Kee-rist on a freaking crutch! Why does one suppose that women feel compelled to lie about any of those things? We ladies are expected to be more frugal, more sexually continent, better parents and housekeepers, and less demanding in any way than are men. And if women lie about childhood sexual abuse or domestic battering, there's a reason for that, too: fear of the all-purpose dismissal, "B*tch had it coming to her."

I think this quote from the article is telling:

* 50 percent harbor "mixed feelings about mothering." One told Barash, "I look at these children and I crave sleep and free time. They wear me out and make me jealous of working women who have no children, no husbands."

I don't think it's necessary to expand more on that.

Also, the bit near the end about "beneficial lying"? Nice how they don't mention that EVERYONE does that. You know, the "little white lie"?

Bad NY Post! Bad!

I like how the article states that a Fox reality show "proves her research to be true." If Fox reality television was any reflection of humanity, I believe we would all be extinct by now. I also like her "super" scientific research - polling people on Craigslist. Gee Susan, thanks for your awesome contribution to society.

Two anthropological comments:
Women are percieved as talking more, although men actually talk more than women, especially in the public sphere. This is because we don't value women, and see any talking they do as too much. Could their be a similar phenomena with lying? That is, men get more leeway or forgiveness, but women are naturally in the wrong (by being women) and can't afford any more transgressions?

Many anthropologists have found what they call the tools or techniques of the oppressed. These include the ability to read emotions, soothe anger, and lie with facility. These are survival skills for those on the bottom of the social heap, whose very survival may depend on another's grace. I don't see survival as morally wrong.

Personally, I'm exhausted from speaking the truth and not being taken seriously.

Ouch, that's an insult to the word douche!

;o)

Funny how most of the examples of all the horrific "lies" (or more accurately, "confusion") centered around a fear of violating gender norms or the need to avoid male wrath.

I think it's kind of funny that you're surprised this is in the Post;)

At least they didn't call women "girls" again.

Her research is just plain flawed. First off, she didn't compare women and men, so how do we know that women lie more often? Secondly, her group of women was self-selected based on ads "seeking females to confide what they fib about". It's possible that the women she surveyed lie more frequently and about different things than other people lie about, and responded to the ads as a way to get the lies off their chest - such as about cheating or having mixed feelings about mothering. Not to mention that her claim about that reality show is absurd - lie-detector tests are NOT fool-proof, since there's no way to measure"lying," just physiological responses, and one woman on one tv show hardly "proves" research.

I know that I'm just preaching to the choir, but I had to get that off my chest.

Hmmm. Maybe I'm being too critical or skeptical about the methods (research garnered from women responding to a Craig's List ad = research?)...this really provides the basis for a book?

So if someone put out a Craig's List ad for just men and find out who's lying about/covering up sexually assaulting or molesting women...oh wait, would that be considered a beneficial lie? Or a sting operation? Then we just need a TV show to back up the findings. Would "To Catch a Predator" work?

I find that more and more the answer to life's problems is "more feminism!"
Women wouldn't "lie" about all that shit if they were valued as individuals or on equal footing w/ men in society.
Fuuuuuuuuck.

I had a longer comment but the registration genie ate it up. Anyway, what I wanted to point out was note what the "gotcha" was -- she lied about how she felt about herself!

Talk about proving all sorts of feminist theories right there ...

Responses to a Craigslist ad?? Well...can't argue with that research!

Amen, sophia!

This is the most ridiculously flawed "research" I've ever seen!

Women lie more? How do we know this when she presents no comparative data about how much men lie? And I also call foul on using people responding to a craigslist ad about lying and then using those women as a controlled sample group. Ridiculous.

Gee. Women lie. Alert the fucking media. It's almost as if...women are actual complicated human beings. Imagine that. People tell lies and they tell lies for a variety of reasons--to make themselves feel better, to make other people feel better, to avoid an argument, to get something they want.

Of course, I'm sure that compared to those paragons of truth-telling, men, who never ever ever allow an untruth to pass their lips, even when, oh, they hold national office, or they're involved with organized crime, or they're cheating on their wives, or they're still virgins at a somewhat advanced age, or they're trying to get someone into bed, or anything like that, women are truly the more sinful sex.

I'm confused. All this woman did was find out reasons why any person - male or female - lies. And then somehow apply it only to women.

