please forgive me for the generalization- of course this isn't rigid, as for everything there will always be exceptions. but this is a definite pattern i've noticed. has anyone else noticed this, or have an idea about it?
I think intelligence is often correlated with independent thinking, and therefore those individuals are less prone to comformity.
Society has plenty of stereotypes built around highly intelligent people. (This entire topic is relying on one such stereotype.) And a lot of academics conform to these stereotypes, whether they’re aware or not.
In the other direction, I don’t think eccentricity directly correlates with intelligence, either.
I find it more likely that it has to do with values. Many intelligent people don’t prioritize gender-performing activities as highly as spending time on intellectual pursuits.
Someone could spend the majority of her free time tinkering in a lab, reading about physics, doing squats to make her butt bigger, or watching beauty tutorials. An archetypal intelligent person is more likely to find the first two activities a better use of their limited time than the latter two. Or she could spend her limited money on a new telescope or a new handbag. She makes the “less feminine” choices not because she’s an “independent thinker” or breaker of stereotypes - but rather because she values knowledge over sexual attractiveness.
It might just have to do with what is stereotypically associated with being intelligent, masculine, or feminine.
For instance, "nerdy" interests like comic books or D&D are typically associated with being more intelligent, but not particularly masculine. Whereas something like sports would be considered masculine, but not particularly intelligent. On a surface level, you might just assume the nerdy kid is smarter than the football player... but in reality, I have known some very smart student athletes, and some pretty dumb nerds.
I think the real problem is we are knee deep in multiple layers of terribly defined stereotypes trying to pull out a pearl of wisdom, as if it could exist there. Any conclusions drawn are just as shaky and murky as the whole premise
It's like trying to build something substantial from only a pile of dust. Futile
I suspect it seems that way because there's a stereotype of attractive guys as stupid jocks and attractive women as dumb bimbos. A lot of people then selectively reinforce this bias while ignoring examples that don't fit.
And dumb people are more likely to equate the stereotype to the gender role, whereas smart people are more likely to have a more nuanced view. Masculinity isn’t tied to liking sports anymore than femininity is tied to liking reality tv or something.
And yet they all have something in common. They will list a plethora of things that ARENT femenine or masculine but cant find thing that ARE
Yep, exactly what I immediately thought when I saw this post! Bias can really affect how we view things.
Yeah, there are a lot of physical stereotypes associated with intelligence even though you can’t tell how smart someone truly is without getting into some super deep conversations. If I show you a scrawny guy with a pocket protector in his ill-fitting dress shirt and an average woman wearing makeup and a nice dress and then ask you which of them has a PhD, most people would probably pick the stereotypical nerd.
Dumb people can be socially awkward and nerd out about their favorite media. Smart people can be attractive and charming. We still generally portray intelligence as something that makes you an outcast so we’re more likely to recognize it in people that fit that bias by failing to conform to things like gender roles.
Yes! I saw a documentary about this idea while I was in Italy, it was called La rivincita delle bionde
The society that separates its scholars from warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and fighting done by its fools.
Thucydides
When you have a working public school system, that should mitigate any old Athenians concerns in this regard.
They are plenty masculine and feminine, but what a person thinks of as masculine or feminine is a little more rigid and cultural when they aren't as educated or exposed to other ways of living.
When you recognize how big the world is, the ideas of masculine and feminine get a lot more nuanced and less strict.
This is all true, but you know what he means... Why does there seem to be an inverse correlation between intelligence and stereotypically masculine traits (in the western world).
The answer is still in my explanation.
Low IQ ideas of what masculinity are, are different from high IQ ones.
Some perceive them as less stereotypically masculine, because their ideas are more rigid and less nuanced than the person they are observing.
Lots of stereotypes are rooted in toxic masculinity for example, and a smarter person would avoid those stereotypes because they are harmful.
The guy with the pipe wrench that wants my wallet says otherwise!
To add just a bit of “straight talk”:
Dumb men who want to be masculine will just be very stereotypically masculine - they will do whatever you think is masculine (beer, sports, lift weights, go fishing, whatever).
Smart men who want to be masculine may have a more nuanced view of masculinity - perhaps they think being true to yourself is the most masculine shit one could do.
In that case, you’d see the smart guy as being less stereotypically masculine.
But really the smart guy is just more likely to express it in a way that doesn’t seem as masculine. It doesn’t mean that smart people are less masculine than dumb people, or vice versa. It’s just that intelligent people can express their masculinity in more varied ways.
It’s not like football and drinking beer are inherently masculine - and I’d defy you to construct a definition of masculinity that involves either one of those things inherently
Stereotypically masculine and feminine traits* it's simply because a core part of intelligence is intellectual flexibility. Smart people are wrong all the time, to expand your knowledge you need to accept that your current knowledge is incomplete/inaccurate. Stereotypical masculinity and femininity both have layers of rigidity that conflict with this.
That being said, OP's whole premise is wrong. He's arguing that there's a trend between sex hormone and intelligence. The study linked in another comment is hardly a grounds for this sort of question. Intelligent people being fluid doesn't mean that they have lower sex hormones or are less capable of being masculine or feminine.
masculine: having qualities or an appearance traditionally associated with men. (merriam webster)
there is absolutely a set of qualities that is traditionally associated with men or boys. this doesn't answer the question.
It does. Because there are many traditions, and your idea of masculine gets more nuanced and less strict the more traditions you are exposed to.
Either through education or exposure to more ways of living.
fair. i think that a better way to have put it would be less conforming to societal gender roles.
More intelligent men tend to be more introspective, and tend to think more before they speak, which also means they typically don't have to speak with force because they can rely on sound reasoning in any form of interpersonal negotiation or communication. Also, people tend to have a limited amount of time at their disposal, so academic pursuits often come at the cost of physical pursuits (studying vs working out for example) and also tends to mean working in white collar fields vs blue collar (where one might naturally attain that masculine physicality by way of work.) these factors can give a man a softer 'aura' for lack of a better word. Which, in stereotyping tends to translate to a less macho man.
