Women are smart, it says here

[imomus]

Back in 1999 my friend Suzy Corrigan -- a Riot Grrrl when I first met her in 1990, and an American journalist based in London -- edited a book of short stories published under the title Typical Girls: New Stories by Smart Women. I got involved in the planning and promotion of the book, reading early drafts and designing the flyer for the launch party.

Right from the start, though, I hated the title and begged Suzy to change it. "Typical Girls" was fine -- I liked the Slits reference. The bit I hated was "Smart Women". It just sounded so patronizing, so weakly petulant; a "defiant" pat on the head that was meant to ennoble the book's contributors but instead belittled them.

Just what exactly was that "smart" doing there? Was there some assumption that people, on hearing the word "women", would immediately think of stupid people, and need this impression corrected? Since some of the world's greatest writers have been women, that didn't seem like a realistic fear. And what about the tension between "typical" and "smart", or the tension between "girls" and "women"? Were we to assume that all women (typical ones) were smart, contrary to expectation (and the law of averages)?

Assurances that women in general are smart (or becoming smart, or recently got smarter) are a staple of a certain kind of "femininst" article -- the kind that gives the impression that feminist writing sometimes encodes just as much (unconscious?) misogyny as any other kind of discourse.

In today's Observer, for instance, Mary Riddell interviews Tony Blair about his appeal to women. Why Asda Woman matters to Tony Blair tells us that "there are 80 years to go before equal pay; women earn £300,000 less than men in a lifetime; childcare costs up to £16,000 a year... flexibility often means part-time jobs, in which women, on average, earn 42 per cent less per hour than men".

So far so good. Income inequalities between all sorts of equally-qualified people need to be exposed mercilessly. The "smart women" meme makes its appearance here:

"When Blair started out, many women submitted to rubbish pay for dead-end work. Now a new generation, intelligent and hard-working, wants a career and enough support to make life tolerable and promotion possible."

Here, I guess, the assertion of women's intelligence is meant to remove any possible justification for those iniquitous pay figures. But it still seems unneccesary and patronizing. The figures condemn themselves. Nobody is reaching for phrases like "women are stupid" or "women are lazy" to justify them.

The current issue of art magazine Frieze is themed around Feminism in the art world. In the editorial, Polly Staple writes:

"In one stroke Stark deftly elucidated the dilemma of being a working woman and a mother while attempting to explore the subjective reality of a given situation. In other words, she was smart and funny, created her own framework for her contribution and proposed, like so many women before her, another way of simply getting things done."

Here again we see the combination of the idea of "the typical" with "the smart". Artist Frances Stark is a "housewife superstar", a "superwoman" who is both "smart and funny" and "like so many women before her".

I cringe and puzzle when articles explicitly tell me that women are intelligent. For a start, it's exactly the sort of essentialism that the writers usually decry -- a blanket statement made about all women. Clearly, as a blanket term, it's meaningless rhetoric anyway. If the sample group is "all women" or "all men", and if "smart" is a relative term referring to comparative intelligence within that group, they can't all be smart.

It really begins to look bad, though, when we try the substitution test. Articles about men talk far, far less frequently about how men, in general, are "smart".

Google finds 446,000 instances of the phrase "smart women" but only 184,000 instances of "smart men". The phrase "smart girls" gets 285,000 hits, the phrase "smart boys" only 71,100. The sentence "women are smart" scores 19,300 hits on Google, the phrase "men are smart" a paltry 691.

"Smart men" is obviously considered some kind of tautology. Or is it that men just don't need that "encouraging" -- and meaningless -- pat on the head?

Comments

[cerulicante.livejournal.com]

The entire crux of the feminist movement up until recently was to claim victimhood and demand reparations in the form of preferential treatment.

If this paradigm is destroyed, then feminism will lose most of its luster, right? In modern times, being a victim is the ultimate superiority.

[freesurfboards.livejournal.com]

[Google finds 446,000 instances of the phrase "smart women" but only 184,000 instances of "smart men". The phrase "smart girls" gets 285,000 hits, the phrase "smart boys" only 71,100. The sentence "women are smart" scores 19,300 hits on Google, the phrase "men are smart" a paltry 691.]