Many anthropologists have found what they call the tools or techniques of the oppressed. These include the ability to read emotions, soothe anger, and lie with facility. These are survival skills for those on the bottom of the social heap, whose very survival may depend on another's grace. I don't see survival as morally wrong. - Nimue

Of course, then the oppressors use the fact that the oppressed (whether they be women, blacks, Jews -- the Jews are just a bunch of lying manipulators was a common anti-Semitic trope, wasn't it? I guess one can even consider the stereotype of the "smooth talking Black man" in this framework -- or whomever) engage in these survival skills as "evidence" of the moral inferiority of the oppressed and justification for the oppression.

OTOH, there is also a "girls will be girls" element with respect to the passive-aggressive behaviors involved: while women are deemed inferior by the patriarchy for being "liars" or what have you, when individual girls behave in a passive-aggressive manner it's dismissed as "well they are girls" whereas when boys do it, it gets hammered out of us until we become assertive.

Thus, even if blatant sexism were to end tomorrow, some of the patterns established by the sexism will be maintained. Interestingly, a key part of training boys to be assertive, etc. (and training them away from passive-aggression) is sports.

Which ties into the Title IX post below, don't it?

The glaring holes in this "argument" that women are born liars are so obvious, so glaring, that it really just has to be a traffic-generator for the site a la NTY & Charlotte. Insulting half the population is a guaranteed way to drum up hits and is cheaply paid for with "oh, sorry, it was just a joke, didn't you get it?"

I'd also like to add that it's interesting women as group get slammed for fibbing about shopping or plastic surgery- not things that are going to result in the imminent destruction of known universe. But when men lie about, oh, accounting practices (Enron, WorldCom, mortgage lenders), WMDs (everyone connected to Bush), rape, etc., somehow that doesn't get figured it to the "who's a bigger liar" equation. Let's just say for a moment (and I do NOT believe this to be true) that women DO lie more. I would hypothesize that since men occupy more positions of power that their lies have a greater impact and result in more harm than lies about personal information. Actually, you could use Fox News to prove that one as well.

Yeah, it's a load of tripe & it fucking sucks, but it's the NY Post, fer cryn' out loud.

What else can you expect out of a pig but a grunt?

The glaring holes in this "argument" that women are born liars are so obvious, so glaring, that it really just has to be a traffic-generator for the site a la NTY & Charlotte. Insulting half the population is a guaranteed way to drum up hits and is cheaply paid for with "oh, sorry, it was just a joke, didn't you get it?"

I'd also like to add that it's interesting women as group get slammed for fibbing about shopping or plastic surgery- not things that are going to result in the imminent destruction of known universe. But when men lie about, oh, accounting practices (Enron, WorldCom, mortgage lenders), WMDs (everyone connected to Bush), rape, etc., somehow that doesn't get figured it to the "who's a bigger liar" equation. Let's just say for a moment (and I do NOT believe this to be true) that women DO lie more. I would hypothesize that since men occupy more positions of power that their lies have a greater impact and result in more harm than lies about personal information. Actually, you could use Fox News to prove that one as well.

This is why I do not read the Post.

Peepers- I feel you. I think I am going fucking crazy sometimes. I'm very frustrated. I suppose it's all the Hillary business bringing my women's issues to the forefront of every political conversation. My eye hasn't stopped twitching in days.

Thank you sophia!

I could not believe this woman's methods weren't questioned. In fact, the whole "article" presents this book as immutable truth rather than the results of a small study, let alone a bullshit study.

I am SO sick of these "studies" reported as mainstream news that gender stereotype. They paint each individual member of a class with the broad brush of disparagement. They serve no purpose except to foment gender division and lower one gender's esteem in the eyes of the other. Women are, I think, the most frequent recipients of this unfairness. According to one study or other, women lie more than men; women aren't as adept in science or math as men; women talk more than men; women are more emotional than men. UGH!!! It is irresponsible, completely unnecessary, and serves no legitimate purpose. And it also affects men, too, to some degree -- if I see one more study about how "men don't do their fair share of housework" -- ugh! Don't be painting me with that brush just because a lot of men don't do their fair share.

Noah, I couldn't agree with you more. I'm so sick of hearing that guys don't respect women and that male 20-somethings are slackers and that women somehow "civilize" men - are there plenty of guys like that? Yes. But I also know plenty of guys who are decent human beings with nothing but the utmost of respect for the women in their lives. Good to know you're one of them. :)

What a load of unmitigated tripe.

There's not a single item in that list that men would not be motivated to lie about. You think I wouldn't want to lie about an affair, to avoid getting in hot water over it, or possibly to spare my wife's feelings? Or about spending too much money on something if I knew it would foul up the monthly budget? But the article implies that women lie about these things while men wouldn't. Utterly unsupported supposition. (Supposition like that belongs in a suppository; they obviously pulled it out of their ass.)