In women, it's almost the same thing in reverse. To be respected in academia, (and many professional environments in general) women have to learn to stand up for themselves in a way that men typically don't need to, and be a little more forceful in pushing their ideas and pursuing their own achievements. Intelligence also means being less invested in surface level qualities, just by nature, and so displays of beauty, which are often overtly, and not so overtly symbolic of the feminine ideal, are less of a priority. Makeup, fashion and things of that nature tend to be lower on the totem pole. These women also tend to pursue traditionally non-feminine occupations. All of that has an effect on personality, so using the same pattern I mentioned before, this tends to give women a harder 'aura', because being driven and acting with purpose by it's nature means being less soft. With a general softness of presence being a general marker for perceiving something as feminine. . . it's pretty natural that, not intelligence itself exactly, but the life it often leads too, could make woman seem less feminine. You get into stereotypes again, and these women tend to be portrayed as pushy, bossy, invaders in a formerly male environment, and with something to prove, and there you have it.
At least this is my take on it. A lot of pop culture stereotyping mixed with common perception and generalization.
This is an interesting nuanced perspective, thank you for sharing and adding to the discussion.
Because people wrongly think himbos and bimbos are the only ways to be masc or fem.
My wife is the girliest girl who ever girled and while I'm no slouch in the brains department she's also got me beat hands-down there.
Luckily we don't own a step stool so I'm still needed for things on the top shelf.
I am sure you are also good for opening jars!
We're losing that advantage!
(Seriously, though, it's a gamechanger if you have grip issues.)
I had to install that. Like being made to dig my own grave.
Thanks this response made me snort with laughter. Best you keep putting things on the top shelf - don’t wanna become obsolete 😆
Eye of the beholder. An intelligent woman wouldn't find a violent or arrogant man as "masculine." Vice versa.
good point
Note that lower intelligence (let's say 80-90 IQ scores in that environment) also quite often don't fit those stereotypes or are very toxic as a result.
So, regressing towards the middle can get toxic behavior, because it is very easy to become comparable to others (you're smart enough to know you're dumb...), and may be why it is literally more "ordinary" for focus on gender, class, race etc issues.
Because stupid people follow blindly lol
You're going to have to explain what you mean by masculine and feminine here. It sounds like you're using very surface level things like guys like sports, cars, and big boobs and girls like baking and cute things.
This is such a bullshit and bad faith question to ask.
Everyone knows what feminine and masculine traits are, but in a vacuum, femininity and masculinity are inherently stereotypical.
You literally cannot even have a discussion about femininity and masculinity without using stereotypes.
So I'll ask you. What do you consider to be feminine or masculine traits without using any traits that stereotypically belong to either men or women?
When someone asks 'why do girls like pink' there always that dumbass that goes 'not all girls like pink' or 'why would you assume that pink is a feminine color', which is all true, but liking pink is obviously a more prominent quality in women than men and everyone knows it. it should be pretty obvious that it was a generalization and not gospel.
I think your question bakes in the belief that low intelligence is synonymous with masculinity in men and femininity in women. There's not really any possible answer to your question that would escape your assertion that dumb and conforming to gender stereotypes are synonyms. So I think the answer to your question is the self fulfillment of this core belief of yours.
Stereotypes
It’s a misunderstanding of what masculinity is. The philosopher is as masculine as the athlete; probably more so.
I think that's an interesting and somewhat legit observation.
You may have seen more people with autistic traits. A lot of the nerdy subjects are STEM, and people with more autistic traits are more likely to go into those fields.
People on the autism spectrum are also more likely to be physically and mentally androgynous, and are more likely to be LGBTQ+. Our community is very diverse, and we're kind of different, although it may not be obvious at first.
You are defining “masculine” and “feminine” in very peculiar ways
Your expectations are setting your perception. We see what we want to see. There is no validity to your statement.
what would prove to you otherwise?
i could share studies that help show the correlation if you want. my claim is entirely falsifiable, i'm just going off my experience and research i've seen on it
There is absolutely validity to your statement. These people responding are all so annoying. "Well, ackshully, according to norms of masculinity in 15th-century Persia..."
I understand exactly what you mean, and I think anyone who is not preoccupied with stamping out "stereotyping" in even the most benign contexts would acknowledge the truth of your premise. These commenters are just egomaniacs who cannot put their hero complexes aside for ten seconds and answer a basic question.
I watch a shit ton of Jeopardy. You are ten times more likely to see a woman on Jeopardy who looks like Rachel Maddow than a woman who looks like Margot Robbie in the Barbie movie. Ten times more likely to see a guy who looks like Nate Silver or Gerard Way than a guy who looks like an NFL linebacker.
Everyone knows that. Everyone understands what you mean. But these people just can't help themselves.
As for the answer...I think the short version is that people of average intelligence tend to feel comfortable around other people of average intelligence, and, given that the average is almost always the largest group, it's more likely these people will adopt appearances and demeanors that conform to the average--what is "normal" or expected.
People of above average intelligence are more comfortable being outliers. They still want to conform to their community, but it's a different community than the average one, with different expectations.
And some brilliant people are just weird as hell because their brains operate differently than the rest of ours, and you can often see it in their appearance.
i could share studies that help show the correlation if you want.
Sure, read through those and then be equipped enough to PROVE to the commenter above why they're wrong.
Or maybe you'll learn you were wrong. Those are the two options.
Share studies
Education = androgyny
???
Where profit?
Because gender identities are a construct, a matter of nurture, not nature.
Intelligent people tend to understand this and so have less of a problem expressing characteristics that are traditionally associated with other gender identities.
I think you think this because of media. Intelligent men are always portrayed as nerds or feminine. And intelligent women are always portrayed as strong empowered women or women who look like nerds. What I've seen is that in reality people can be intelligent while looking feminine or masculine.
Well the more educated you are the more chance you acknowledge and debunk social norms and express yourself how you see fit.
Someone needs to watch Legally Blonde & take its message to heart lol.
