independent and self-reliant as being contrary to being capable of being in a relationship is something I don't really understand. Every single one of us needs other people, and desperately. We need people to befriend us, to help us, to be around us, etc. So why does being in a relationship necessitate giving up any self-reliance?

Is it a "being a woman" kind of thing? I have never been ashamed to admit that I need someone: a friend, a significant other, a family member, or whoever. Any insight?

It's partly a "woman" thing and partly a "you" thing.

Traditionally, the division of labor in a marriage is that the man is responsible for the things outside the home—breadwinning, politics, paying bills, handyman work (which I suppose is technically inside the home)—and the woman is responsible for the things inside the home—cooking, cleaning, decorating, and childrearing.

When we say a woman is "independent," what we generally mean is that she's taking care of her own "outside the home" things without having to be dependent on a man to do them for her. Despite the fact that we're all supposed to be very modern and enlightened, a lot of men and women (perhaps particularly within Mormon circles) think of relationship contributions in fairly traditional terms. So, when a man meets a woman who is very competent at taking care of herself in an "outside the home" kind of way, he may feel like he wouldn't have anything to contribute to a relationship.

The reverse does not hold true. We expect men to be financially self-sufficient, etc., so that's not an inherently intimidating quality in men, because it breaks down along traditional gender responsibilities. (I suppose it's possible for a man to be very competent in the domestic sphere, as well, but for some reason that doesn't seem to be as much of a relationship barrier.)

So that's a rundown of the "woman" aspect of it. The "you" aspect of it is that you try to approach life from an unbiased / unprejudiced perspective, so you're not viewing relationships through the traditional gender model and you don't see what the fuss is. (I'd wager that you're also pretty self-confident and not easily intimidated, so, again, you're going to look at this sort of situation and wonder what's so threatening about it.)

I haven't addressed the issue of independent women not wanting to be in a relationship (instead of just intimidating all the boys), because I can't speak to it, myself.

[Katya]

Of COURSE the "rah! I took calculus at 15!"-ers find each other: it's just sort of the way it goes.

Is it possible to take calculus at 15 without being "rah!" about it?

[Katya]

You always have a knack of putting things well (that is what would intimidate me about you, Katya, were I a marriage-minded straight man asking for your hand. Your superior writing and reasoning skills). That is both the most diplomatic and the most hilarious way to describe lawyers I've read.

Well, I have a number of lawyer friends and I'm quite fond of them, so I'm motivated to choose my words carefully.

[Digit]

Of COURSE the "rah! I took calculus at 15!"-ers find each other: it's just sort of the way it goes.

Is it possible to take calculus at 15 without being "rah!" about it?

I don't think 12-year-old Jacob Barnett is "rah!" about being so much better than everyone else as he is "rah!" about the Schrödinger equation and whatnot.

[NerdGirl]

never mind that I can't drive

I can't drive either.

[wired]

Of COURSE the "rah! I took calculus at 15!"-ers find each other: it's just sort of the way it goes.

Is it possible to take calculus at 15 without being "rah!" about it?

I don't think 12-year-old Jacob Barnett is "rah!" about being so much better than everyone else as he is "rah!" about the Schrödinger equation and whatnot.

A favorite:

So off they went on a tour of the Holcomb Observatory and Planetarium at Butler University. Kristine Barnett will never forget the day.

"We were in the crowd, just sitting, listening to this guy ask the crowd if anyone knew why the moons going around Mars were potato shaped and not round," she recalls. "Jacob raised his hand and said, 'Excuse me, but what are the sizes of the moons around Mars?'." The lecturer answered and "Jacob looked at him and said the gravity of the planet ... is so large, that (the moon's) gravity would not be able to pull it into a round shape."

Silence.

"That entire building ... everyone was just looking at him, like, who is this 3-year-old?"

That. Is. Awesome.

[Katya]

So off they went on a tour of the Holcomb Observatory and Planetarium at Butler University. Kristine Barnett will never forget the day.

"We were in the crowd, just sitting, listening to this guy ask the crowd if anyone knew why the moons going around Mars were potato shaped and not round," she recalls. "Jacob raised his hand and said, 'Excuse me, but what are the sizes of the moons around Mars?'." The lecturer answered and "Jacob looked at him and said the gravity of the planet ... is so large, that (the moon's) gravity would not be able to pull it into a round shape."

Silence.

"That entire building ... everyone was just looking at him, like, who is this 3-year-old?"

That. Is. Awesome.

That was my favorite part, too.

[Indefinite Integral]

Can I be honest here?

The whole idea of independent and self-reliant as being contrary to being capable of being in a relationship is something I don't really understand. Every single one of us needs other people, and desperately. We need people to befriend us, to help us, to be around us, etc. So why does being in a relationship necessitate giving up any self-reliance?

Is it a "being a woman" kind of thing? I have never been ashamed to admit that I need someone: a friend, a significant other, a family member, or whoever. Any insight?

Another idea I had that Katya didn't mention:

Sometimes a woman, especially one who has been single for a significant length of time, really does "need other people, and desperately," like you said. However, she has been alone long enough to figure out how to do everything on her own. She has convinced herself that she doesn't need a significant other to be happy, and bringing down those barriers of independence can be very frightening. What if it's true that you do need someone else, and then they just leave you sitting out in the cold? Sometimes it's much easier to be aloof and independent than to hang your hopes of happiness on someone else and then have them dashed to pieces.

I don't know if this is what others in this thread meant, but there's another possibility for you.

[Katya]

Another idea I had that Katya didn't mention:

Sometimes a woman, especially one who has been single for a significant length of time, really does "need other people, and desperately," like you said. However, she has been alone long enough to figure out how to do everything on her own. She has convinced herself that she doesn't need a significant other to be happy, and bringing down those barriers of independence can be very frightening. What if it's true that you do need someone else, and then they just leave you sitting out in the cold? Sometimes it's much easier to be aloof and independent than to hang your hopes of happiness on someone else and then have them dashed to pieces.

I don't know if this is what others in this thread meant, but there's another possibility for you.

That's a very good observation, although do you think it's specific to women?