And the woman who failed the lie detector test? She failed a question that was totally ambiguous, and totally possible to answer in shades of gray without it being untrue. "Do you believe you are a good person?" Imagine the thought bubble over her head at that moment: ("Well, gee, I did a lot of dispicable things, and I just admitted to them in a very public and embarrasing way. Saying I'm a good person will make me look like a hypocrite. On the other hand, I'm trying to improve. etc., etc....oh, and I wonder what the stupid machine registered when I answered that last time.") Is there even an answer to that that is true versus a lie?

Worthless garbage journalism.

that latest issue of Bitch Magazine ("Wired") has an interesting article about faux-scientific studies that perpetuate sexist stereotypes.

So what, did she get out of bed one morning and try and decide which gender stereotype to reinforce? I guess that day was women = sin.

Not to mention her refusal to even look at why women might be put in a place where they have to lie. I agree with an earlier poster who said survival isn't immoral.

Ugh, don't get me started on the post. The Post is so pathetic that it has to resort to giving their paper out for free in the subway in order to reach their stated distribution numbers. They can't even get people to pay the measly 25 cents for it, well except I know a lot of people who DO buy this paper. My aunt gets the News and the Post every morning and everyday the Post seems to print something offensive to women. I wonder sometimes why they don't just run a daily "women are stupid" column, at least their readers would know what their underlying goal is (to treat women as second class citizens). Still, I'm amazed at how many women and men I know who don't get that stuff like this is offensive. I guess misogynistic culture is so ingrained that lots of people miss the fact that these articles are full of anti-woman hate.

I wonder sometimes the amount of damage that is being done from this type of crap entering thousands of people's brains subconsciously (and consciously). I bet we'd see a huge reduction in gender-based violence if all the subliminal misogyny was removed from our culture (not that I consider the post article subliminal - I think it's overtly offensive)

I haven't read this article yet (er... do I really want to?).. but.. psst! that term, douche? kind of loaded with "vaginas are icky" crap... just throwing that out there..

I've always felt that way about the term douche too. It's considered insulting because it refers to a grossness associated with woman's genitals. I mean I guess it could be appropriated for feminism because douching is actually harmful, but I don't think many people think about it that way. Anyways, that was off topic...

sadierose, Actually, most feminists I know are fine with the word douche ESPECIALLY in this context, since actual douches are pretty woman-hating. Unless you mean that the word itself is loaded with vaginas are icky crap, which is true, but thats why it makes such a good insult for people who clearly want us all to smell like lilacs so they don't have to think about our stupid, lying vaginas anymore.

Fact: Fathers are 16 times more likely to make false allegations than are mothers..

Bala, N., & Schuman, J. (2000). Allegations of sexual abuse when parents have separated. Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 17,191-241.

On usage of the word douche... I'm preeeetty sure you can anally douche. Therefore making it term that applies to all those with anus's.

Whenever i use/read/hear the word douche i think, "sack of crap" which is pretty accurate.

Hmm... I think the real question here is: do women lie because they are stupid, or are women stupid because they lie?

Charlotte Allen and Susan Edelman fight to the death!

i've had the displeasure of spending some time with susan shapiro, the author of the book. she's the kind of scroungy journalist who is purely in the field for the chance of celebrity, the type of person who will write something because she knows it'll sell, never mind the repercussions. and since misogyny sells, well... so yeah, i'm not at all surprised that she wrote this book, seeing as how she left me with the very strong impression that she goes through life with no regard to anything but her own self interests.

and craigslist? come on. sounds like someone went into her "research" with an already well-crafted thesis.

That's a bit sad, though the actual text of the article only reports what the book author says. God knows what sub ed wrote the headlines but it bears no relation to what the article actually says. More accurate would be "some reasons women lie", which would be an interesting study. Though Craigslist probably isn't the best place to start such a study...

Sorry I'm late on this folks, but here's a post on why douche isn't a sexist insult. Thoughts?

I find that more and more the answer to life's problems is "more feminism!"
Women wouldn't "lie" about all that shit if they were valued as individuals or on equal footing w/ men in society.
Fuuuuuuuuck.

How would the conditions you name above stop (60%!) of women from being unfaithful?

That has nothing to do with "equal footing" or "feminism".

Every woman I have ever had a relationship with has been unfaithful, and lied about it. It's not a feminism issue, or an issue of not being an equal in society or the relationship.