But seriously, what exactly do you mean by “feminine” here? Someone who wears a lot of makeup or cares about fashion? Because I’m a grad student & many of my female peers (and myself) are both smart academics & wear makeup and fun outfits. By feminine do you mean feminine interests? What do you consider feminine interests? Do you mean feminine personality traits?
I mean, at least based on the people I know, it's because the "more intelligent" people understand that there really isn't that much difference between men and women, and they feel less need to adhere to gender stereotypes. There are more important things to expend energy on.
I haven't honestly noticed this. I do think people judge masculine *looking* men as stupid and feminine *looking* women as stupid, and make assumptions about their intelligence. Being a dude I know quite a few men, and some effeminate dudes are super smart, some are absolute morons. Same with masculine looking dudes. You can tell more about someone's intelligence through their mannerisms than through their appearance.
The only thing I have noticed is that masculine looking dudes seem to be less educated - I stopped correlating education with intelligence a long time ago, when I was in university. I don't see a lack of education as being less intelligent. Someone might, I'd posit that they are wrong. We might also just see intelligence differently though. There are many aspects to intelligence and different people value different aspects.
Simple answers
Going by stereotypes.
Men would be typical bruisers/jocks. Try typical macho stuff. So being more intellectual is seen as less physically strong thus more feminine. Very caveman like logic but it's similar to making fun of nerds/geeks. Same reason manual labour is seen as more masculine.
Women are stereotypically portrayed more emotional so when they are being more intelligent or logical people associate that with masculinity. Again very caveman like stuff.
And of course the type of intelligence also factors in. Person smart in computing/robotics would be considered more masculine than someone really good at poetry.
Interesting observation, but intelligence doesn’t cancel masculinity or femininity it just shows up differently
Confirmation bias
You just happen to know people like that, and it is based on your own perceptions of masculinity/feminity/intelligence. It’s not indicative of a larger pattern
And what would those objective masculinity/feminity standards be? Genuinely curious
Because conventional characterizations of "masculine" and "feminine" are exaggerated caricatures, and your expectations are grossly unrealistic? Because smart people have more options open to them, that they are able to consider and be comfortable with?
Totally depends. For instance: What do you mean by intelligent? Lots of intelligent women become moms, raise kids, never have a traditional job. The issue is that you wouldn't know how intelligent they are by traditional measures of success, (formal education levels, career success, etc.), because that's only one way to measure. I feel like it's hard to actually measure intelligence across such broad demographics without an extensive study.
Smarter people realize, that the difference between the sexes is miniscule compared to humans and their closest relative.
They behave accordingly/you have viewer basis?
Sounds like coincidence. Cause i've met intelligent men and women of all sorts.
Because more intelligent people are more likely to have interests and experiences outside the stereotypical ones for their sex.
1) Some heavily gendered behavior is just really dumb, especially on the masculine side.
2) Some heavily gendered behavior takes a ton of time. Makeup, lifting. People in Ph.D. programs have little time for such things and rarely develop a taste for them later in life, either. And honestly a lot of what we think of as "intelligent" has more to do with opportunities and preferences than mental capacity, anyway.
Part of it is that people have a warped idea of what intelligence is these days. They think it involves a tendency to think analytically or in terms of abstract concepts.
But it’s actually intuition and insight that are more associated with fluid intelligence. The greatest expressions of masculinity and femininity both involve highly developed intuition and insight. People that are overly analytical (note that I didn’t say intelligent) often rely on abstract thought in situations where intuitive insight or creativity would be more appropriate.
Here’s an example: Bob postulates a few ethical principles and then derives a self-consistent set of conclusions from them. People admire his brilliance because of the apt choices of basic moral principles that he selected to start with and the perfect consistency with which he derives his conclusions from them. Everyone ignores the uneasy feeling they have about the “stranger” conclusions that are derived from Bob’s system; those conclusions must be right because such they are so clearly “proved” by such reasonable principles. But real intelligence can see when rules are best broken.
I used to be that guy. I learned more about myself from the book called The Master and His Emissary than from any other book. There is a whole epidemic of “analytical-ness” that is killing true intelligence in our society.
I think more intelligent people tend to realize that they're just roles you don't have to fit into if you don't want to.
Low intelligence men/women are more likely to strongly adhere to gender norms. High int men/women are more likely to be selective, deviate or not go all out. Hence, on average, high int men/women are less stereotypical than low int men/women.
Might just be your observational bias. Though, some people who are more cognitively flexible may be less afraid of not fitting into social norms. That being said, I've met very burly dudes and very hyper-feminine women who are brainy too.
Well I like to think I'm a pretty masculine guy whatever that is defined as and am very far from stupid based on making my career using my mind versus my body. I certainly don't think I am an exception either.
I think having more varied experiences which can come with education expands people’s worldview on what they are “allowed” to be. Then it is easier to be your authentic self without narrowing your life based on cultural norms. People who do this are often less anxious as a result which can come off as more confident or intelligent to others more concerned with fitting in.
it's mostly preception, intelligence is regarded as making you soft and bookish in men or cunning and dishonorable, intelligence is regarded as making women hard and unnuturing or shrewish, the only basis I can think of outside of fiction is that people more interested in intellectual pursuits have less time for role affirming ones, or are more likely not to go along with role affirming behaviour and traditionally intelligent women had and have limited outlet or respect for their intellect and so are and were prone to frustration.
Probably a lot comes down to confidence.
Education and intelligence tend to correlate strongly with true confidence. They know who they are, what they're worth, and just how huge and diverse the world really is.
And they know they don't need the approval of people who don't.
Because based on your descriptions of what "masculine and feminine" mean... those are culture-specific definitions, not universal ones. And only insecure people feel compelled to conform to social norms.
If you know you've got the skills, you don't need to convince anyone else of that - the ones with something to offer in return will find you. The sort of confidence commonly shown by jocks, politicians, and con-men usually isn't real confidence, it's just an act to convince suckers, and often themselves.
And it works, probably because we did most of our evolving as a species too dumb to fake confidence effectively, and kinda got "acting confident without dying = competent" baked into our instincts. While we now live in a world where not dying is easy, so anyone can fake confidence, while the world has gotten complex enough that anyone truly competent will be plagued with uncertainties.
