Intelligence and stupidity are only loosely related.
Just like wisdom and intelligence are only loosely related.

I would call the Forrest Gump character unintelligent, but wise.
You are obviously intelligent, but in many different ways you are at least acting stupid. On lots of big issues in society, your intelligence is inhibited,
by your tireless determination to keep believing falsehoods, that were forced upon you by indoctrination from a young age, which is constantly being confirmed by your surroundings and which you yourself keep enforcing, by your consumption of misinformation from corrupt, lying politicians and media. Your motivation to do that is partisan. You have made a choice to identify with right-wingers/conservatives and even accepting any argument from the other side would feel like treason to you.

There are people who strictly identify as the other side too. People can be completely partisan Democrats or liberals or be woke, because everyone around them is woke (Hollywood). If they are not open to good arguments that contradict their beliefs, I will call them stupid too.
However, it takes significantly less aversion to facts to be a progressive or
a liberal, than to be a right-winger or conservative. To not accept climate change, you have to deny 99% of scientists or the whole of science itself. Science is the most reliable method to get as close as possible to the truth.
If your beliefs can only survive by denying science, your beliefs are wrong and to keep those beliefs is stupid.

So, I would say, intelligence is the ability to use logic and reasoning
and stupidity is the unwillingness to use logic and reasoning.

Eh, sure, power without the ability to change things is pretty much useless. And I agree that the people in power are often changing things just for saying "Look what I did, I changed this". That doesn’t diminish the reason to change. The world is full of problems and solving those problems makes the world better. I’m not claiming that I change the world, but I solve problems for a living. If my employer agreed with you that (most) change is not needed, then they wouldn’t pay me all that money 😊. Obviously, companies value change or they would still sell cars like a 57 chevy. But, when your competitors are selling cars that have new more reliable technology and are faster, more comfortable, with more extra’s, with better fuel economy and cheaper, than you lose from the competition. It takes constant improvement, which is (positive) change, to stay ahead of the game. It’s very similar to evolution; adapt or die.
The same can be said about countries. When a country has better utilities, better infrastructure, better education, a more trustworthy government, a more trustworthy financial system and currency, lower crime, a better labor force and better social cohesion, companies move there, move production there and thrive there. The problem of improving countries is that it is more complex to tell apart positive changes and negative changes. People in power are often not even willing to make the changes that are obviously in general the most positive, because of selfish motives like money, retaining power, image and favoritism or because of unwillingness to rock the boat or to prioritize short-term gain over long-term rewards. The changes of countries are a lot like evolution too; random changes that turn out either positive or negative and shape the future of a country. If the country has a good system to retain the good changes and undo the bad changes, like an open democracy with wise citizens or an impartial dictator with good economy advisers, the country will thrive, if not the country will collapse.

What you are referring to with women’s clothes and hair are cultural changes. In the 20’s women had only one option; being an attractive mate to a future husband, who would take care of them and their children. That’s why stylish clothes and hair are important. However, it was a system of dependency where women were subordinate and subjugated. In my country, up to 1956, women were incapacitated by law. When they stayed single or were left, they were unable to take care of themselves and lived with their parents or in a women’s commune. Women didn’t accept to be deemed inferior to men anymore and organized protests. After a long struggle they have acquired equal rights by law and mostly equal opportunity to live independently, but they still face challenges that men are not faced with.
In any case they are at least freer than before to not care about their appearance, just like men. They don’t need to look pretty for you, because they are not dependent on you anymore. You might not like that change and prefer women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, but I prefer freedom and not just for men.