The Young Turks: Do Women LIKE to Be Lied To?

Login

The Forum

Fact Sheet: Myths and the Truth About The Health Care Bill
By ihavenobias (10 comments)

Fair Warning!
By EveningStarNM (2 comments)

Democracy v. Capitalism
By epic gaga lady (0 comments)

Cenk destroys the old media
By clout2k (4 comments)

Healthcare - the uncomfortable underlying problem
By alphasigmookie (0 comments)

Who is the BEST replacement When Cenk is Away
By Don Squeek (24 comments)

Barack Obama: The Democrats' smilely face "Tricky Dick" Nixon.
By Tarheel88 (0 comments)

VLOG introducing the TYT drinking game
By aarnwysock (7 comments)

South Carolina Disgrace
By TinaBlue1985 (0 comments)

$138 Billion in Savings Over 10 Years is Worthless
By EveningStarNM (26 comments)

More Blogs...

01/23/2009 12:32:20 PM EST

Do Women LIKE to Be Lied To?

posted by AnaKasparian

Cenk's entire outlook on women is completely skewed, and I think it has a lot to do with the fact that he and I grew up in different times. As psychotic as it may seem, I thought about yesterday's show all night...replaying his argument in my head, and re-annoying myself until I finally resorted to blogging it out.

Cenk's main argument is that "all women like to be lied to." This would indicate that women KNOW they're being lied to, and they get some sort of enjoyment out of it. I know Cenk would like to think he knows exactly what all women want, but as a woman myself I would have to disagree with him. After witnessing several female friends and family members in shambles when they find out their significant other is a gigantic sham, I would have to say they don't "enjoy" or "like" being lied to.

There was an element of Cenk's argument that I agreed with: men lie. Men have an interesting advantage over women because they know exactly what to say or do to grab a woman's attention. For instance, there are the nice dinners, the compliments, and the devious claims that they too are looking for a serious relationship. These are the lies that men use to sleep with a girl, and then toss her off to the side. Cenk would say all women like that...right? Do ALL women KNOW they're being lied to? And more importantly, do they "like" being lied to?

No.

That's insanity.

When it comes to love and romance, women seem to remain optimistic. They get their hearts broken, but hope the next guy won't be such a fraud. They don't enjoy lies. As far as the first few dates, both parties are putting on a show, and we all know that. The man pretends to be interested in what the woman says, and the woman pretends to be impressed by what the man does. This is where both parties know they're lying to one another, but they do it to be polite. But when a man lies about his past or wanting commitment, more often than not women don't know they're being lied to. In addition, women don't enjoy being deceived.

Cenk finally goes into this 17th Century ideology about how women possess a genetic factor that makes them needy for commitment. Let's fast forward to modern times. I don't think women have a genetic element that causes them to want commitment more than men. I think for a long time society conditioned women into thinking they need a man for various things, such as raising a child or having the financial support to live. But in all honesty the role of women in society is changing rapidly...so rapidly that Cenk doesn't even realize it. Do many women still look for commitment? I would say yes. But not the alarming amount that Cenk is referring to. More and more women are realizing that they have their own careers and their own money to live solitary lives. You don't even need to be with a man to have children anymore.

Cenk and the guys at TYT decided to put our argument up on youtube, and of course Cenk received a great amount of support. But that's only because a whopping 74% of our viewers are men. That's not a statistic I made up either. In addition, I love how guys freak out at the sight of breasts. You show a little cleavage and they go crazy. It's pretty pathetic.

I guess I'm tired of men looking at women as these needy, weak, and defenseless creatures who need to have their asses caressed to be happy. It's maddening. I'm not a feminist in any way, but I do expect to be viewed as a strong woman who isn't needy and desperate for a long-term commitment. Stereotypes about women run rampant in today's culture, and it is accepted by everyone. Maybe it's time to change that.