I'm highly intelligent and educated and I'm manly lol
I believe part of it is that people that care more about education do not care about being lemmings to fashion…
as a lot of people are hinting at... if you're "smart" enough to stand out as such... you have a vantage point above a lot of the surrounding forest so-to-speak... and it's easier to look around and see that the rules and expectations around your behavior based on whether you were born with a dick or not are mostly bullshit...
meanwhile if you're down at the bottom with all the other... what employers call "unskilled labor"... you're in fierce competition for every inch and every dollar, so you're more likely to have to play by the rules to leverage the backing of some social group, and groups tend to punish stepping out of line or thinking for yourself and reward consistency and playing by established rules...
so... a little push, a little pull... at the end of the day, we get something resembling the effect you observe...
They don't have time for that tired nonsense.
That's only a recent phenomena. Historically masculine men and feminine women of great intellect existed and were quite prominent in the 20the century.
Attractive people don't have to try very hard That's the whole story.
You are projecting a false reality tbh, all the most intelligent girls I’ve met are feminine, all the most intelligent men I’ve met are masculine. Not saying correlation is opposite to you, just an anecdotal counter example.
That’s just in your area
I don't agree
I just don't even agree with the premise.
Look up Dolph Lundgren.
And Hedy Lamarr
Everyone gets the off-the-shelf gender that society assigns them. You're a man? Okay you like beer, trucks, sports, guns, and are macho. Pick three or more. (Adjust for whatever your culture expects of men.)
And if that's fine with you, go ahead. Nothing wrong with that default gender. Have fun.
Some people might receive this and decide that maybe they aren't fine with it. It doesn't quite satisfy, they aren't into guns or sports or beer or trucks. Some of these might just live with that niggling dissatisfaction for years. Why doesn't this feel right? Am I broken? Am I not manly? Am I doing something wrong? Is this how everyone else feels?
Some of them, however, are going to do some introspection and analysis. Identify a problem (I don't like what has been foisted on me) and come up with a solution (I don't actually have to ascribe to the Two Genders of Society And Their Expectations). This can be scary- you're contradicting what everyone else is doing! You're watching millions of people (presumably) face the same circumstances and come to a different conclusion. Is disagreeing with them... right? Is there something they know that you don't? Is it even possible to stray from the herd and live a happy life?
But some do. Those are the ones you're identifying. It's got a filter- people don't become weird and off-beat by accident. They have to exert effort and intelligence and consideration to do it. Maybe not a lot- intelligence is compartmentalized, and the intelligence necessary to do introspection and come to terms with a different identity, gender or otherwise, isn't going to make you good at math or whatever. But they aren't going to get there without doing it.
There might be very intelligent people who are perfectly happy with Default Gender Attributes. But given the entry requirements for the 'offbeat' ones, there's going to be a higher percentage of 'intelligent' ones.
Because the more intelligent you are, the less your identity is wrapped up in superficial social constructs and the more likely your going to be yourself.
What’s your definition of Masculinity and intelligence?
Does masculinity mean someone with washboard abs and muscles?
Does intelligence mean problem solving, confidence and communication?
More intelligent people may be more inclined to question societal standards of conduct vs. simply accepting the programming and falling in with it.
EDIT: tl,dr⟩ it's pathos vs. logos
Maybe we unconsciously see masculinity & femininity as "traits of the heart"?--like they operate on an emotional level that doesn't seamlessly translate to the kind of empirical objectivity that logic & intellect prefer to reside in.
Gender roles are dumb
intelligence has nothing to do with masculinity and femininity you just saw something in tiktok
This post is just a bunch of people circlejerking each other
It is probably because your main source of exposure to them is through TV and movies. Most of the intelligent people that I have worked with or socialized with were generically masculine or feminine.
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Don't believe me, then if you are ever in Cambridge go talk to some MIT frat bros or sorority sisters or just talk to random people in a bar in that area and pick them out based on your stereotyping and get surprised when the "masculine" guy or "feminine" woman has a masters, a PhD or is a MD. You don't notice them because they don't stand out.
It's a bit more complicated than that, and actually isn't directly linked with "gender roles" but more so societal tradition in general
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612457956
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0095798417732419
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289606000155
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167201276003
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550613480275
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886917305167
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1967-05936-001
these focus on intellectual curiosity and effects of things on the personality
Additional links semi-related
Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797611421206 (Hodson & Busseri, 2012 – Psychological Science)
The Openness-Intellect Trait and Intellectual Engagement https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167204271419 (DeYoung et al., 2005 – Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin)
Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/social-dominance/75C20E40646B6BF658D9D79A8CE0C1AD (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999 – Cambridge University Press)
Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12653415/ (Mahalik et al., 2003 – Psychology of Men & Masculinity)
Intelligence and the ideological beliefs of adolescents https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0025290 (Carl, 2012 – Intelligence)
Personality and Gender Role Ideology: The Role of Big Five Traits and Gender https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00671/full (Donnelly & Twenge, 2020 – Frontiers in Psychology)
The Relationship Between Education and Gender Role Attitudes: A Cross-National Analysis https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243215580171 (Knight & Brinton, 2017 – Gender & Society)
Cognitive Styles and Gender Role Orientation: Rationality vs. Conformity https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672982410010 (Kemmelmeier & Chong, 2004 – Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin)
If you don't have a subscription to some of these, just search its DOI, i use an extension that gets around paywalls soooo.
I have not observed this. I don’t think it’s really a thing. A surprising number of models hold STEM degrees and I’ve seen plenty of extremely athletic men who are similarly brilliant.
This isn’t really true, even as a generalization. A lot of engineers and lawyers are pretty macho.
My personal belief is that performing gender requires effort. Those who chose for whatever reason to focus on performing the perfect version of their cultural gender stereotypes don’t have a lot of extra time and energy to become brilliant in other ways.
Because intelligence tells you that you don’t need to be caricature of your gender to be a person of value.
Ignorance demands you exaggerate your masculinity or femininity to ensure others don’t see you as weak or butch.
