On Brains and Sex Appeal | QuirkyKnitGirl

This morning I worked the early shift which means, among other things, I work from home and am up early enough to catch plenty of morning news. This morning, the Today Show had an interview with Danica McKellar that really caught my attention.

McKellar, as you may know, played Winnie Cooper on The Wonder Years, and also happens to be brilliant at mathematics and the author of a couple of best-selling books that are intended to help girls embrace math.

One of the questions that came up was regarding her recent Maxim photospread. She posed, looking quite hot, in standard Maxim fare–bra and panties, tall boots, etc. The photos, I have to say, are pretty hot.

But what really impressed me was her answer to a pretty judgemental sounding question from Meredith Viera about if there was a conflict between posing for Maxim and writing books intended to get girls excited about math.

McKellar’s answer? Of course not. She made the point that there is nothing with girls seeing a role model who can be smart and sexy, and who still have sex appeal in their 30s. She also pointed out that it’s not about making girls downplay or deny their sexuality, but about teaching them to be smart about it.

This was incredibly refreshing and it really speaks a lot to what I’m trying to do with the calendar. It feel like so often we like to put things in boxes–you’re smart or you’re sexy. You like domesticity, so you aren’t ‘fun.’ I feel like crafting in particular is one of those things that can be easily boxed into cute, quirky, but not really something that the hot girls do. On the other hand, what really makes someone hot? Isn’t it about their mind and imagination and confience as much as anything?

I admit, I had my own reservations about doing this calendar. I worried, a lot, about what people would think. Oh my god, I’m going to pose in my underwear and people will see it. It will be on the internet, and never die. Will people think I’m slutty? Will they think I’m dumb? Or anti-feminism? Then I thought–who cares? I’m not any of those things, and anyone who knows me pretty much at all knows that too.

What are we serving by putting girls and women into these boxes? Do you deny the parts of yourself that don’t fit in your box? Or do you spend your time wishing you were more like other people who seem to fit better? Do you agonize over things you’d like to do but feel you can’t?

Here’s the thing I’m learning: I don’t have to fit in the box. I can be the knitting, baking, sewing, domestic girl who also goes to the office and hangs out online and nerds out over geeky tech things. I can be shy and demure and still be a pinup model. I can be the person who is much happier being alone than dating someone just to be dating and still hope to fall in love someday. Being smart doesn’t mean I can’t be pretty, and wanting to be attractive doesn’t make me any less smart. I don’t have to fit in anyone else’s box.

You know what? Neither do you.

Kage23

To offer a male opinion here, I think you're right on with this, Ivy. There have been many people I've met over the years that I thought were hot, until they opened their mouth and I started to hear the type of unintelligent drivel that came out, at which point my physical attraction to them diminished quickly. On the other hand, there have also been many intelligent people that I thought were decently attractive, though maybe not my type, when I first met them, but then as I got to know them, and learned about how smart they are, my attractiveness to them has gone up quite a bit. Intelligence and attractiveness are absolutely not mutually exclusive; in fact, they're complementary.

I've heard of guys who prefer to be with women who are not as intelligent as they are, and honestly, I don't understand that at all. I'd like someone with whom I can actually hold an intelligent conversation.

Regarding boxes, and fitting into them, there's no reason you can't fit into more than one box. You can easily co-exist in the “smart and sexy” box, the “shy and demure” box, the “geeky techy box”, and the “domestic” box, and any number of others, simultaneously. Or, you know, you can place yourself in the “Ivy” box and not even think about the others.
erinamelia

As feministhulk put it recently, “HULK SMASH CARTESIAN DUALITIES”

I couldn't agree more with your post – and I think it's a good example of how the gender normativity in our society oppresses men *and* women. Women who are smart and sexy are, implicitly, a threat to maleness, restricting women (if they want to “find a man”) and screwing over men who might want to find an equal rather than a dependent. When I was growing up, I seriously had a lot of people (in my own family!) tell me to try to conceal my intelligence if I wanted a boyfriend. But I never wanted to attract anyone on those terms, and I still don't. I'd rather be single forever than have to dumb myself down because I have brains and boobs at the same time.

McKellar's point is also great for another reason: the sexuality/intelligence dualism is a huge part of the social fuckuppedness that has made generation upon generation of girls think that they can't do math. As much as my inner feminist bridles at her whole “you can paint your nails while doing abstract algebra” approach (and why? I like to paint my nails too.), I have to admit that she's right on.