< New Model for Non-Profits | Standard Operating Procedure >

Do Women LIKE to Be Lied To? | 94 comments (94 topical, 0 hidden)

Cenk's old. (none / 0)

Cut him some slack.

by YuryTheEnglishTutor on 01/23/2009 01:23:22 PM EST

Kind of sad (none / 0)

I think we are all forgetting some very simple truths in favor of speculation and generalizations about gender behavior.

Cenk's outlook is not only wrongheaded, but it is kind of sad. Deep down, we all know that no one wants to be lied to, period. If some women seem to tolerate deceit, or indeed seek dishonest relationships it is often because they are afraid to think that they deserve any better. This is also true of men who permit themselves to be taken advantage of or deceived.

Fear of not being good enough, or pretty enough, or fear of being alone can convince some that they should tolerate lies or other offenses because they may never do any better. Fear and cowardice are also at the root of those who choose to lie, rather than freely express what they actually desire.

If one is interested in playing the field, this is perfectly normal. There are plenty of men and women who don't want any committment who can be honest about their intentions and have a great time together. It can be quite liberating!

Those who wish to be in a committed relationship should seek a true, honest connection with another person; a soul mate. True love does exist but it begins with self-love and the recognition that we are worthy of love.

by fojanis on 01/24/2009 05:47:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]

TYT is sexist (none / 0)

I agree that Cenk's attitude is wrongheaded. There seems to be a lot of mindlessly sexist news items- the photo of Madonna's bush and Cenk's boorish response being a good example. I'm not surprised at the lack of female membership. 'Women like being lied to'- how fucking ridiculous is that?

by dan pearce on 01/24/2009 06:29:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]

: Thinking that a woman is attractive is not sexist. (none / 0)

see above

by YuryTheEnglishTutor on 01/24/2009 11:41:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: Women like being lied to (none / 0)

No one in their right mind likes being lied to. However in this day and age we are all so used to being lied to, we are all either, too cynical to believe anyway, or so apathetic to falsehoods that they elicit next to no response, how far have we come???
by bazcomau on 01/28/2009 12:24:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]

People like being lied to. (none / 0)

Cenk's mistake is to make his statement gender-specific.

Also, I don't think he means that women innately enjoy deception, but that their expectations are now so low that lies are tolerated.

by YuryTheEnglishTutor on 01/24/2009 11:39:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Women do it too (none / 0)

Women lie their asses off and play the hell out of men more often that you would think.

It's not just something that men do. It's what selfish people do that are only concerned with themselves, which is what our culture has bred alot of unfortunately.

by diglass on 01/25/2009 07:25:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]

genetics (none / 0)

I do think women are genetically wired to pursue commitment more than men--we haven't lost that part of our monkey brains yet. But many women can overcome that impulse or are less interested in commitment due to their circumstances growing up. Personally, I don't know why any woman wants to have a baby, but then again, I didn't play with dolls growing up.

Biochemically, romantic love acts on the brain like crack. If you want to understand the evolution of romantic love and its effects on our brains, try checking out Dr. Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist. Many videos and scientifically oriented articles can be found on that site, including her talk at the 2006 TED conference. I don't think you can understand love (and the drive for commitment) without understanding a little about how evolutionary and neurochemistry influences it.

Men seem evolutionarily drawn towards the feminine, week, and needy for some reason. The more independent and strong and educated you are, the more intimidating you are to men. But there are men out there who like them.

You are a 21st Century woman Ana and I think you will do fine.

by desertpear on 01/23/2009 01:40:35 PM EST

Amen (none / 1)

I, like you, come down on the side of evolutionary biology/psychology. I don't go with just my gut or experience.

Facts are facts and research is research, even when (scratch that, *especially* when) we don't like the results.

It's always important to keep in mind that while society can technically override biology to an extent, it's much, much more likely that society will simply exaggerate our natural biological tendencies.

It's not society that teaches men to like large breasts, but it IS society that reinforces and exaggerates the desire. It's not society that reaches everyone to like clear skin, but it IS society that reinforces and exaggerates the desire.

Same story with the role of men and women. The root of our interactions IS based on genes and evolutionary history, but sure, over time people can distort, exaggerate and take advantage of the relationship and interaction. Maybe I'm biased but I think that's the more realistic and productive view, rather than saying it's ALL genes or ALL society.