ITT: people making lots of claims about things they have absolutely no clue about, or people being offended at the thought of traditional gender roles.
Smart people analyze traditional gender displays and traits and can see that it’s fairly performative. From there they can choose to lean into it or ignore it completely.
Many choose to ignore it because these people gain a sense of confidence and identity around their intelligence, not their gender. So they don’t feel a need to act or look a certain way to feel good
Because most people don’t actually fit into society’s gender norms and intelligent people often can’t help but show their authentic selves
because smart people dont gaf about gender roles
The smarter you are the less you care about the opinions of the stupid.
I think it might be because they don't value ego's and appearances. But do value intellect and personality
IDK about intelligent, but definitely the more educated I got, and the more I studied economies and society’s and psychology (and as I got older), the more I realized the assumed stereotypes of what made somebody “Masculine” or “Feminine” were fucking ridiculous.
Just be yourself…and you will be what you will be. Example: I enjoy lifting weights…so I do it. But I really didn’t enjoy hunting or fishing or working on my truck…so I stopped doing it (I had been forcing it because all my friends did it and I thought it was a “Man” thing to do.
Instead I realized I should just be who I want to be. I read a lot of books now, and as I’ve gotten older, I took up yoga and reduced how much I lift weights…flexibility and functionality is pretty important to me in my 40s now. I focus on being a good husband and dad to my two Daughters, and that means understanding their position and experiences in the world…or at least trying to. It’s been eye opening having conversations with my daughters about periods and boys (and in the case of one of them…girls).
So, in summary, be who you want to be, and who gives a fuck if it is defined as masculine or feminine.
The reason some people may appear more generalized “Masculine or Feminine” is because they are either exactly what that stereotype is…or they are trying to match a perceived stereotype. In my experience, it is more often the latter.
Final Thoughts: I suspect intelligent people have a lot of empathy and are able to see the world from other perspectives…and therefore lose their assumptions of what is masculine or feminine. I think unintelligent people lack empathy and are therefore stuck on their predefined or early defined notions about the way a person should be.
I’ve never heard this before.
Is this just an OP-thing? (And just a handful of people maybe).
It could be that, generally speaking, more intelligent people are less likely to slide into stereotypical gender behavior.
You’ll need to define and describe what you mean by masculine and feminine.
Smart men and women know that femininity and masculinity are stupid constructs and would rather live how they choose.
I would say that the more intelligent you are the more likely you are to realize that these ideas are just social constructs and that you don't have to conform if you don't want to.
Less educated people also tend to explore less varied viewpoints, and are thus less likely to diverge from the "norm".
Everyone hating, and I don’t know why. I agree 100% with this post, and also notice it a lot. As a woman. The women in my life, who are a little on the less educated side, always seem to be doing things for men’s approval. Therefore being submissive, dressing up more, etc. and vice versa is true as well.
The women in my husband's family are like that. They don't work, just stay at home cook, clean and take care of the kids. I don't think that any of them graduated from high school. They don't seem to have life goals but they grew up super poor on a ranch in the middle of nowhere so it's kinda understandable
A lot of commenters here are doing the typical Redditor "Well, actually" thing. OP's meaning was perfectly clear, if not correct. But, as usual, Redditors nitpick it to death rather than directly challenge it (to be fair, some commenters here have challenged OP head on).
This question is somehow very masculine and feminine.
I guess they don't need to follow gender norm dogma. They're smart enough to chart their own courses.
That has not been my experience.
Several studies have found a negative correlation in men between IQ and Testosterone levels. Not that one affects the other, but there is science backing up the thing you are describing.
Probably because aggression (which is usually dumb) and competition (wich isn't as useful as cooperation) increases testosterone levels.
Like I said, I don't think it's a direct connection, so much as underlying factors that cause both IQ and T levels consistently show themselves in this correlation.
If I had to guess, higher IQ is probably shown by people who think logically through issues, like the ones on an IQ test, and people with higher levels of T are more likely to be emotionally driven and impulsive- less likely to sit back and think. Just a guess.
But aside for the redditors downvoting me, you can easily google my original claim. It's easy to back up lol. Science has shown the higher your IQ (as a man), the lower your testosterone is by comparison.
I expect theirs a general cultural perception of intelligence, generally involving being less attractive and less involved in social conventions such as caring to do things like particular clothing decisions that would highlight/extenuate gender presentation, so we make assumptions that tend to fit that and assume things that dont are outliers
To Whom?????
It's because masculinity is a physical attribute and intelligence is not. So the question is illogical.
In my opinion it’s because a good chunk of gender is just social. The smarter you are the more you see that and can adjust. Intelligence in some ways is just depth of perception. We are probably more alike than we realize normally.
Your own personal biases and also the biases of hiring institutions.
Brains over brawn?
People playing to their strengths. If you're intelligent, your mind is the main muscle you exercise. I'm saying that, I'm intelligent and fit because I got to 50 and realized I didn't want to be driving that wreck of a body for the next few decades.
That sounds vaguely like the answer is "its the patriarchy, man!".
Caveman (or Cavewoman) part of brain is more suppressed I guess. If a hammer is all you've got you'll brute force everything. If you can think about stuff to find a better solution those more raw parts atrophy.
Intelligent people often have more social collateral (money, prestige, security, resources, relationships) that allows them more latitude to behave how they prefer. They also are more likely to understand gender and gender roles and how those roles apply or don't apply to daily life.
