Why are Clever girls never desirable?

Cross posted to Diary of a Nobody
A friend of mine has just been told, in advice that was (supposedly) well meaning and ‘for her own good’, that she should stop being so independent and then she’ll find love. I have also been told that if I changed my ‘look’ to be less ‘individual’ I’d attract more men on a night out. That if I stopped being so ‘geeky’ or ‘weird’ or any thing that would mark me out as an individual as opposed to say a sheet of MDF cut out to resemble a playboy centerfold. Maybe I would, but what gets me is how these assertions are accepted and not greeted with the howls of outcry and derision they deserve. Needless to say me and my friend are proud to be independent, strong and all of those adjectives that are so imbued with a derisory double meaning when applied to women.

After all an ‘outspoken’ and ‘vocal’ woman is too often short hand for ‘difficult’ and ‘should just shut up’. I recall an episode of Sex and the City, where Charlotte explains why she continues to rent and not buy as her owning her own property may make a man feel inferior, and thus be a barrier to a relationship. As a fan of the show I’m proud to say her statement was widely derided by the rest of the girls as old fashioned tosh. I’m also reminded of the song ‘Clever Girls Like Clever Boys Much More Than Clever Boys Like Clever Girls’ by Pelle Carlberg, a somewhat scathing view of intelligent men who spurn intelligent women ‘who go to round table debates’ in favour of those whose ‘ambitions go as far as raising kids’ and a ‘good looking chick who likes to laugh at all the funny things they say’. I’m also reminded of the line ‘Some girls are easier on the eyes, but you could take their silent lives?’ from the song ‘Do you Believe in me?’ my Catatonia, a line which guided me through many a moment of lonely teenage angst.
I know someone’s choice of mate is no ones choice but their own and god knows enough has been written and pontificated about how men and women look for different things it’s a wonder any of us get together long enough to breed. I know the dating game is akin to a warzone, emanating as much collateral damage and battle scars; however I can’t help but wonder (in true ‘Sex and the City’ style) why is it women are expected to give up more than men? Expected to change more ? We all know relationships are fraught with compromise, but why is taken as a given that this should be the woman’s? I can’t speak from any experience but I don’t assume it’s pretty common place advice that men compromise themselves and their personalities to get more women.
The world is full of stories of women giving up a career and a life to follow a man, yet there are scant stories of this sacrifice with the gender roles reversed. Popular culture dictates a woman has no hope of changing a man, but does this mean we should change ourselves? I’ve always asserted that I have no interest in anyone who does not accept me for who I am. I am loathe to play down my intellect, personality or many quirks to attract a man. I’m human, not a carnivorous plant, camouflaged to lure the bait. Women’s magazines , even those billed at ‘modern , independent girls’ are chock full of relationship advice, articles on how to get a man articles on how to keep a man, articles on how to please a man in bed. You have women who feel like failures because they have passed the big 30 with no diamond signifier of ownership gracing their fingers, women who’s life is ‘perfect’ in every way but a man. I’m not denying relationships can be wonderful and if you find the right person that’s fabulous, but if you don’t? What’s more pathetic a woman of 40 who’s happy, independent and successful. She doesn’t need a man but knows that if one comes along, she could have some fun. Or a woman of 39 who rushes down the aisle with a vastly inappropriate man just because she ‘needs’ to be married before it’s ‘too late’. Elizabeth Wurtzel had it right when she said “I don’t want to spend any time making lists of things I need to do by age thirty-five or no one will marry me, I don’t want to be on this fucking clock that no man on earth is at all concerned with. I want more than that”.
Why are intelligent women still treated with more scorn and derision than their male counterparts? Why is a keen intellect in a woman seen a something she should ‘play down’ to attract a mate? Ditto a sense of independence and individuality. While I am certainly not one to deny the allure of sexual attraction and beautiful people, I am also one who gets bored if those beautiful people have only that beautiful shell. The men I am attracted to, from teenage crushes onwards, have always been those with a depth, something beneath their (admittedly very handsome) veneer. Compare the stereotype of the handsome dark brooding poetic man, a handsome Johnny Depp at a piano type; where are the women like this? the awkward ‘Daria’ types, scorned because they are perhaps too astute for the world? They are never seen as desirable, the desirable women in pop culture are the ones who are beautiful; any pretence at a personality is purely coincidental. I refuse to belittle men by believing they do not crave women with depth and soul. I believe the stereotype of a man lusting after a busty blonde, who while she may not be dim certainly plays the part to fit the role, does men as much harm as it does women. Yet sometimes it seems as if it would be easier for me to loose a few IQ points and start giggling coquettishly at men’s pathetic jokes, fluttering my eyelashes with vapid servility and being enthralled by their every word. Often in those abhorrent ‘dating tips’ sections of magazines something along the lines of ‘Listen! men love to talk about themselves let him!’ and ‘Laugh at his jokes (even if they’re not funny)!’ will crop up. Now there is nothing wrong with getting to know people and listening, but women like to talk about themselves too. Are men’s magazines running articles imploring men to listen to women?
The role of intelligent women seems to be one of the perpetually overlooked (unless of course someone needs help with homework): Willow in the earlier series of ‘Buffy’ competing with the un-apologetically shallow and ‘hot’ Cordelia. Even Buffy herself, the cute blonde, is portrayed as an outcast. Compare Courtney Love to Kurt Cobain and their respective popular images: Kurt is the tortured genius, Courtney is the bitch who rode his coattails to fame. This belying the fact Courtney was writing and performing her own (wonderful) songs before she’d even met the guy. I can’t help feeling poor Courtney gets far more scorn than she deserves because she is outspoken, a trait that is lauded in many a male star but in a female somehow marks them out as a ‘bitch’ or ‘difficult’. This is just one example of this sick and twisted mindset we have got ourselves into. This whole attitude towards women with a bit of nouse, a bit of depth and an impressive IQ still seems little removed from the Katerina and Bianca face off in ‘Taming of the Shrew’. However I recall docile, blonde (why are the good, pretty girls nearly always depicted as Blonde? what has hair colour go to do with it?) and forever lusted after Bianaca ended up in a miserable marriage and the awakrd, thinks for herself Katerina ended up with Petruchio, a fellow eccentric who, in my interpretation of the play at least, only ‘tamed’ her as a way to throw up two fingers to the society that had them both down as ‘awkward’ and ‘un-marriageable’, while their attraction seems to be one based on mutual intellectual sparring. Sadly it seems to be the more misogynistic interpretation, that one must be ‘tamed’ to end up ‘happy’ and with a man that seems to pervade. I for one am holding two fingers up to this bullshit notion and I hope I am not alone.