Of course, I'm sure that compared to those paragons of truth-telling, men, who never ever ever allow an untruth to pass their lips

I think it's more that women are often portrayed as somehow more honest, or "better" in terms of things like that, and stuff like this shows that women, are not, in fact more honest, or any better than their counterparts.

It's sexist to treat women as though they're on a higher level of morality and honesty, and it's dispelling sexism to show they are not.

How would the conditions you name above stop (60%!) of women from being unfaithful?

60% of the people who answered her ad admitted to being unfaithful. That's not the same thing as saying that 60% of women are unfaithful.

Every woman I have ever had a relationship with has been unfaithful, and lied about it.

That's unfortunate, but it's hardly representative of... well... anything but your dating habits.

Every woman I have ever had a relationship with has been unfaithful, and lied about it.

Sometimes, when one finds oneself repeating a pattern, one has to look inside for the causes of it.

I'm fine with using the term "douche" as an insult, because douches are bad for women. Not only do they imply disgust at the way our vaginas normally smell, but they cause infections and make infections that we already have worse. They're very anti-woman and they damage our health. It's actually the perfect insult for a misogynist.

I have to take a little issue with this idea of "lying to survive" as if that makes the lying somehow acceptable. Both the lying and the violence remain unacceptable.

Physical retribution is inexcusable under all circumstances. That does not justify the initial act that needs to be lied about in order to escape retribution. (We're talking about the kind of lying that goes on within a relationship. This isn't about stealing a loaf of bread to avoid starvation.) If you are sneaking shoes into the closet, you are every bit in the wrong as the man who sneaks golf clubs into the garage, when the mortgage comes due and the checkbook is mysteriously emptier than it should be. This is dishonesty, period -- regardless of whether the spouse in either case is capable of exacting a violent revenge on the liar.

No, he shouldn't be abusing you -- ever, end of story. No, you shouldn't be lying to him. These two statements are not mutually exclusive.

Mild Ennui has a good point. Men are presumably on higher social footing in this society, and yet men still have affairs and lie about them constantly. How would elevating women to the same level as men get women to stop lying about affairs?

60% of the people who answered her ad admitted to being unfaithful. That's not the same thing as saying that 60% of women are unfaithful.

Most studies show women are unfaithful on or about the same level as men, which is between 55 and 60%.

That's unfortunate, but it's hardly representative of... well... anything but your dating habits.

It was stated to add to the point that infidelity has nothing to do with equality or feminism.

Sometimes, when one finds oneself repeating a pattern, one has to look inside for the causes of it.

That's an incredible cop out and you know it. That's akin to blaming the victim for the rape. The person being cheated on is not at fault for the actions of the cheater. Infidelity is inexcusable.

Blaming the person who is not cheating, for the actions of the person who is is simply ridiculous. If every man a woman dated beat her, or cheated on her, who would you blame? Her, or all the men?

You couldn't pay me to read the Post. Ugh.

Other posters have already commented on how worthless this "study" was from a scientific perspective, so all I'll add on that front is that I agree completely, especially with regard to making a comparison between men and women without actually surveying any men.

It's really no surprise that people lie, men and women alike, given the level of reinforcement we encounter all around us. For example, our whole society is set up in such a way that being both materially successful and completely honest is really difficult. With a corporate culture that is almost entirely based on "managing perception" - that is, lying - all honesty in the workplace really does is make managers look bad, which will hurt your career every time.

So women know how to play the game too. That's newsworthy? I guess so, if you're the New York Post.

Mild, it's not a cop out, nor is it akin to blaming a victim for rape.

Since we're using anecdotes: I know NOBODY who has been cheated on by every single one of their partners. Nobody.

I'm not saying you drove your past girlfriends to cheating and I'm not blaming you, but you are the unchanging factor in all your relationships. Perhaps you are (without realizing it) seeking out women who cheat. They shouldn't cheat, but you should examine why it is that you keep getting caught up with dishonest women.

As another person said, the fact that every woman you've been with has cheated on you proves nothing. The study was also severely flawed and does not prove that %60 of women cheat.

"Blaming the person who is not cheating, for the actions of the person who is is simply ridiculous. If every man a woman dated beat her, or cheated on her, who would you blame? Her, or all the men?"
I wouldn't BLAME her, but I would think there was something about her personality that made her seek out abusive men. That doesn't mean it's her 'fault' (an abuser will abuse anyone) or that the men are not to blame, but there is definitely a psychological issue at play.

I'm really laughing my ass off at you comparing geting cheated on to being raped or abused though. Thanks for that.

*60%

I feel really sad for that woman who doesn't feel that she is a good person for cheating on her boyfriend.