As everyone else I'm going to say first that EVERYTHING I'm about to say is admitedly a gross generalization of the particulars being discussed. O.k. that said, these are examples of the "nurture" half of nature/nurture question. If a person is more (see can afford) educated and thus " more intelligent" they have probably been told directly, and shown through the actions of the adults in their lives that whatever self they choose to express to society writ large is not only acceptable but SHOULD be accepted. Caring about the opinions of those who don't accept that self is a waste of time. Those without excess to higher education, sometimes even basic education were lucky enough to hear from the adults in their lives that autonomy and self determination not only should exist but should be celebrated, they are probably not seeing it exemplified by anyone around them, and there's the door probably outkast to a certain degree. I think that intelligence (or what society has deemed what intelligence IS) correlates directly with one's social and financial standing. I believe that barring physiological or neurological detriment, every human has the innate capacity to learn anything. The reason people often won't take this that and run with it is that they've never seen it done before. Going against the grain, asserting oneself openly and honestly, whatever that may mean, these are not advantageous to people with lower financial and social status. These are ideas that get people fired, made fun of, ostracized, what have you. It's safer and easier to roll with the punches and follow the example you're shown
Begging the question
I think certain people for various reasons are secure enough in themselves not to feel compelled to “prove” by conform to gender stereotypes
It takes time to lift weights that you could be reading becoming more intelligent.
Intelligent people are smart enough to not fall into meaningless social traditions.
Christopher Langan enters conversation.
Over compensation for being less masculine or less feminine (in real life this translates to athletic for men and beauty for women). Those that lack these traits over compensate by increasing their efforts to be intelligent, in real life intelligence is measured. Not just that, if you are pretty or athletic you don't have to prove or show your intelligence.
I’m assuming you’re thinking of scientists. Not just any scientist, but 140 IQ+ the tip of spear scientists. I’m thinking it’s because they don’t care to keep themselves to their genders respective beauty standards. Their main focus is whatever field of study they are in.
Men don’t bother to appear and try to look and act more masculine. Women don’t bother to make themselves look or act more feminine.
because brains beat brawns
Here's a great watch that I believe helps answer your question: https://youtu.be/BPsSKKL8N0s?si=B-1gH648V_nTkYv_
Here is my theory. Stereotypes in general, not just sexual but other stereotypes are generally born out of basal actions. Ie Monkey brain.
Now monkey brain may be genetic, but it could also be cultural. In any case, it is the part of the brain that acts without thinking.
If you have high intelligence, you better understand the consequences of following your monkey brain. This does not mean that you wont follow it, monkey brain exists for a reason and may be beneficial. Or maybe your willpower is weak and thus you follow mobkey brain even if it is a bad idea. In any case, knowing that monkey brain may be a poor course of action improves your capacity to reject monkey brain .
If you're smart, you don't need to break your back all day. We defined masculinity as going to the mines. If one is smart, he can get himself a career that's less active.
For women, I have no idea what you define as intelligent or feminine. But if someone gets a good education (not typically seen as "feminine" by a dated standard) then he/she is gonna want to use it. I suppose that means no stay at home mom things.
Smarter you are, the more you understand.
The more you understand, the more you can understand people unlike you.
The more you can understand people unlike you, and you’re a man, the better you understand women, value their positive traits, adopt some of their traits, and see more like women than most men who aren’t that bright.
The more you can understand people unlike you, and you’re a woman, the better you understand men, value their positive traits, adopt some of their traits, and see more like men than most women who aren’t that bright.
Don't know if someone else shared this, or maybe it's absurd. But my perspective is that real people are actually pretty close to the video game point system. Where you have for example 40 points and 10 skills you can place them in. It feels like when people have high intelligence they usually 'take points away' from other areas. The way I see it fitting in with others is a social 'skill'. So if people have more intelligence points they tend to not display high social markers.
Androgyny is elite apparently 🤷♂️
because they’re intelligent enough to rise above stereotypes
Very broadly speaking, the more you're focused on the mind the less focused you are on what's outside. Additionally bookishness isn't gendered and so it naturally falls away from either gender stereotype or either end of a two gender spectrum.
Traditional gender roles are in part centered around qualities that came from industrial and agricultural eras. Men transitioning from physical to intellectual work, and women transitioning from a role in the home to a role in the workforce breaks these molds a little.
So in that sense, yes. But this transition happened years ago, and definitions of gender which prize these traits are deeply antiquated. So I'd say if intellect is seen as less feminine/masculine, that's the fault of an outdated norm, not anything inherent to intellect itself.
Thread title goated
Because that's your perspective. Objective truth tends to be less black and white.
I’m a woman asking huh?
I would agree. I think it is largely because smart women intellectualize sexuality - it is Out Of Body & a concept.
Smart men often have greater empathy - soft/woke there's lots of derogatory ways that it is described.
Statistical fallacy called Berksons paradox. Statistical there should be roughly a generally equal spread of people with varying intelligence and varying gender-expression. However, if you only see like half the data, you can now make the data look like it's having trend lines when in reality there's no trendlines
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson's_paradox.
One example of Berksons Paradox is that attractive people are mean while ugly people are nice. What happens is that you just don't see the attractive nice people cus they are out of your league and you ignore anyone that ugly and mean. All that's left to hang out with are ugly nice people and attractive mean people.
This numberphile does a good video on it https://youtu.be/FUD8h9JpEVQ?si=CyLL3Ik6svmes9eQ
Because of the “women are wiser/bumbling guy tropes”
In TV, women and men often form a comedic duo. Men typically play the more outgoing, and dynamic “fool” that has misadventures, and harebrained schemes that blowup in there face.
Meanwhile women often play the ”straight man”, a character that pinches their nose, and sighs in exasperation at the fool’s antics. They typically act as a voice of reason, and bring the co star back down to earth.
This stereotype stems from the fact women typically mature far earlier than men, and often think more long term, in regards to partners, career, home decor, etc. Meanwhile men early on, are prone to more risk taking, hedonistic, and surface level ways of thinking.
So; when a man displays more caution, empathy, and meticulous planning; it’s seen as him acting feminine. Meanwhile women who behave with less consideration to others, more brash/blunt behavior, and an overall lack of consideration to surroundings/other people; it’s seen as more masculine
I personally think we all fall on a spectrum, but society seems to categorize these traits based on gender
The former is true because of machismo to some degree
but the former isn't really true
unless all women in bookstores are Julia Sweeney dressed as Pat from Saturday Night Live
I have not seen this
Less intelligent men are more likely to be in situations where masculinity is more important to survival. Think of men in ghettos for example, femininity in men will be disadvantageous
Same thing with less intelligent women, in order to survive they more likely need to rely on men, and as such will adopt a more traditionally feminine persona in order to attract a man for survival.