I found this very interesting, though does making it an issue assume that women need our help to overcome this? It becomes very recursive.

[deepblack.livejournal.com]

That's the charm of masculine power though - the fact that it is invisible. We don't need the term "smart" to precede "men" because it's already assumed that most men are smart. For example, in journalistic reports on crime, you never see the word "male" in front of the word "perpetrator" or "criminal," even though the overwhelming majority of crimes (speaking in American terms here) are committed by men. But when a female commits a crime, a feminine modifier is necessary to make the crime stand apart from the rest. Anything considered a minority just automatically needs an extra adjective. I often do it myself when I refer to people: "that black man" or "that lesbian woman" - but never "that white, middle-class, male."

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

<< some assumption that people, on hearing the word "women", would immediately think of stupid people, and need >>

Hi momus I sure wish I could be smarter than you are really one time a long time ago

[bricology.livejournal.com]

Good points, all.

Living here in the World PC Headquarters, it's still hasn't ceased to amaze me, the lengths some go to to overcompensate for the institutionalized discrimination and patronizing of the past. I'd like to imagine some hypothetical sweet-spot that existed between the first wave of feminism and where we are now, but I doubt it was there.

And no, men aren't presumed to be smart, it's just presumed to not really matter if they aren't. Look at American popular culture -- what has become more established of a stereotype than the stupid husband/father/boyfriend? "The Simpsons", "Family Guy", "American Dad", "King of the Hill" -- nearly every TV show that I've seen even a few minutes of is required to depict the man of the family as the bumbling, belching oaf, while the woman is hot and competent.

It often gets me in trouble, but I feel almost a compulsion to not conform to the implicit notion that reverse discrimination is benign. It would be nice if we could all just approach each other as equal individuals without referencing some kind of handicapping sheet, to see where we stand. But what do I know? I'm just one of those stupid white males.

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

by the way I so dislike stupid women but then I said what's so wrong with stupid chicks, I really wish those girls

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

<< The entire crux of the feminist movement up until recently was to claim victimhood and demand reparations in the form of preferential treatment.
>>

the thing about women. gosh. i really wish I could be a better person. But hey momus I

[akabe.livejournal.com]

but that dressing-up in adjectives is directly mirrored in women's relative ability to more fluidly shift roles and other things you seem to appreciate. You couldn't have one without the other.

[(Anonymous)]

Or is it that men just don't need that "encouraging" -- and meaningless -- pat on the head?

Maybe it's because men are dumb, haha.

...sigh.

Anyway, I hear what you're saying, and I feel the same way when people talk about the need for strong, independent, and fiercely-intelligent women in fiction.

I mean sure, cool, whatever, but it kind of assumes that women aren't those things, and that someone needs to invent strong, fake women for real-life, weak women to emulate. It's really wierd.

--Michael

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

world shut your mouth put your head up in the clouids up in the mouth I sure wish I could be a better person

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

life is overwhelmeing heavy is the crown

[phuongphan.livejournal.com]

The qualifier "smart" in "smart woman" or "smart girl" comes across as overcompensation. maybe it's to make up for the discrepancy in income or better yet the subconscious perception that women really aren't so smart.

I have to take into account that the Frieze article has a lot of cultural historical baggage from the dawn of Feminist Art 60s-70s when women starting to enter public, intellectual, artistic, economic spheres. It was a radical shift for the Female-Stay-at-Home American middle class bourgeoise myth (women in the working class had always worked - no domestic myth there).

BTW, the cover of Frieze is very much about the dehumanization, objectification of the female figure. It's also de-sexualized in a way w/ slabs of "meat" cut out.

The show is okay; art historical. I went to the members' opening this evening. I'll post images and impressions later.

[klig.livejournal.com]

Often thought so myself. Right on the money.

