Educated Women & Vapidity

Education & Womanly Vapidity

“Women are considered deep – why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow.” Friedrich Nietzsche

1.) The Disappointment
2.) The Hypergamy of Academia at a Glance
3.) Vapidity, Depth & “Female Intelligence”
4.) In Closing

1.) The Disappointment:

Education neither imbues a woman with reason nor surgically eviscerates her vapidity. The educated woman is just as vapid as the uneducated, for vapidity is symptomatic of solipsism. Women’s reputation for petty gossip is the most accurate cultural memetic highlighting the vapidity of the feminine.

And yet it is oft thought that an educated woman is an intellectual woman, and that by merit of such intellect, such women are not vapid. Of course, this notion falls flat on its face when we discover that education does not give the unreasonable, reason, or the unintellectual, intellect. At its best, education makes philosophers out of thinkers and artists out of drawers. The philosopher may draw, but he will never be an artist. The artist may think, but he will never be a philosopher. And so we must resign ourselves to a most immutable conclusion: education cultivates latent talent, it does not imbue absent talent.

If personal experience teaches anything, it is that although men expect educated women to be less vapid than uneducated ones, such expectation yields little but disappointment. Only in the most fortuitous of circumstances will such an expectation be fulfilled. I’ve known many a man to frequent the company of erudite women, some even more learned than he. And yet, a common complaint pervades – “these women are well-educated, yet somehow they lack self-awareness and appear dense.” Her level of education deceptively led the man to expect greater intellect, yet in spite of her education, she disappointed the expectation.

And so to an intellectual man, the educated woman is a most curious creature. She is educated, yet comparatively dim. Who naturally associates education with knowledge bereft of self-awareness, or erudition devoid reason and intellectual curiosity? Aren’t such things the root of all knowledge? Indeed they are. And yet, via rote memorisation knowledge can be passed on without a more than superficial understanding of it. The fundamentals of intellectualism are necessary only for innovation, not repetition. A fast learner is not necessarily a good thinker, one need only look at the Chinese to see emulation rather than innovation; women, Chinese or not, are much the same.

Man’s folly lies in his conflation of education with intellectualism. Intelligent men infer that education can only be obtained if one is rational, analytical, and above all, intellectually curious. As such, these men wrongfully assume educated woman possess these qualities for they think it impossible to succeed without them.

Of course, this line of reasoning is false. Even the humblest of experience will quickly reveal that the majority of educated women are nothing more than adequate rote learners. Well versed in the memorisation of how complex processes work, but quite unable to reason independently of what they were taught. And so it appears dedication and memory supersede intellect in matters of educational attainment, for if they didn’t, we wouldn’t have the number of highly educated women that we do.

If education demanded independent thought, there would be a degree shortage, and the number of women graduating? It would plummet. There’s a reason women make great accountants; accountants memorise processes to balance assets and liabilities, there is marginal innovation at best.

2.) The Hypergamy of Academia at a Glance:

For all the prior stipulated reasons, men who expect educated women to be more interesting and rational will find naught but disappointment. It matters not how much you educate a woman, her lack of logical rigour and vapid obsession with the petty will remain. Pettiness being a symptom of solipsism, it is wise to consider it an immutable element of female nature.

When a woman’s hypergamy speaks, it sounds like this: “why should I have to lower my standards for anyone?” Women typically seek education to acquire status and increase their access to high status men, rather than to indulge any sense of innate intellectual curiosity. With the acquisition of education, a woman’s already high expectations become ever higher. Quite wrongfully, she believes her education increases her attractiveness to men because being an indicator of status, she finds it attractive in men. This is of course no more than projection confused for reality, a common hiccup among the solipsistic (people poor at abstraction) and the deludedly narcissistic (people who have no rational basis for their elitism.)


Education and status acquisition increase male dating options, but decrease females’. The reason for this is women date up or across, whilst men date down or across. If you are hypergamous, you’re only attracted to people better than you. If you reach the top-level as a woman, only the men at the apex will do. If you reach the top-level as a man, you have all the women beneath you to choose from. As a function of both hypergamy and sexual economics at the macro level; as women’s collective hypergamic need increases, the pool of subsequent men capable of satisfying this need decreases.