All of the rest of the article was BS- but I really hope that woman starts feeling better about herself soon.

This is dishonesty, period -- regardless of whether the spouse in either case is capable of exacting a violent revenge on the liar.

You're trivializing the kind of lying to survive that women with abusive partners do. If your morals tell you it's wrong to lie to avoid being beaten your morals are really screwed up.

If every man a woman dated beat her, or cheated on her, who would you blame?

First of all, having an affair is not equivalent to beating someone, and I refuse to discuss them as if they were.

Second, yes, if a woman I knew consistently dated men who cheated on her, I would indeed suspect that she was subconsciously seeking out cheaters for her relationships, that there was something about her that drew her to men who cheated. A person's selection of partners is hardly a random sample set; I have a friend who has only dated blond men. That doesn't mean that all men are blond. It means that she's drawn to blonds.

I'm really laughing my ass off at you comparing geting cheated on to being raped or abused though. Thanks for that.

Well, I'm laughing my ass off for you thinking that was the case. You apparently can't read examples properly, and that's fine.

One more time, though: Saying that blaming the cheat-ee for the actions of the cheater, is like blaming the raped for the actions of the rapist does *not* say "cheating is like rape". It means don't blame the victim, because it's just as ridiculous to blame the victim in either situation.

Follow?

Since we're using anecdotes: I know NOBODY who has been cheated on by every single one of their partners. Nobody.

Again, my whole point wasn't "haha, women DO lie", it was "Faithfulness or lack thereof will not be changed/affected by feminism or equality".

Being that I treated the women as equals, worthy of trust and respect, and was rewarded with such behaviour. The point was that the equality, and respect won't suddenly eliminate a need for such behaviour.

The study was also severely flawed and does not prove that %60 of women cheat.

Why do people say it was flawed because they didn't ask men? It wasn't a study ABOUT men. Point is, many other anonymous surveys that DID involve men, have indicated that, as I said, women cheat almost as much, or as much as men, which is a figure of 55-60%.

They shouldn't cheat, but you should examine why it is that you keep getting caught up with dishonest women.

Unnecessary to examine. I no longer waste my time, money, energy, or effort on digging through the trash, as it were.

First of all, having an affair is not equivalent to beating someone, and I refuse to discuss them as if they were.

No, but that doesn't mean beating is worse or better, either. Don't try to create a scale of which is or is not worse.

The impact of the experience is completely subjective, on those who experience it. Period. You are not the judge otherwise.

And, for the record, how can someone subconsciously seek out a cheater? Do cheaters look a certain way? Smell a certain way? Wear a particular kind of shoe? Don't be ridiculous.

Um... I'd rather have an unfaithful partner than one who beat me. Sure, it would be painful (as I've been cheated on quite a bit before), but not quite like a trip to the hospital. So, I think we can create a scale here, thanks.

Secondly:

Being that I treated the women as equals, worthy of trust and respect, and was rewarded with such behaviour.

"Rewarded?" You had to know that was a poor choice of words. I'm going to assume that you don't actually mean that you believe you deserve something for treating women with respect. Because that would be pretty shitty.

And, for the record, how can someone subconsciously seek out a cheater? Do cheaters look a certain way? Smell a certain way? Wear a particular kind of shoe? Don't be ridiculous.

You...do know what the word "subconsciously" means, right? You do understand that people seek out certain personality types when making romantic decisions, yes? That quite often, people find themselves repeating relationship patterns over and over again? That what one finds sexually attractive is influenced quite a lot by these personality markers that we pick up on subconsciously? I really don't understand your question. Are you trying to be disingenuous?

I treated the women as equals, worthy of trust and respect, and was rewarded with such behaviour.

Oooh, give the Nice Guy (TM) a gold cigar! He made the noteworthy and herculean effort of treating women as equals, and look at the thanks he got! Why, those hussies didn't deserve to be treated as the equals of men after all!

As for the ridiculous assertion that being cheated on is somehow just as bad or worse than being unable to count on personal safety and physical security in one's own home, living in fear of violence or worse from one's most intimate partner, never being able to relax at home as one is having to always be on high alert to any signs of anger--well, I'm just gonna point and laugh at that one.

"If your morals tell you it's wrong to lie to avoid being beaten your morals are really screwed up."

I never said that. Better read what I said again. You apparently didn't follow it.

You, and one or two others, seem to be saying it's okay to cheat on your spouse and then lie about it if telling the truth means you are going to get beaten. Two wrongs don't make a right. What makes the cheating okay?