[schizo-robot.livejournal.com]

there are plenty of things that annoy me about how sex/gender is accepted to talk about. an english teacher i had always corrected me when i tried to make things gender-neutral in class, like addressing a group of individuals with "you" instead of "you guys" or using "their" instead of his or her. the thing that boggled me was my english teacher didn't change her last name when she got married, she hyphenated it. i figured she'd understand, but she said "well, that's how the english language goes!" or something.

it's like how my parents have 3 pets, and they refer to them all as "him" although they're all female. kate bornstein said that in this society we're male until proven female, which i feel rings true most of the time.

also, i like feminist theory a lot, especially bell hooks' take on it, but the only thing i don't get is that, on the equal pay issue, sure it's definitely unfair to pay men more than women for the same work, and should be stopped immediately, but i don't see why a "higher up" job in an office or what-have-you defines anyone as "successful" or "smart." my sister and i were having this conversation. it's like america's vicious cycle of hi-school grads. going to college only so you can have a better job and buy more things and be happy because capitalism is awesome. i understand what i'm saying though, and yes i think women are just as qualified for these jobs as men, but i don't see how a woman who works retail is any less respectable than a woman who is a CEO of some company, and that issue seems to be so stressed in feminist theory. get the better jobs! you know? but i think a woman who has a "normal" job can be just as feminist. i could take either side here, but i feel like it's sort of accidentally advocating capitalism sometimes. otherwise though. i agree with your post.

[wingedwhale.livejournal.com]

It makes sense for criminals since the vast majority are men.

But for something like, how to genericalldy describe someone, as you said, it is horrifying. "White, middle class male" is normative and everything else is a deviation from that.

I mean, look at high school physiology/anatomy textbooks. Usually, the human model or illustration is a thin, white male.

Do your part! Begin identifying people as "that white guy." I know I do.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_ponytails/]

odd that no one has allowed for the idea that calling a woman "smart" may be a distinction between two different women and not a blanket statement for women as a whole.

[(Anonymous)]

Why on earth would the perfect majesty of capitalism want to tell someone they are "less respectable" for any reason? Or differentiate in pay? Where is the profit in that? And luckily it doesn't! Malicious tattle, lop-sidedness and sloppy journalism hail from people who haven't grasped the rules properly. "Greed Is Not Enough", for one. If only they could 'submit and succeed' instead of trying to dominate themselves (and others!) Pioneer yourselves into the gutter, bohemians! (Another proof that the system works flawlessly - pioneers are replanted where their pioneering is useful - in ever-poorer areas). But you are right - smart (as an internal, personal attribute) is a total hindrance, and can be overcome by working together. Surely pay difference is the result of an anti-capitalist trying to be smart - fiddling with the engine?

[butterflyrobert.livejournal.com]

Do your part! Begin identifying people as "that white guy." I know I do.

So do I!

[butterflyrobert.livejournal.com]

Good points!

[wingedwhale.livejournal.com]

Yay!!!

It's also good because it refuses to give in to that "ignore difference" attitude that is so popular.

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

<< I wish you could know what it is like to search a burning
bedroom for trapped children at 3 AM, flames rolling above your head,
your palms and knees burning as you crawl,
the floor sagging under your weight as the kitchen below you burns. >>

So careful if you say it so could be

xactyly what you want me t I believe that's the only be the only be the way I could be

[(Anonymous)]

I think that the word 'smart' picked up additional connotations in the UK in the nineties. "Work smarter not harder." "The smarter way to bank." It was less about knowledge, more a kind of business shrewdness. Thatcher-savvy.

[faeuboulanger.livejournal.com]

Forgive me if this is implicit in what you are saying, but I would like to note that women--smart and less than smart alike--are trained to act dumb. Even when educational institutions and the politically correct masses sware otherwise, there remains a societal pressure to look pretty and not say too much. There is an understanding that a woman cannot be distinctly feminine or pretty and still be intelligent. Men, on the other hand, are taught to act capable.

So, I'm not sure that I am bothered by Corrigan's use of the word "smart" or view it as patronizing when we live in a world where many highly intelligent women act like idiots for the sake of satisfying weird, vestigial societal expectations.

[jermynsavile.livejournal.com]

I'm more concerned by the article's "a new generation, intelligent and hard-working" - which is meant to differentiate this generation from what? The "stupid and lazy" generation that went before? This isn't necessarily anything to do with equality (and surely that, as part of a wider debate, is what we are talking about, not 'feminism') but a lot to do with lazy generalisations.