TLDR survival
They found the perfect balance, Ying Yang
Every soldier in a special forces combat unit is a more intelligent person. I swore I read something that the highest average test scores in the Navy were the SEALs followed by nuclear scientists.
Smart women project confidence. They don't need to defer to men. That may be perceived as more "masculine" if femininity is signaled by subtle acts of submission, such as head tilting, less eye contact, and vocal tones that suggest uncertainty.
I'm not really sure that intelligent men come across as less masculine, per se. Many smart men don't invest as much in traditional sports and so may appear less masculine at first glance.
Because intelligent people follow instincts without thinking less often.
i think what you're trying to say is that less educated, less "intelligent" men/women have a tendency to display more conventional markers of stereotypical masculine/feminine gender roles within their society - and generally tend to more closely adhere to prescribed identities within their own culture without deviating in individualistic ways.
there is some (emphasis on 'some' - it is not universally true.) truth to this but it applies to more than just gendered behaviors. It also applies to chosen careers, fashion, sexual expression, whether to have children or not, and whether to live one's hometown or not.
In order to make unconventional choices that might clash with the mainstream society around you, one needs to have a certain degree of freedom of thought and intellectual curiosity and courage. These things are distinct from intelligence but do have some overlap with it.
Of course, all that being said - there are tons of highly intelligent people who have very stereotypical and traditional expression and behavior, gender and otherwise.
and there are also gender non-conforming and generally unconventional people are not particularly smart.
Is a good explanation, I have a couple of anecdote that reinforces what you said here. I feel it is always a little jarring when I go between intelligent friend groups, and more average people. The conformity to stereotypes is very stark.
In two of the groups, I am the only one who likes sports/motor racing. In the average group, when I said I needed to hop off on Discord to watch sports, a couple of them (this is a gay friend group) was giving me genuine crap for liking "straight" things. My football team is playing in the final, it is the equivalent to season finale of Drag Race in my eyes. They also seems utterly bemused that I didn't follow stuff like Bridgerton, because I don't really have interest in TV shows, unless is Sci-Fi. They basically almost have to conform their hobbies and interest to gay culture, whereas I tend to just like whatever I like.
Conversely, my other friend group, they are more academic/scientist types/nerdy, but also none follow sports. I said I had to hop off to do some competitive sim racing, midway through a gaming session, so is kinda a bummer as we have to stop when one all stop. They were almost curious on what I am doing, how it works, questions leading to actual real life racing. To be fair, their personality and interest fits stereotypes, but it doesn't stop them being appreciative of different perceptive.
I feel, even the norm-busting people try to fit into a "norm", people do want to belong to a tribe unless they are absolute loners. Is just that people with a more open mind have a more "fluid" definition of what their norm and happy place is.
I always thought gay men would enjoy sports MORE, with all the sweaty men playing with balls and whatnot.
My joke answer to that is: if that's the case, then why isn't women's sport more popular with men?
Allow me to introduce you to women’s volleyball
If you have to introduce it, it ain't that popular.
It is to hetero guys
Outside of the Olympics, is it really?
That's irrelevant, no one watches any of that crap outside of the Olympics. Women's volleyball, is massively more popular than men's, especially outside of the Olympics. There's also standouts like Katy Ledecky who outdrew the men in viewership everytime she swam.
That said, women's tennis is huge, those are the only pros actually competing with men for top viewership in a popular, professional sport.
Specifically the beach volleyball.
Bold of you to think it is not
I know it's a joke but it's because it's blatantly obvious to our partners why we're watching it when we slap it on TV.
I see your joke question and give you a legitimate reply.
Women's sports are slower, less intense, and typically have lower skill levels.
If you watch an NHL hockey game, you'll notice how fast and aggressive it is. If you watch a minor league game, you'll see that they're still trying, but it's much slower. If you watch a women's league game, you'll see that it's similar in speed to a minor league game but significantly less aggressive.
Now, in all fairness, I love watching women. But I'm not going to watch boring versions of a sport just to ogle at the players. You don't get enough closeups to justify it.
I'm bi, and I dont dislike sports when i play them or watch them in person, but I just cannot get into sports in general. I honestly dont know what it is, its just so boring to me.
I wrote a whole comment trying to explain why, and everything I can think of to explain why I find it boring can be appllied to rupauls drag race, which is a show I really enjoy, so it must come down to simple taste, idk. (Its very competitive, the fans can be super annoying, theres so many players I forget their names, its repetitive)
As far as watching pretty people do things, athletes are in good shape, but you dont usually see them undressed when they're playing, and a lot of athletes are, you know, butterfaces, lol
I’m also not into sports at all and don’t really know why. I enjoy playing them, although mostly did solo sports growing up (and love some sand volleyball) but watching is painfully boring.
I’m a bit of an information sponge and know soo much useful bs I’ve learned against my will, yet any time I’m watching sports it passes through me like a ghost. I have zero emotional attachment to any team, don’t care about my home state or college teams (oh they won, yay?).
I grew up surrounded by it, lots of brothers that are deeply invested in pro and college sports, and it just doesn’t hold my interest…and yet I find so many innocuous things interesting.
To some extent, social "tribes" around sexual orientation tend to close ranks a bit more because it is still harder to be gay than to be a nerd in many places.
It's amazing you've found two friend groups where football and racing, the two ultimate cookie cutter mainstream hobbies are considered "outsider"
Very well-said.
I'll say personally, the more educated I become, the less I feel the need to conform to gender norms. I've never really wanted to and always been a tomboy, but I felt much more pressure to when I didn't have a framework for explaining why it was okay for me to not follow them. My education has also connected me with people from all over the world and taught me about different cultures that express gender differently, so it also just seems less important to me, because gender expression and what is considered "biologically inherent" to the different genders has varied so widely throughout history.
The real freedom is realizing you don't gotta explain shit to no one.
I like pink and used to get shit for it all the time. I would defend my choices and felt like I had ascended petty nonsense. Then I actually did that, and just tell people to mind their business if they try to say something about me. I don't need to explain myself to you. Especially not about why I like pink, you fucking weirdo. Grow up.