Secondly, some commenters seem to be making this all about violent men, as if there were no other type. Surely you aren't going to claim that all women who cheat have abusive spouses, and would otherwise be totally open about the affair if were not for the threat of violence? When people say this list of lies is all about "the need to avoid male wrath," that is what they are saying. If the whole list is about male wrath, then all of the lying in the world by women is excused, and those women who are dishonest bear no responsibility for their own integrity.

You are looking at a particular edge case, and trying to pretend that it is the general case. This topic is a lot bigger than abused women prevaricating to their rageaholic spouses.

"I'm really laughing my ass off at you comparing geting cheated on to being raped or abused though. Thanks for that."

"As for the ridiculous assertion that being cheated on is somehow just as bad or worse than being unable to count on personal safety and physical security in one's own home, living in fear of violence or worse from one's most intimate partner, never being able to relax at home as one is having to always be on high alert to any signs of anger--well, I'm just gonna point and laugh at that one.

When did we as a species lose the ability to understand an analogy?

The analogy had nothing to do with the relative severities of the transgressions. The point was that some posters here seem to think the concept of "blame the victim" just does not compute when the victim in question is a man.

" "Rewarded?" You had to know that was a poor choice of words. I'm going to assume that you don't actually mean that you believe you deserve something for treating women with respect. Because that would be pretty shitty.

Yeah, that's right: it's not like he deserves the same level of respect that he puts into the relationship. What can he be thinking? *rolls eyes*

I will say that Mild Ennui was off base on the thing about subconsciously picking out cheaters, though. (That one was explained pretty concisely already, so there is no point in repeating anybody.)

Ennui said that he was poorly "rewarded" for treating women as equals. One doesn't get "rewards" for treating women as equals. It's just basic human expectations. It's like saying he was poorly rewarded for wiping his ass. You don't get a reward for that; you just do it. If one really accepts women as equals to men, one has to acknowledge that "equal" does not mean "perfect" and that women do not have to be perfect to deserve to be treated as equals. Some men cheat; some women cheat.

In re: analogies

First of all, go and check what Ennui wrote--he did indeed state that one could not say that being beaten was worse than being cheated on.

Second of all, there are many cases where the degree of difference between the things being compared renders the analogy laughable or useless; that is one of the reasons why, for example, people will call a Godwin when the Nazi analogy is used. While not as extreme an example as the use of a Nazi analogy, this is one such analogy--being cheated on and being beaten up are two such different experiences in all ways that no responsible comparison can be made. While I do maintain that degree matters much more than most irresponsible analogizers ever acknowledge (the different between falling off the curb and falling off the roof is a matter of degree; the difference between running a fever of 99 and running a fever of 107 is a matter of degree; in each of those instances, degree is the difference between mild irritation and the risk of death or permanent damage), the difference between cheating and physical abuse is far more than a matter of degree. It is a difference of kind, of direction, of situation, of results. Therefore, no profitable analogy can be made.

Finally, adultery is not an activity with a "victim" in the same way that beating someone up is. Thus, to talk about "blaming the victim" is specious. A person is not a "victim" of adultery, the same way that a person can be a victim of rape or abuse. These are two radically different dynamics.

"One doesn't get "rewards" for treating women as equals. It's just basic human expectations.

You seem to believe that he is saying he should not have to treat women with respect at all, unless he gets respect himself. To that you say no, you just treat women with respect because that is playing by the rules. Perfectly reasonable assertion, but that's not what I heard him say. What I heard him say is that he did play by the rules and still got shit on. Not the same thing at all.

My impression is that irresponsible analogizers fall into the severity trap, when they should be talking about the principle. (So do uncareful audiences. I saw one a few days ago where someone used a Hitler reference and the other person jumped all over him on the severity angle, when the analogy had nothing to do with the actual atrocities at all. The analogy was "Self-evident does not equal correct. Hitler held his beliefs as self-evident, too; obviously that didn't make them right.")

You are right, he did eventually say something trying to justify the relative severities angle, and that was a mistake. (I had to go back and find it.) That wasn't where it started, however. The analogy can be taken just on the principle being illustrated. The question is: Who bears the responsibility for the decision to transgress? The transgressor, or the transgressed-upon? The hypothetical rape victim did nothing to provoke the rape; Mild Ennui did nothing to provoke the cheating. That says absolutely nothing about the relative severity of rape versus being cheated on, so I think we can cease arguing that angle as off-topic.

He may have subconsciously picked cheaters, but that does not change the fact that they chose to cheat. Who bears the responsbility for the decision to cheat?

So, I think we can create a scale here, thanks.