It has for a long time, as has been pointed out above, a comedic staple that men are dumb and that that the woman is the smart one: from the Simpsons, to Cheers, to Everybody Loves Raymond. This has as much validity - or as little - as the Google hits above.

The financial figures are interesting, but I'm not absolutely convinced by them as the figures quoted conflate a whole raft of things (such as "childcare costs up to £16,000 a year", which is an example of stereotyping all by itself, and the current nature of part-time work) to make a general conclusion based on gender. I'd like to see figures that exclude everything other than like-with-like comparisons. I suspect that there'd still be a discrepancy but they'd at least something more tangible to examine, or at least offer us a why (which, if it's something that needs changing, is surely the most important thing). It might also be interesting to see how things like length of service - which counts towards pay differentials - play a part in skewing the figures.

Sorry my cheeky digressions were showing

[vertigoranger.livejournal.com]

You list a bunch of animated sitcoms, all of which owe their existence to the popularity of Matt Groening's big hit, which opens with the idea that the American family was dysfunctional precisely because the only time it rushed to be together was to catch the start of a TV show. As a stereotype, Homer was once slightly more nuanced than just being dumb. He's a man who likes his 'TV loud, his beer cold and his homosexuals flaming," after all. That character questions the veracity of beliefs handed down to the American male: that vile populist TV, (insipid American) lager and stereotyping others (and also yourself) are substance of blue collar life. In the first wave of Simpons epigons you have Hank Hill, whose notions of masculinity are so dyed in the wool conservative, and so central to the shows humour that challenging them was basically what it was about. I'd say that the purpose of these animated sitcoms was to flag up the fact that, were they not told they should be, many head-of-the-households in middle America would not be so keen to create around old beliefs. By the time you get to Family Guy and American Dad, and the later Simpsons episodes, this message is no longer conveyed through a character arc over the course of the episode; it screams at you from every ill-conceived misapprehension or act of atrocity the father figure makes. And we're talking about father figures here- we're seeing a direct response to the 'father knows best' patriarchal message that was put across in the classic sitcoms of the 50s- in a sense The Simpsons establishes a response to tradition, and in doing so creates a tradition of response, and of satire that the other shows became a part of. The Simpsons was really trying, and trying hard, to demolish the role of sitcoms in reinforcing the importance of the nuclear family- Homer is a breadwinner and sole provider, but he's also a fucking drone who has never once stepped outside of the box he's been forced into. Homer is on rails, he needs to work, but even the fact of his family is an accident- he didn't mean to knock Marge up. Homer's loves in life: movies about apes, beer, donuts, are all comfort for his trapped soul. They're the opiates he needs because he's been strapped into a nitro-burning funny-car of responsibility that is so unstable that it causes him genuine anguish. Weight of responsibility makes people lazily plug into the most readily available life support, the quickest release. So Homer never gives up beer, (or monster trucks shows, or FOX TV specials) but Barney the alcoholic does, and becomes a sombre individual that learns how to pilot a helicopter, he eventually is made back into a boozehound because, and this is significant, responsible adults are not able to be funny in the way The Simpsons needs its characters to be. In the end the show is driven by its humour, and frankly the scornful, cultured elite is for a different kind of sitcom- i believe it was called Frasier. If you interrogate, at least in sitcoms, the notion that men are portrayed as dumb it sort of becomes more complicated. Tim Taylor the tool man is an over zealous clumsy guy, but he's still an expert handyman; Joey was dumb, but Ross Geller in Friends had a PhD in the sciences (everyone thought he was a boring nerd whenever he mentioned it- maybe you have a point); JD is a freakin' doctor; Michael Bluth, in Arrested Development was able to rein in his mad family and run a company at the same time, despite them being sponging rich kids; there is more going on in sitcoms men being dumb.

As far as Groening is concerned: in the DVD commentary for 'An Xmas Story' he discusses Amy Wong in Futurama, a young Asian woman who he deliberately made a klutz because it had become the norm in his shows for the boys to be the ones to blunder into mayhem.