And so in an age where men of intellectual disposition avoid university, and even the most inanely vapid women are ushered in by the insanity of affirmative action, the quirks of hypergamy begin to surface.

If a woman can’t find a suitable mate at university, she will still graduate. Only, undergraduate men will no longer seem quite so attractive. Why? Because she’s an undergraduate too. Undergraduate men could only satisfy her need to upgrade when she perceived them as superior. Now she doesn’t, only men with higher calibre white-collar degrees (eg: doctors, lawyers etc) will do. And should such a woman obtain a master’s degree and fail to meet a suitable partner? The process repeats with even higher stakes until such a woman effectively prices herself out of the market, condemned to decrying men as intimidated by her financial independence rather than repulsed by it.

Repulsion you say, why would a real man™ be repulsed? Well the more educated a woman, the greater her standards and entitlement, and thus in turn, the lesser her attractiveness. Higher status makes people behave more narcissistically, now whilst narcissism is a suit well-worn on a man, it is one ill-fitting for a woman. Whilst women are inherently drawn to male narcissism as overconfidence is the linchpin of good masculine game, female narcissism is unattractive to the majority of men. In women it manifests as bratty, spoiled “hot girl behaviour” and men, especially top-tier men, don’t want to feel like they’re babysitting an overgrown child.

Men seek polarity and femininity in long-term relationships. And so women seeking a misguided sense of equality through education only harm their chances at attracting top-tier men. A woman who thinks she’s the equal of men she dates solely due to their greater status is thus, at least psychologically, an unattractive idiot.

This is the inevitable stupidity that occurs when a woman takes a “different but equal” approach to men rather than a more traditional perspective that better complements reality. When a woman reaches the heights of professional status, such heights no longer seem all that attractive. The balcony looks more impressive when seen from the street than when stood on, if she can’t look up to him, he can’t (with some benevolence) look down on her. Without that dynamic, there is no attraction and thus no love.

Summarising this chapter:

Better educated women means more dissatisfied women. By employing a male strategy and seeking prestige rather than cultivating femininity, women quite literally price themselves out of the market. Why would a sane, successful man wish to endure the insufferableness of a self-important female academic? When society’s women become more educated than it’s men, the male aversion to hypergamy-fuelled narcissism is heightened in unison with the feminine reluctance to date down. The result? Spinsters and a lot of animosity.

3.) Vapidity, Depth & Understanding Female Intelligence:

More than anything, I believe if there were something that could destroy female vapidity it would be education. Education gives women the most potential to develop an intellectual curiosity into the mechanisms behind life’s curtain. And yet such qualities are so incredibly rare amongst women it leaves me questioning what exactly education does to women.

Vapidity is likewise a product of sloppy or poorly thought out notions (normally rattling off however one feels, making superfluous observations etc) rather than original thought or scepticism stemming from curiosity and enquiry. Vapidity being an effect of solipsism, this makes sense. Education does not override solipsism.

Education instils women with knowledge to create a simulacrum of intellect, but this knowledge seems all but divorced of any innate intellectual curiosity. And it is these basic women who deem themselves the intellectual superiors of men who possess no degree, although many such men possess the innate intellectual curiosity that the majority of degree holding women lack. An incredible perversity if there ever was one; stupid educated women and intelligent uneducated men, how about that?

There are more women than men in higher education nowadays, and yet I would argue with an emphatic conviction that your average uneducated man is more cognisant and intellectually curious than his better educated female counterparts. It is simple: woman’s innate fixation with the social, a herd mentality and a need to be liked/accepted is what drives vapidity, and no amount of education seems to eradicate it. Ergo, if a woman is not vapid, it is probably more an effect of her natural biological makeup (eg: she’s an autist) rather than a product of formal education.