Again, subjective. Emotional damage can be rated better or worse than physical, it all depends on the person involved. That's all I'm saying. It's not up to you to tell someone what they should feel in a given situation.

"Rewarded?" You had to know that was a poor choice of words. I'm going to assume that you don't actually mean that you believe you deserve something for treating women with respect. Because that would be pretty shitty.

It's a figure of speech. Though, yes, I did deserve something for treating them in such a way.

The same treatment in return. Or, is that pretty shitty to expect a significant other to give you the same measure of respect and care you give them?

You...do know what the word "subconsciously" means, right? You do understand that people seek out certain personality types when making romantic decisions, yes?

Yes, but even on a subconscious level, there's no way to "detect" a cheater in advance. Except for the incredibly blatant displays some people make in that regard.

Oooh, give the Nice Guy (TM) a gold cigar! He made the noteworthy and herculean effort of treating women as equals, and look at the thanks he got! Why, those hussies didn't deserve to be treated as the equals of men after all!

If I rolled my eyes any harder, they'd pop out.

Shall we call you condescending things like "Honest Girlâ„¢"?

Snap judgments about people you don't know are fun, huh? Naturally, because I'm male, I just *must* be some evil person, right?

For the record, no, they didn't deserve to be treated as well as they were.

Why should I have exerted any effort being kind to people that intended to use me?

The analogy had nothing to do with the relative severities of the transgressions.

Ding ding ding. Thank you.

Ennui said that he was poorly "rewarded" for treating women as equals. One doesn't get "rewards" for treating women as equals.

Again, it's a figure of speech to use "rewarded" in such a way. Part of the vernacular. Reading into it to get some "hidden meaning" to serve what you want to say is foolish and intellectually dishonest.

if one really accepts women as equals to men, one has to acknowledge that "equal" does not mean "perfect" and that women do not have to be perfect to deserve to be treated as equals. Some men cheat; some women cheat.

If you think expecting someone who gets into an exclusive romantic relationship to be faithful is the same as expecting someone to be perfect...well, I have nothing more to say to you, because you live in a world far removed from reality.

First of all, go and check what Ennui wrote--he did indeed state that one could not say that being beaten was worse than being cheated on.

Yeah, because every experience is subjective to who is experiencing it. You can say it is this or that for you personally, but you may not speak for anyone else. That's not some evil statement, it's just fact.

It's up to who experiences something, to say the level at which it gave them harm, mentally, emotionally, or otherwise.

That's all.

You, and one or two others, seem to be saying it's okay to cheat on your spouse and then lie about it if telling the truth means you are going to get beaten. Two wrongs don't make a right. What makes the cheating okay?

Secondly, some commenters seem to be making this all about violent men, as if there were no other type.

Way to move the goalpost. I can read just fine, thank you, you're the one changing the argument.

Avast's post that I was responding to gave examples like lying about a new pair of shoes. I quote:

That does not justify the initial act that needs to be lied about in order to escape retribution. (We're talking about the kind of lying that goes on within a relationship. This isn't about stealing a loaf of bread to avoid starvation.) If you are sneaking shoes into the closet, you are every bit in the wrong as the man who sneaks golf clubs into the garage, when the mortgage comes due and the checkbook is mysteriously emptier than it should be. This is dishonesty, period -- regardless of whether the spouse in either case is capable of exacting a violent revenge on the liar.

So you're the one now setting the bar at cheating and then lying about it.

he finished with:
No, he shouldn't be abusing you -- ever, end of story. No, you shouldn't be lying to him. These two statements are not mutually exclusive.

You're both suggesting that the woman did something wrong and that the beating is the punishment, and even if she doesn't deserve a beating, she was WRONG. You obviously have no understanding of what happens in an abusive relationship.

Ugh, tags.
This should have been in italics as well:

Secondly, some commenters seem to be making this all about violent men, as if there were no other type.

Why do people say it was flawed because they didn't ask men? It wasn't a study ABOUT men.

Most females lie "more cleverly and successfully than men" about everything from infidelity and facelifts to barhopping and shopping binges, according to a new book.

If you're going to draw a scientific conclusion you need (1) a randomized sample group that is not determined by self-selection and (2) separate samples for the two groups that you are trying to compare. However, if your real goal is to reinforce stereotypes rather than do actual research, a protocol like that could be a very bad thing - it might wind up showing that the stereotypes have no basis in reality.

All that the data in the study actually shows is that a significant number of women perceive themselves as lying successfully about various things. You know, just like most people.