PS---Ladis is right, Mandy Moore is super cute. Super cute means she looks like a sweet, smart *and* attractive girl you could bring home to mom. This isn't the same as "super hot". Then again...

by ihavenobias on 01/23/2009 03:21:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: agreed (none / 0)

Society reinforces and exaggerates pre-existing instincts.
And billions of dollars are made by corporations who cater to those amped-up instincts.

by knixphan on 01/24/2009 10:39:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]

ahh, delusion! (none / 0)

"but then again, I didn't play with dolls growing up."

Of course you did; it's just that you called them "action figures," because, you know, only girls play with dolls.

"The more independent and strong and educated you are, the more intimidating you are to men."

Sounds to me like men need to "man up" and get over it.

Complete fail on understanding evolution, btw. If evolution has selected for any trait in humans, it's adaptability: the ability to change our behaviors to suit our needs. Virtually nothing is hard-wired into one gender that isn't also in the other (need to eat, sleep, seek out pleasurable sex). The idea that an entire gender is "evolutionarily" drawn to any set of individual traits is laughably unsupported.

by QED on 01/23/2009 04:29:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

sorry (none / 1)

It's true--I had no dolls. or action figures (there actually weren't that many of those aside from Barbie and GI Joe when I grew up). I liked animal toys and reading. Maybe that is why I became a biologist.

Got some links to support your assertions? The word "adaptable" by itself doesn't make any sense to me. In what way specifically are you talking about? Diet? Habitat? Flexible mating strategies? Sure, we are adaptable, as are lots of species, but that doesn't mean it completely overrides hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

You think mate choice in humans is driven by God or what? Sorry, but sexual selection still has a very strong influence, even if other (conscious) factors are involved. And whether you are conscious of these drives or not doesn't mean they do not exist.

Here are some articles with which you can educate yourself.

If mate choice was purely random, we would probably never have evolved at all.

Do you not believe in sexual selection at all? Or just in humans? And why would we be so different?

"Before we go on to look at the relevance of sexual selection theory to human evolution, we need to address the question; why female as opposed to male choice? In order to explore this, it is worth introducing the term parental investment. Parental investment (PI), an idea first introduced by R. L. Trivers, is defined as any investment by a parent in one of her (his) offspring that increases the chance that the offspring will survive at the expense of that parent’s ability to invest in any other offspring (alive or yet to be born). PI then includes the provision of a wide range of resources such as food, energy and time expended obtaining food and maintaining the home or nest; time spent teaching children and risks taken to protect young. In terms of PI, there is a fundamental asymmetry between the sexes – females have an initial investment in their offspring far greater than that of males because female gametes (eggs) are much more costly to produce than those of males (sperm). This means that a female can have only a limited number of offspring, whereas a male can have a virtually unlimited number, provided that he can find females willing to mate with him. Thus females generally need to be much choosier about who they mate with. The criteria for what constitutes a good choice of male will vary considerably from species to species, but the basic point about female choice remains."

by desertpear on 01/23/2009 06:17:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]

chic or bic, nurture vs nature (none / 0)

I think you're both missing the point, I mean both camps, the nurture/nature debate here. I know it is already off/topic of Ana's post and I always go off/off/topic and take it too far, but I think the real point is that evolution isn't a dead process, like, say history. It is taking place right now. As a matter of fact, men are, every generation becoming less "masculine" because of degeneration to the y chromosome. This isn't the only part of evolution, but it is an important, oft overlooked one. When apes and chimps and neanderthal split off, I mean any time a species, well, becomes a species, it is often as not because of this process.

