Adult woman in her 40's who does not know "Amazon" also means female warrior -

Joking with an attractive woman at the gym this afternoon re her developing “Amazonian” strength via her workout routine. She looked confused and told me the buff male trainer training us both was more of an “Amazon” than she was. It became clear she did not know what the word in that context meant, and she thought I referring to something big and powerful like “”.

This is a health care worker who helps elderly people with physical rehab so it’s not like she’s uneducated. I’ve dated a few people in my life (including a few with Masters and Doctorates) whose worldly knowledge just fell right off a cliff beyond the tightly defined borders of their occupational education and whatever they picked up in college or high school. It was always awkward because anytime you used a metaphor or made joke there was the danger they would not understand it or it would make them frustrated.

Is this reference that abstract or is it something most people should know? Don’t want to be unfairly judgmental.

How old was she?
Because, it was a common term in the Playboy era, but not so much anymore.

Still, I’d expect that most educated people would know it.

Mid 40’s.

I guess denial isn’t just a river in Brazil…

I’m confused- why was it a common term in the Playboy era?

doreen: Playboy magazine would use the adjective amazonian fairly regularly when publishing pictorials (pectorials?) of women body-builders. Today’s net-speak is “musclegirl” but “amazonian” was more common twenty to forty years ago.

Of course, to those of us who are familiar with our Homer, it means “warlike” more than “muscular.” The two aren’t quite the same.

(And then there are the Lesbians – the warriors from the island of Lesbos!)

Is there such a thing as “fairly judgmental”? I’m sure all educated people have small, irrelevant gaps in “education” (I’d call it enculturation). She sounds like otherwise a very nice person, so why would you make a big deal out of something as unimportant as this?

Doesn’t seem abstract to me - I am a gym-attending woman in my mid-forties - and looking like an Amazon (if a somewhat short one) is what I aspire to.

Fairly or unfairly my fear is that to not have been introduced to the historical concept of female Amazon warriors by the time you are in your 40’s speaks to someone who is not intellectually curious and does not read much beyond what is required for their job. “Nice” people with very circumscribed or narrow knowledge bases are (IMO) difficult to have meaningful relationships with. Either you continually have to explain your conversational references or you have to STFU and stick to very basic conversation. In a relationship one person constantly being “the explainer” gets tired for everyone really fast and irritates both the explainer and the explained to.

To date someone like this because they are sexy or nice would be, in effect, leading them on.

It never fails to surprise me the commonplace things adults should know but don’t. I was working the other day with a mid-20s girl who didn’t know that Mabo was an actual, real person. I wouldn’t expect anyone outside of Australia to know anything about Eddie Mabo but it stuns me that someone who grew up in and was educated in Australia didn’t know.

I introduced a friend to a young Canadian guy yesterday. He must have been in his twenties. He said he wasn’t so good at remembering names, but I told him he’ll never forget this one. Her name is Merlin.

We watched him knocking the name around in his head until he made a connection … Merlin engine! We were astounded. I guess legendary wizards are not so legendary after all.

I have to say I’m with **astro **on this one.

There’s nothing wrong with not knowing lots of literary/historic references. There’s also nothing wrong with not being intellectual or curious about the world.

On the flip side, there’s also nothing wrong with not knowing the names of all the characters or actors on Supernatural or Mad Men, or the starting lineup (or basic rules) of insert your favorite sports team.

However, if you’ve got one person who is, and one person who isn’t, that’s a whole lot of conversational minefields to wade through just for the sake of a relationship. If you’re not already heavily in love by the time you figure that your mental lives are vastly different, then personally, I don’t think it’s worth the battle.

Now, it’s different if the person doesn’t have a lot of depth, but is still interested. My husband has dyslexia, and can’t read very quickly, so he’s missed out on a lot of what I consider basic Americana and mythology references. Some he’s picked up from other places (TV, role-playing, video games) but there’s still weird random stuff he missed. However, if he learns of something he missed, he follows up on it, which makes all the difference to me.

Now, what I don’t know, and can’t tell from one reference, is if **astro’s **lady is or is not intellectually curious by just her not knowing what an Amazon is.

I suggest following up with what you consider normal conversation, and if she regularly gets lost and frustrated with your trains of thought or your references, then you’ll figure it out pretty quickly, and can file the relationship under “friendly but not going anywhere serious.”

I’d say it was unfair to decide that because she doesn’t know about Amazon warriors it means she’s not intellectually curious and doesn’t read much beyond what her work requires . No matter how intellectually curious someone is , or how much they read, it is unlikely that you and that person will have exactly the same knowledge. You may be shocked than an educated person has never heard of female Amazon warriors, and she may be shocked about some gap in your knowledge.

Now when you get a person (like an acquaintance of mine) who doesn’t understand that everyone who sits in a buffet restaurant pays , keeps talking about his “debit-credit card” , and cosigned for a loan without understanding that he might have to pay it back , you can determine that he has no intellectual curiosity and reads nothing more that what’s necessary for his job. And the sports section. You can probably determine that long before you get to my acquaintance, but it takes more than a single, not terribly important concept.

Online geeky types have wonder woman and an interest in mythology/fantasy/mythology as a more common trait. Without that I’d expect tons of 40’s or younger people not to know about them, particularly women perhaps?


When was Playboy regularly featuring women bodybuilders?

If your familiarity with her is as limited as it seems, I would think you would need to know her better before judging her intelligence or intellectual curiosity. “Amazon” is a reference I’d expect a 40 something person to know, though.

If this is a prospective dating partner, it’s possible that she has traits that offset the occasional knowledge gap. Just saying. But I can relate to the concern. A previous boyfriend once informed me he didn’t know who I was talking about when I mentioned Hellen Keller. Killed some of my desire for him.

Over the years they had several pictorials of that sort. They loved to focus on interesting groups. Women band-members, women race-car drivers, women pilots, etc. Yes, it was all just an excuse for nude photos, but the group identity was a nice “human interest” touch.

Or maybe she has heard of the Amazons but didn’t immediately connect it to the adjective “Amazonian” when you made a reference to her being thus, what with her associating with men, probably not being an archer, and having both breasts and all.

I wonder about a woman who doesn’t know what an Amazon is. :smiley:


It’s pretty damn dumb not to know that meaning of “Amazon,” IMO.

Highly intelligent people can be, well, totally stupid, however. I dated a woman who was 28 and had (supposedly) a 160 IQ, but when I asked her what the planet closest to the Sun was, she said “Jupiter.” I kid you not. I mean, it was more a case of not knowing at all and just spitting out an answer as a guess. And then she defended her butt-ignorance by saying that she had no reason to know that kind of thing. Nah, why have a basic understanding of, um, Reality when you can be a fool?

And a person who was actually smart would understand that she has gaps in her knowledge, know how to recognize them when they appear, and know how to deal with that situation. It sounds like she not only didn’t know the meaning of the word but then gave you a deer in the headlights look. She didn’t know how to process what had just occurred.

Yes, further data points could prove this hypothesis wrong, but for now I’m going with DUMB.