"You're both suggesting that the woman did something wrong and that the beating is the punishment, and even if she doesn't deserve a beating, she was WRONG. You obviously have no understanding of what happens in an abusive relationship."

Yes, I AM suggesting that the woman did something wrong; and NO, I am NOT suggesting that the beating is the punishment. I specifically said the beating is unacceptable, ever. Here's the quote: "Physical retribution is inexcusable under all circumstances."

You seem to be unable to hold both of those concepts in your mind without linking them. That is your failure of logic, not mine.

If a woman spends the rent money on shoes, then yes, she did something wrong. If she cheats on her spouse, yes, she did something wrong. If she gets a man to marry her by telling lies about how she feels about him, yes, she did something wrong. All of these are wrong by any reasonable objective standard.

Should she be beat for it? NO, she should not be beat for it. But she did do wrong. It is in that sense that it is not so much about "the need to avoid male wrath."

My other objection to this being so much about avoiding male wrath is that that stance presumes that the majority of men would react by beating their partners for any of these transgressions. This is an unjustified assumption. As far as I know, men who beat their wives are still a small minority. This discussion was never JUST about abusive husbands. Saying that this is all about the need to avoid male wrath and lying to survive makes it all about the abusive situations, discounting all the more reasonable responses to, yes, wrongdoing. You don't get to, in one grand act of conflation, make all men into violent, wrathful (and irrational too, since, heck, there isn't actually anything objectively wrong with cheating) abusers.

We're talking about lying in an abusive situation because discussing the rest is pretty pointless. It's a ridiculous excuse for a story. No, we're not going to repeatedly shame women for lying. Lying is usually wrong, it's done by humans of every classification and category, and there's nothing to discuss except perhaps the misogyny that leads to assuming women lie more often or more effectively than men with no evidence but stereotypes.

BUT the study DID mention lying for survival, and the suggestion that this is JUST AS WRONG as other lies is what we're arguing about. That is something of substance to discuss. No one is saying all women who lie are lying because they're abused, so stop the strawman argument.

But if you think that survival lying in an abusive relationship=lying because a woman spent the rent on shoes (oh those irresponsible, silly women!) I still say you don't have any understanding of the kind of things women have to lie about just to TRY to avoid being beaten in an abusive relationship.

From the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence:

Domestic violence can create serious obstacles that prevent victims from achieving economic
security and self-sufficiency.1 By controlling and limiting the victim’s access to financial resources,
a batterer ensures that the victim will be financially limited if he/she chooses to leave the
relationship. As a result, victims of domestic violence are often forced to choose between staying
in an abusive relationship or facing economic hardship and possibly extreme poverty and
homelessness.

Women in abusive relationships may have to lie about MONEY SPENT ON GROCERIES. Or lie to put money back for themselves so they can SURVIVE. This is like.. lying to a kidnapper in the hopes that saying the right thing will save your life.

There's so many things wrong with that article.

And honestly, avast and Ennui, is it really that big of a surprise that, after reading that article, feminists would have issues with your apparent attempts to support the claims of a deeply flawed hypothesis/study or that women would be offended that you seem to be saying that we really ARE all just nasty, cheating, frivolous liars who are just in it for ourselves?

"BUT the study DID mention lying for survival, and the suggestion that this is JUST AS WRONG as other lies is what we're arguing about. "

Then we are arguing about a chimera, because I never said that. We are arguing over an apparent difference in reading the article. I read the phrase "Women lie as a survival technique, but also to get what they want," followed by a list of things that, to me, appeared to be not instances of lying to survive, but examples of getting what they want, which also happened to be objectively wrong acts.

In an abusive relationship, any one of the items mentioned COULD be lying-to-survive. You don't even have to start parsing whether the purchase being hidden was shoes or groceries. Abusers seize on anything and everything as an excuse to abuse. In those relationships, yes, it is ALL about the need to avoid the wrath of the abuser. In those relationships, lying to avoid being beat is inevitable and perfectly understandable.

Geek has covered the basics of spousal abuse quite well for the purposes of this discussion. There is nothing there that I take any issue with, and I have nothing to add.

I already said that both men and women lie to pretty much the same extent. (Golf clubs. Oh, those irresponsible, silly men.) I don't buy that we should just shrug our collective shoulders and accept that everybody does it. I do agree that we should not shame women for it selectively. In as much as this article attempts to do exactly that, it is utter garbage. I do, however, believe that there should be some standards of what constitutes wrongdoing. (Abusive spouses are way, way at the top of that list, for starters.) Claiming that this means I said that lying to survive is just as wrong as other lies is misinterpreting what I wrote.