Its funny, if you think about it like say Woody Allen, sort of neurotically, if you think about say John McCain or about the Bush father son team, about the so-called greatest generation, you think about Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, men have these impossible archetypes to become, filling your father's shoes, that sort of thing. Woody Allen might envision it as the future of sex with the orgasmatron, others envision it as all men becoming neutered (I think he had something on that too, didn't he) or asexual, perhaps Morrissey was a signal in this direction. All sort of aseptic and white and clean like a hospital. If you think about certain elements of Apple design and how chic and futuristic it looks, well, we have the metrosexual, you know. Then again we have shows like Mad Men which envision a sort of middle ground between today's metrosexual and the John Wayne, Greatest Generation Humphrey Bogart types. But they're all just images, John Wayne wore women's panties and Rock Hudson was flaming. But I think the issue of being gay and these archetypes might be two separate ideas, not sure if they are mutually exclusive or not.

My point is that humans might be currently evolving, if you mention this in a bar or at a superbowl party in the context I've stated the room becomes quiet, you'll get an "oooooKK" and people looking at you funny, then the guys will start burping and chest bumping to prove how manly they are. A beer or truck commercial will come on and they'll all high five or fist bump and then people are reassured when things return to normal. Whatever normal is.

But it is a scientific fact. What does it mean exactly? I'm not quite sure. But if you took this fact solely with certain trends you might come up with some either terrifying and disturbing or enlightened and hopeful conclusions based upon your own outlook and stereotypes and gender biases. If you look at it with birth control, cloning, same sex marriage, women's rights, the glass ceiling, you might start to draw the conclusion that Maureen Dowd did, are men really necessary. In bee colonies they protect the queen, one gets chosen to mate her, the rest look for flowers and dance. Sounds a lot like clubKids. Fabulous.

But these things always come in waves and then reactions to the waves, backlashes and it tough to tell sometimes which direction things are really going in. Men have been threatened by women's grab for power in politics and the home and the workplace, and have reacted by creating sports dens, sports bars, we pump ourselves up with Viagra and steroids, we cloister together to watch football and connect to virtually kill online in hunting packs over high speed broadband, we fantasize en masse with baseball and Jenna Jameson, or whomever the latest hottest porn star is, we retreat to man caves to find solace in the mundane, from ranking our favorite softcore tit wanking hardbody glam pinups to checking scores and updating links and watching Arnie and Stalone and now even Jamiee Fox shoot stuff and blow shit up.

Saying no girl likes to be lied to is actually insulting to women, it is an absolute statement that does not take into account, well, psychosis for one thing. Perhaps an addendum differentiating girls and women as a woman would be self-actualized and not a lil girl, but then you get the whole bag of defining a woman, which well, I won't even touch. I have enough trouble defining myself let alone men and I've obviously barely got a clue here right. But ya, most, 99 percent of women not only don't want to be lied to they don't deserve it, I've been as guilty as any man of lying to women to get laid or to someone how other try to manipulate the situation to however you want to say it, better serve my own needs or agenda. It always backfires.
That's life.

One problem is that if you admit it, then you get dumped on by both women and men. Men suddenly kick you out of their secret men only women haters club (see the little rascal for details) with the secret hand shake and unspoken understood misogyny. And women point you out and say, see, he admits it, hang him. Or they just assume you're gay if you are trying to get more in touch with your feelings.

So I think, to get back to the original post and not my tangent, that perhaps you need to redefine the terms of the discussion. Men feel betrayed that a woman will say she wants the honest straight shooter, but when the guy tries to come clean he's either a sleaze bag for his past indiscretions or he's gay for trying to get in touch with his emotions. Women will say, no we just want honesty and that is sexy. The man says, OK, then I think you're hot let's get it on, show me some bikini shots. Ew don't be gross and childish. See, I told you, you don't want me to be honest. No, I want you talk about your feelings. They guy talks about his feelings the woman says he's whining. Or being weird. So the man ends up with the conclusion that women are either lying themselves or they are clueless about what they really want, or that they like to be lied to. Because they are in effect saying that what the woman wants, an honest guy who's straight, handsome good looking clean cut likes sex no emotional issues grown up commitment friendly blah blah blah does not exist, no such animal, that this is an image they've created in their minds, and what they settle for at the bar, or on the eSite or whatever is some version of this they project onto the guy that he readily fills if it gets him what he wants (playa, playa) and they inevitably end up disappointed when the horrid truth comes out.