I'm not fluid in any way, but I'd for sure be giving a healthy 'fuck off' any time my gender was questioned and end it there.
authors note: I'm tall and masculine af. This approach may not work for people who aren't physically intimidating to others lol
I'm 5'7 and come off as very "light in the loafers", I just don't give a shit. My favorite color is purple, I read romance novels, I enjoy dancing, I like Nancy Drew and My Little Pony. None of that has any bearing on my gender or sexuality. I'm a guy, and I'm straight. So long as the girl I date knows that, I don't really care what conclusions anyone else has.
I appreciate what you're saying, but I found it useful for explaining shit to myself. I think having that framework and vocabulary is very useful when you're inundated with messages about "this is how girls should be" and you're trying to figure out why you're not like that.
I'm not out here making excuses for myself to other people. I'm quite confident in who I am. But part of why I'm so confident is that I have a framework for understanding why I'm "weird" (and also that I'm not actually weird, despite what my current surroundings might tell me).
I think they’re saying they established that framework, and then moved even further to the point of no longer needing to discuss it.
Yep. Not caring about other people's opinions start with being at peace with yourself.
I once saw a hearse
and the bumper sticker said
"I like caskets, you fucking weirdo, grow up!"
Totally agree - when I realized that so many things that are forced upon us, mentally, spiritually, physically, so many different ideologies and norms - are all social constructs - and whether I obey those norms or not has no bearing on my value or worth as a human being - I feel so much freer to discover the real me, instead of basing my identity on what other people told me I should be.
Pretty much this.
Not everybody that is intelligent is non stereotypical. And people can often have the assumption that people that are stereotypical are not intelligent, but that's not usually the case in my experience.
For example when I used to go off roading all the time there were always some crazy guys that were very stereotypical macho manly... Partying and going crazy and having a really good time. With very strong masculine observable traits and behavior.
One of those guys is perhaps one of the best master mechanics I've ever had the pleasure of knowing in my entire life and used to work on a formula f1 team and has cars in magazines...
I know another that's the CEO of his own flooring company.
You can't judge a book by its cover even if you think strongly that you can you will very often be wrong.
And if you write people off as being non-intelligent based on their behavior you're going to miss out on connecting with some truly remarkable people.
I don't think one social behavior and general genetic markers like masculinity and femininity have any correlation with a person's intelligence at all.
People tend to behave based on the culture and life experiences they had when they were growing up.
I for example don't portray nearly any masculine traits but I didn't grow up that way. I was on computers when I was 9 years old learning how to program and watching anime before my 8th birthday. I just didn't do a lot of anything with family or friends that led me to develop masculine behaviors. Etc etc. my parents didn't drag me along to parties or anything they thought was going to have a negative impact on my behavior they found a babysitter.
I don't know if this analogy works as well for women as for men. I've found that at least in Aus/NZ the more working class women are less feminine than well educated white collar women. They are also proud they can change a tire and build a deck, and aren't "soft" like the upper class bitches with their fancy hair and nails. However there is generally a much higher baseline social tolerance for masculine hobbies across all women in Aus/NZ compared with the USA. It's not uncommon to know upper class women who are also masculine things and there is actually positive social feedback for that. I think a majority of men here prefer the women who aren't "soft" and I think it has a lot to do with the culture of the two countries vs the USA.
The flip side is there isn't as much tolerance of men who don't conform to the masculine norms. But strangely it's not as performative as it is in the USA, probably partly due to the reduced influence on the military in Aus/NZ culture.
I think when I was younger I pretended to care about sports to fit in but as I've got older the social acceptance of needy hobbies as increased and I also give less of a shit what people think. I actually do enjoy a lot of "masculine" things like cars, history of war, and gaming.
sounds like the norm for your social class is a strict pressure to be traditionally masculine for both genders. and femininity is considered weak or soft and therefore bad. Ive seen the same thing for rural working class women in the US and I think it's quite unfortunate.
I understand the need to be gruff, pragmatic, 'un-girly' in a farm setting where manual labor is absolutely needed, regardless of gender. As such, being 'girly' or 'prim and proper' might be considered a luxury for hoity-toity city women
But I've also personally seen women that aren't strangers to manual labor who dress up and present themselves in a conventionally feminine manner (albeit in a more simpler way)...
This is because of the origins of the settlers as pioneers in a hostile environment. It took people with grit and tenacity to survive to climes that they were not native to. The self-sustaining and capable types were toughing it out [not lauding them, I think their treatment of Aboriginals was abhorrent and the British empire devastated a lot of places around the world and people] Men from this type of background and women from this type of background tend to place more value on independence, freedom of movement, being able to do things practically--there are similarities in that kind of hypermasculinity in the rugged, wild spirit of the frontier/ pioneering people of the US, all removed from the 'center' i.e the homeland of England/Europe where the local populations are a lot more varied in style/personas and gender outlook [Could be more dandified, less gritty, less stoic/patient and determined.]
Are you saying people with a shovel in their hand vs an attache case means they use more conditioner?
yeah you nailed it, i do think i worded it a bit too simply lol
TL/DR it is common for grifters to use politicized concepts like gender to sell their brand, but that doesn't mean they are stupid, it means they are liars and additionally, perhaps sociopathic.
--Agreed, but when you are talking about celebrities, internet or otherwise, this is especially true. But really anyone who is manipulative could fall in this category.
If you look at the manosphere pick-up artist culture, or the beige decorating instagram trad wife culture....
They are not interested in much besides evoking those things for fake internet points And real life money.
Whereas people who are interested in other parts of culture are not hanging their whole identity on gender norms.
That said, some of those influencers might actually be quite intelligent, but they are more likely to be sociopath grifters...,
and not speaking to intellectual concepts with which any human, regardless of their background, might be able to engage.
Its a con, a grift, etc....
Their victims might be less discerning, but that doesn't mean they themselves are stupid, just immoral.
Hi I'm Dolph Lundgren.
Finally the right answer