I think you've missed my point, so I'll state it more concisely: an education scarcely makes a woman any less vapid than her uneducated counterparts. Women are women, vapidity is almost a quality innate to the female disposition. You don't hammer vapidity out of a woman by educating her.

More than anything else I believe if there were anything 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 among women that it leaves me questioning what exactly education does to women. It would appear education imbues women with knowledge, creating an appearance of intellect, but this knowledge seems all but divorced of any innate curiosity. Such women, as is typical, deem themselves the intellectual superiors of men who lack a formal higher education. But in actual fact it is many such men who possess the innate intellectual curiosity that women themselves lack, an incredible perversity if there ever was one.

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 skepticism stemming from curiosity and enquiry, the hallmarks of innate intellectualism.

There are more women than men obtaining degrees 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 affectation of her natural makeup (eg: she's an autist) rather than a product of her formal education. There are simply too many degree holding women who are incredibly vapid to dispel this notion.

And yet, despite the educational achievements of today's women, said success seems to have had zero to minimal effect on their hobbies and external interests. Education hasn't made women interesting. Education hasn't given women hobbies distinct from the uneducated. Education doesn't seem to expand the female mind, but rather, it just fills it. And that is sad, because in a era where "everything is a social construct," if anything could manage that, it'd be education. I'm at a loss to explain why things are this way, why the average woman with a law degree or biology degree would even give two remote fucks about Kim Kardashian, or whittle on with an infantile fascination of shoes (to give an example alluding to my sentiment, not definitive qualifiers of my sentiment) whilst typically having close to zero interest in more stimulating topics such as philosophy or politics, but there you go. That is the underwhelming reality of women.

And one woman will always pipe up and say she hates Kim Kardashian and loves Nietzsche, as I'm sure such a woman does exist, but she is the outlier. And to not realise she is an outlier and to make such a solipsistic assertion as a counter-argument in an attempt to disprove my sentiment is disingenuous at worst and plain dim and short-sighted at best. We are after all talking about the predilections of women as a group, not the impassioned snowflake who's read all of Nietzsche and prefers the company of men (perhaps because like her, we tend not to be quite so vapid? hmmm.)

And so it seems the innate nature of women persists in spite of their educational programming. And as many have rightfully alluded to in this thread, the suspicion is that many women aren't intellectual people at their cores, but that they rather possess the necessary IQ to go through the motions, to rote learn and pass tests - and that many do exactly this in order to access men with higher earning potential. Thus a woman can look great on paper with her BA, MA, LLB, BSC or whatever, but in terms of intellectual curiosity, she can remain rather dull and hence, vapid.

And it is with a certain earnestness that I believe men would be ecstatic if education made women more interesting - it's not that I want these assertions to be true - but rather that, my experience and observation suggests that it rather simply "just is." Ergo, it is unwise to assume education reduces vapidity in women. That intellectual topics can ever take a greater precedence in the female mind, as it does with the male, than social concerns.

You would be surprised just how many women are "educated" and yet lack an intellectual bone or original thought in their entire bodies. They are expert learners, clearly focused, disciplined and even "smart" in so much as they can grasp an idea or process - but they manage to achieve all of this without any semblance of intellectual curiosity or original thought - and I find this phenomenon absolutely fascinating. It is almost like dumping knowledge into a non-aware robot, it is intelligent, it can connect dots, but it is by it's very nature not self-aware, curious - it just follows instructions. If you stop giving it knowledge, it stops looking for knowledge and never becomes anything more than it is. I see women as being much similar to the robot.

It is my view that most highly educated women are being programmed, following a programme, learning what is wanted and learning to produce that with competence rather than really blossoming into distinct intellectual free thinkers.

At the end of the day, most women are vapid, and we have to accept that. Wishing they weren't is futile. And women are unwise to try and convince us otherwise, for we have eyes and we have ears. We are oft bored by the trite that passes for "stimulating conversation" among women, and I think I am accurate in speaking for the majority of men in saying: we're not impressed. Better women don't try to insult our intelligence by pretending they're something that they're not. That more than even a fraction of them possess a quintessentially masculine curiosity for life's mechanisms, and will as such converse and show deep interest in anything beyond the realm of social dynamics.