viragette

I noted this article entitled High IQ cuts women’s marriage prospects by the associated press on Jan 4, the day it appeared, because it is hilarious. In the way that Susan B. Anthony being hit in the face with a pie might be funny.

I just can’t help myself: this article really shines. Keep in mind that the actual study found that women tend to be married less frequently when their I.Q. is higher - as compared to women with lower I.Q. (whereas men with a higher I.Q. tend to be married more frequently than those with lower I.Q.).

♥ Although the study focused on both men and women, the press article emphasized the possible deficits of smart women. I, personally, far prefer some alternate titles. Such as, “Stupid blokes less likely to wed.”or, “Smart girls say ‘no thanks’ to proposals of marriage.” I can imagine the Cosmo articles this research will spawn: “Why hasn’t he proposed? Because he’s a dumbass!”, right next to “10 sexy moves to raise your man’s IQ!”.

♥ The first sentence of the article begins “A high IQ is a hindrance for women wanting to get married”. It is, in fact, a rare double indirection: it introduces two potential fallacies in just 12 words. (The journalist should be considered for the White House payroll.) The sentence assumes first that women with high I.Q. who are unmarried want to get married and second that high I.Q. is a hinderance if a woman does want to wed.

♥ The scientific author of the study, addressing this issue directly, suggests that women might be choosing their lack of married status. However, the opinion of Claire Rayner, “writer and broadcaster” gives a contradictory view. She “says that intelligent men often preferred a less brainy partner. ‘A chap with a high IQ is going to get a demanding job that is going to take up a lot of his energy and time,’ she said. ‘In many ways he wants a woman who is an old-fashioned wife and looks after the home, a copy of his mum in a way.’

Oh. My. God. OMG!

This idea hit me like a TON OF PASTEL PINK BRICKS! Why didn’t someone tell me that a woman with a higher IQ is unable to look after the home!? (I could have gotten out of SO many chores! “Do the dishes?! I’m sorry dear, I can’t - that’s low-IQ people’s work!”) So, does this mean that any woman who has a graduate degree or was, say, Valedictorian of her high school, is totally uninterested in children AND unable to do windows!? Has someone proved, while I wasn’t paying attention, that intelligence gets in the way of some of the basic skills of womanhood: empathetic, skillful, (cough*INTELLIGENT*cough), compassionate care towards loved ones and others? Dang.

WAIT A MOMENT! Does this mean that only STUPID WOMEN possess these fine attributes? And only because they are NOT SMART ENOUGH to be inattentive, errant spouses?

WAIT A MOMENT - AGAIN! Does this also mean that smart men, like smart women, are no good at staying at home and looking after the house plants? Does this mean that intelligent men are constitutionally incapable of being a caregiver and support for their spouse? Man, is that ever a bummer! (Does this mean that I am going to have to fire the HB, posthaste, and find myself a dumb girl?)

HOLY HOUSEWORK BATMAN! If care, compassion and homemaking are generally associated with women, and women have to be stupid to be good at these skills - then are women, like, stupid?!

(BAM!) Or do you just need to possess a lower IQ to make a good woman?

(WHAM! BIFF!) Holy cow! Does that mean that men are smarter when they aren’t taking care of the home?!

(BONK!) Can men with high IQs be identified by their high-pressure career choices? Dude, who knew! (Whose IQ test IS this?)

(POW!) Finally, I also missed the memo about how smart men have dumb moms.

Personally, I think Mrs. Rayner would have been safer with “Oh, that’s because - as everyone knows - smart girls aren’t pretty.” I’d hate to see her in a room full of the homemakers I know. The teasing would be merciless (fortunately, she probably wouldn’t get it).