Eh, well, I guess that's one version, but people still get married, settle down, have kids, right?

Personally, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen in a world dominated by women, there is evidence to suggest that society was ruled by women perhaps from 120,000 years ago until very recently, as in the past 5 or 10 thousand years. Then again look at Ape culture and the silverbacks, But then again we didn't descend directly from apes, and Bonobos for instance have lesbian tea parties all the time.

I don't know, I mean it is probably be careful what you wish for, some sort of dark nightmare vision from Heinland or Philip K. Dick or something like the handmaiden's tale, a sort of immature prepubescent fantasy with dominatrixes in vinyl and platforms, serving milk at the clockwork orange Korova titty bar, while ruling from on high.

I understand women aren't asking for that and don't want it, if you believe Sex in the City they just want more closet space (OK I probably took away the wrong message, sue me); they, you, want equality, fairness, working together, honesty, I know I know. But things often don't work out that way. Rock the boat don't rock the boat baby, tip the boat don't tip the boat over. There is the law of unintended consequences. Who's to say where same sex marriage, higher pay for women, in vitro and cloning, estrus and the pill, women's rights and politics could all lead in a hundred years. Women certainly gained certain advantages whenever they started getting 13 periods a year, instead of mating in one season, but mention that to any woman and she'll punch you in the gut a few times and ask you how that feels. And obviously men gained a few advantages too, there was a lot more sex.

Men are "degenerating" regardless of science. But as science continues to improve on technology, women might eventually have 100 percent control over the reproductive process, legality often is slow to keep up with technology. But as women slowly take more political power this will change too. So that 100 years from now it might be normal to have families of lesbians raising children and being completely accepted in society. But why stop there, this is already the case in some areas (the acceptance part), why not envision entire towns (sometimes people segregate out of choice because they are not accepted elsewhere). Of course I've gone back on my tangent.

Think about it, if guys could just be honest you wouldn't have to be reading my insane lunatic rant which seems to have no end and less point.

As for us men and our tendency to cling to certain anti-social behaviors like lying, the way we retreat to our men caves and in general act like Neanderthals, I find it ironic that at the same time, we (as in society) mock cavemen (Geico, the flintstones) and laugh at how backwards they are. The typical look is bigger, slower, slow as in less witty more dull, more muscular, a big dope. I mean it was the degeneration in the species so to speak, the degeneration in the y chromosome, where we probably had less of these characteristics we think of as so male, I don't know enough about the effects of the y chromosome on testosterone to talk with authority on it, but just in general it seems like, well wait a minute. Isn't that exactly the same thing that is going on now? Shouldn't we be happy to get in touch with our more sensitive side, turn into metrosexuals or whatever, hand in our mens only women's haters club cards for NOW membership and become more progressive? Wouldn't we be happier? Then wouldn't we simply look back and laugh at how ignorant and backwards we used to be?

Or have I been co-opted and brainwashed by Maureen Dowd (and now Ana)? Hmm...

Well, as in the Amish, I think there will simply always be pockets of groups in society which simply refuse to keep up with the times and decide that they are going to hide their heads in the sand and simply act as if the changes in society have not happened because they refuse to see them.

by tiggerporn on 01/24/2009 07:10:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]

science for choads (none / 0)

If you can see the differences over just 2-3 generations, it's very unlikely that genetic evolution is the cause.

This whole post is just shot through with some dude's insecurity about his masculinity. It's not genetics that are changing, it's not the Y chromosome "degenerating;" it's societal expectations and culture which are changing and obsoleting _your_ idea of what masculinity is. Genetics and evolution have fuck-all to do with this.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about when I say that a lot of "evolutionary psychology" is just putting your own personal irrational beliefs in science-y clothes. No one who actually understood how evolution works could have written this post.

by QED on 01/27/2009 01:11:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: sciency clothes (none / 0)

WTF?!? Are you a newbie or just a troll??!? I had to check your profile (which I am loathe to do usually) just to make sure you weren't KenTX in disguise. Get a fucking clue and please try and be more polite in the future.

