NY Post: Women are fucking liars


If the headline wasn’t enough to make you gag, check out the lede: “Deceit, thy name is woman.”
NY Post, thy name is douche.

Join the Conversation

  • EG

    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.

  • Mild Ennui

    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.

  • kissmypineapple

    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.

  • EG

    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.

  • avast2006

    “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.

  • avast2006

    “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.

  • avast2006

    ” “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.)

  • EG

    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.

  • avast2006

    “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?

  • Mild Ennui

    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.

  • http://astraeasscales.blogspot.com Geek

    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.

  • http://astraeasscales.blogspot.com Geek

    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.

  • http://ananael.blogspot.com Ananael Qaa

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

    The problem isn’t with the study in and of itself, but this conclusion that is quoted in the article.

    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.

    First of all, because the study was based on self-report you can’t say “most” and have it be accurate. From the data you don’t know how the sample group compared to the overall population. Secondly, if you don’t do a similar study involving men you have no idea whether or not women do anything more “cleverly” or “successfully” than men. Compiling experimental data on one group and then comparing it to your own anecdotal experience with another group that you did not actually study is not science. It’s bogus.
    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.

  • avast2006

    “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.

  • http://astraeasscales.blogspot.com Geek

    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.

  • waxghost

    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?

  • avast2006

    “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.