And yet, despite the educational achievements of today’s women, said success seems to have had minimal effect on female hobbies and interests. Education hasn’t made women interesting. Education hasn’t given women hobbies distinct from the uneducated, nor has it imbued any sense of noblesse oblige. Education hasn’t disconnected women from the social hive mind and given them any real intellectual autonomy, it doesn’t seem to expand the female mind, but rather, it just fills it. And that is sad, because in an era where “everything is a social construct,” if anything could manage that, it’d be education.

It seems counterintuitive that the average woman with a law or biology degree would even give two remote fucks about Kim Kardashian or whittle on with infantile fascination about shoes, whilst having close to zero passion for more important and intellectually stimulating topics such as philosophy or politics, but there you go. Much about women is counterintuitive at a glance, counterintuitivity runs through their veins. If it didn’t, there would be a less dire need for the red pill.

There will always be a woman who will pipe up and say she hates Kim Kardashian and loves Nietzsche, and I’m sure such a woman exists, but she is atypical rather than typical. To not realise she is an outlier, and to make such a solipsistic assertion as a counter-argument in attempting to disprove my sentiment, there is great short-sightedness if not disingenuity. We are after all talking about the predilections of women at large, not the impassioned snowflake who’s read all of Nietzsche and prefers to meaningfully debate abstract topics with men rather than gossip with women. I suspect the female readers of Illimitable Men lean more toward the latter, but perhaps not. I can only speculate.

Women tend not to be intellectual people at their cores, but rather they possess the necessary IQ to go through the motions, to rote learn and pass tests – and many do exactly this in order to access men with higher earning potential (as outlined in section 2.) Thus a woman can look great on paper, but remain entirely dull as an effect of absent intellectual curiosity. The core nature of women would appear to persist in spite of any educational programming. Simply put, in matters of the mind – education does not make women more like men; it imbues neither additional reason nor curiosity, only knowledge.

You would be surprised just how many women are “educated” and yet lack an intellectual bone or original thought in their entire body. They are expert learners, clearly focused, disciplined and “smart” in so much they can grasp ideas and processes, but they manage to achieve all this without any semblance of intellectual curiosity or original thought; a fascinating phenomenon. I liken it to the transmission of knowledge into a non-aware robot, intelligent, synoptic, but by its very nature devoid of self-awareness. It expertly follows instructions, repeats what it is taught and emulates what it is shown. But if you stop giving it knowledge, it stops looking for knowledge; it never becomes anything more than it is. It never learns to think for itself and do so with any degree of accuracy or credibility.

It is with a certain earnestness that I believe men would be ecstatic if education made women more interesting or innately curious – it’s not that I want these assertions to be true – but rather, that my experience and observation suggests it simply is. It is easy to read literature such as this and fall under the impression that the intent is to simply talk women down. In earnest, my only intention is to decipher how women so smart can appear so stupid and then explain this disconnect to men. The sentiment is one of realism rather than pessimism, although I am privy to how the two can appear synonymous.

4.) In Closing:

The majority of women are vapid, vapidity being a symptom of solipsism and thus a core sentiment of AWALT. This is something men have to learn to accept. Wishing they weren’t is futile, for it changes not the reality. Women are unwise to try to convince us otherwise, for we have both eyes and ears.

Rather matter-of-factly, the vast majority of women are passionless, vapid and devoid any real hobby or interest beyond socialising and shopping.

Where more socially driven men find women’s impulsive self-absorbed quirks cute and exhilarating, the intellectual man is bored, despondent and underwhelmed. As much as women, even educated women, find intellectual men who have not immersed themselves in the study of game to be dull, such men find the banality and phatic social-driven conversation of women to be equally boring.

The rational man is, sex notwithstanding, bored with women as an effect of the great intellectual chasm between his depth and her lack thereof. The educated woman is rarely an intellectual in the truest sense; a woman of both reason and curiosity. And so men are wise to seek intellectual stimulation and social connection from male company, for it is there they will find greater wealth.

An educated woman as such confers no additional benefits to a man by merit of her education alone. If anything, her education fortifies her narcissism at the expense of her personality. Not quite what the intellectual man looking for “an intellectual equal” expects, truth be told he’d have better luck discovering Santa’s grotto. An intellectual connection is not what women excel at, sex is.