You are an absolutist, where as I am far more of a relativist. You say things with complete certainty, where as I'm more interested in raising questions. I try not to use terms like "no one" (as in "no one who actually understands...), never, always etc.

You come off really rude and authoritative and it makes you sound ignorant. Of course you are right, genetics has nothing to do with anything, it is all society and upbringing. You are 100 percent right, right? Because you can't have any doubt in there, it might make your whole argument collapse.

If I wrote a perfect example of what you were talking about, then you too exemplified my argument, that whenever a guy tries to be honest about his feelings, suddenly he's just a dude shot through with insecurity. Please try and separate my self-deprecating humor in a comment section describing men as self-loathing dogs who just want to lie and fuck and lie, and my comments on the evolutionary process. And maybe just maybe realize that I'm self-aware of writing in that style and more secure in my masculinity than you realize. In other words secure enough to expose the insecurity.

Genetics are changing, the y chromosome does mutate, these are simply facts. Can I ask you a question, what grades did you get in math and biology and chemistry? Another? Have you ever read Darwin's "Voyage of the Beagle" or "On the Origin of Species " ? These might be good places to start for you to try and get a basic grasp. Are you sure there is no way I could understand the evolutionary process? You're sure?

The Y chromosome is devolving through mutation, the rate at which it is devolving is increasing and at an exponential rate. But I also posed this, if you reread it, in terms of a millennial scale, and no where did I say that it is solely happening over 2 or 3 generations. Yes the rate at which it is happening has increased over the past 100 years, but it has been going on for 100,000 years.

Think of a damn into which you pour water, the rate at which you pour it ever increasing. At some point it hits a critical stage where it is going to burst the damn. It might take 100,000 drops, but as the rate increases exponentially, eventually it is no longer dropping but flowing and you cannot pinpoint precisely when or where which drop of water is the one that causes the damn to final break. We are at or approaching that point now, on the cusp of evolutionary change.

I completely believe in societal change, in the changing role of women in the home and workplace effecting changes in politics which reverberate back. But to say that genetics has nothing to do with anything is just silly.

If you'd like to continue this I wouldn't mind but please don't attack me personally anymore and please read up on some modern genetics, there have been so many advances in the past few years, you really ought to check your facts and make sure that you understand the evolutionary process yourself before making blanket statements about other's knowledge. Thanks.

by tiggerporn on 01/27/2009 09:41:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]

pigs on the wing (none / 0)

"You think mate choice in humans is driven by God or what?"

First off, choice of sex partner is not the same thing as choice of mate, as should be obvious to anyone who has even read about humans. People have sex all the time with other people who they would NEVER want to procreate with. (And of course nonprocreative sex is pretty much the only kind gays and lesbians have.)

Setting that aside, sex-partner-choice is driven primarily by upbringing (including, but not limited to, culture) and an individual's personal history.

Don't get me wrong - there ARE certain characteristics that we are hardwired to find attractive. Clean skin, symmetry of facial features, etc. The problem is that many many people such as yourself fall into the delusion that whatever characteristics they personally find attractive, or whatever most people in their society find attractive, somehow reflects some deeper genetic truth.

It doesn't. Whenever you hear someone bloviating about breast size, for example, that person is 99% of the time talking out of their ass. Breast size does not correlate well (if at all) with milk production, the typical excuse given when some guy is trying to dress his personal opinions up in the guise of science.

What's more, the fact that standards of beauty vary WILDLY across region, society, culture, and class indicates that very few traits actually correspond with any "hardwired" attractiveness. Truly hardwired features are common across all history, across all human societies.

If reproductive fitness were actually the major determinant of sexual attraction, the most-desirable women would be somewhat muscular, stocky, with what used to be referred to as "child-bearing hips," and a healthy amount of fat tissue. This is so obviously not the case that it's absurd to even suggest.

The explanation which best fits the evidence (a phrase that should have not a little import to you if you're actually a biologist) is that sexual attraction is overwhelmingly determined by environment. Men ARE programmed to find certain features attractive; it's just that it's cultural and social programming, not evolutionary programming.

