Gipper

Well, since I believe that the vast majority of people out there are stupid, I'd probably disagree a bit.

I love Jeopardy and watch it religiously every night. There have also been times where I've had in-dates and I use Jeopardy as a "litmus test". If they just look baffled or go "Wow you're, like, really smart", I pretty much know where it's going to end up.

I personally am attracted to intelligent women and find the standard "smart girl" stereotypes sexy. I love a woman with glasses. I love a woman who can work a business suit. I love a woman who can talk about something other than her hair, the mall, or who screwed who on the O.C.

For every sexy, intelligent woman I've dated, I've dated 20 airheads. Probably why I'm single...and since I've moved to Alabama, I may as well give up that dream.

__________________
A government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. - Barry Goldwater

1069

But up until the civil rights/ women's liberation movement, which was only about one and a half generations ago, there weren't women at Harvard, and the women harvard men dated didn't necessarily go to college at all... or they attended one of the Seven Sisters (Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, or Vassar), which weren't really institutes of higher learning at all until recently, but more like pricey finishing schools, specializing in courses such as Home Economics and various domestic sciences.
Marriage and maternity were viewed as women's biological destiny; these colleges endeavored to prepare their graduates to be successful wives, mothers, and homemakers, rather than for careers.
The whole purpose of women being at "college" in the post WWII/ pre-Women's Lib era was to meet husbands. The most "successful" female students never finished, because they dropped out to marry, which was the whole point of the curriculum in the first place.

So, I mean... even if your theory makes sense for the past 30 years or so, it has no basis in reality before that.
Not that there were no "academic" or intellectual women- although there weren't many- but these women were considered renegades, social misfits. A wealthy man with a wide range of choices- including flocks of women who had been groomed solely and specifically for the purpose of being good wives and mothers- would not have chosen to marry one, and probably would not- contrary to your assertions- ever have come into contact with one.

__________________
Lightdemon: "Is 10 going to outer space or something?"
Jerry: "...yes, 10 is going to outerspace."

new coup for you

You make a good point, our gender relationship until quite recently was very bizzare.

This is somthing I've never understood...I would find it unbearable to spend my lifetime with someone who's interests do not expand beyond baking and sewing.

Maybe men used to have to go hide from their wives in the Rotary Club and bars because their wives were insufferably boring.

Anyway, in todays world, smart, proactive, professional people are not socializing with the proles.

__________________
And why does your tone suggest that you do not care about children?

I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike.

1069

The cool ones are.

new coup for you

The proles was not the right term, I meant people who were not competitive in their intelectual strata.

1069

Hrmm... there's a cultural strata of artsy, socially subversive intelligentsia which cuts across socio-economic boundaries.
At least, there is here.

new coup for you

Yeeeeahh...I meet alot of poor black people who really like edgy culture. All the time...

no, they like top 40 rap, conspcious consumption and excessive social posturing.

this does not mean they couldn't be elevated out of that kind of squalor through education, in fact it's one of my deepest beleifs that it is our duty as a society to help them do so, but i'm not going to ignore the problems with their current culture.