(P.S. Your animal toys were somehow not dolls?)

by QED on 01/27/2009 02:36:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: move back to your fucking skinner box (none / 0)

by tiggerporn on 01/27/2009 09:59:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]

wiring (none / 0)

"I do think women are genetically wired to pursue commitment more than men--we haven't lost that part of our monkey brains yet. But many women can overcome that impulse or are less interested in commitment due to their circumstances growing up."

I agree that this is true and I think multiple mates is a strong evolutionary directive in men. Interestingly (and you've probably heard this), studies of bonobos and chimps have shown that the females, while establishing long term partnerships with a male, will have sex on the sly with males that are socially and physically "superior" but will raise the offspring with their mate. They increase their chances for dominant offspring this way. So the evolutionary sword cuts both ways when it comes to cheating. Maybe that will make Ana feel a little better about the whole thing.

"Men seem evolutionarily drawn towards the feminine, week, and needy for some reason."

Well, naturally toward the feminine. There are certain physical characteristics that are going to make any woman more successful at finding a mate no matter what. There's no getting around this - it's hard-wired into the male brain.

I don't know about "weak" though. That isn't it. Can't a woman be both feminine and strong? That idea is what really trips the trigger for me. I would phrase it more like this: Men seem to have an evolutionary predisposition to dominate. I think they just tend to be more successful at this with a weaker woman and so they settle for it.

by bfaul on 01/23/2009 06:34:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: you're so close (none / 0)

Except that what a person considers to be feminine characteristics is heavily, if not entirely, influenced by the environment in which they're brought up.
desertpear's post contains a perfect example of this, which you've noticed: he (she?) considers weakness to be a feminine trait. This belief is at odds with reality.
And now I'd ask you to extend that skeptical line of questioning to your own assumptions. Do men actually have an evolutionary predisposition to dominate? The evidence weighs against that conclusion. There's an awful lot of child-rearing that teaches boys to be dominating, and girls to be submissive. If the urge to dominate were really so genetically hardwired, we wouldn't need any of this. The fact that we have to teach these behaviors indicates that it's NOT hardwired to do so.
You're committing a very common fallacy, which is to think, "Because I feel something strongly, it must be hardwired into me." It's the same fallacy that the religious make: because they feel better when they pray, they are then convinced that their god or gods must be real, or how else would they get these good feelings?

by QED on 01/27/2009 01:37:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I part ways with Cenk on this matter (none / 0)

Cenk is describing the game of hooking up which nearly every man is in nearly all the time. I find the concept of the game demeaning and crude. There's richness in a sexual and emotional relationship that's missed completely in the game. People that find someone that they can sincerely share emotional feelings, thoughts, dreams and so on are very lucky. It can happen while playing the game as well but it's rare.

I can't speak for Cenk but, IMHO, he's probably now enjoying the richness with his wife and that's why he didn't want to bring her example into the discussion. The game and the richness are mutually exclusive.

I don't think women want to be lied to but there are lies we tell to each other to function in society. Anyone that tells the truth all the time will be an outcast and failure in social relationships and the richness will also most likely unattainable because diplomacy and being careful with the other person's feelings are important.

by toosinbeymen on 01/23/2009 01:56:19 PM EST

Ana Calm Down You are exactly 50% correct. (none / 0)

First your post sound like you are trying to rationalize things that preface you and me for thousands of years and evolve into more lunacy as generations pass. Of course I am a guy. Your whole post/argument can be quantified by the following statement:

"Cenk I cannot believe you told the truth I am not like those other "women" ; so for the sake of not hurting my feelings I (Ana) cannot handle what you just said. So to make me (Ana) feel better you have to ignore the following 3 things: your life experience with women, the obvious, and human nature." Then you proceed with your counter-statement as if a person will actually do those 3 things.

Here's a fact for 99.99% of men and women ain't worth the sweat off of ice water. If that wasn't the case most relationships would results in marriage, however that isn't the world we live in. Everyone hides what they want in a relationship for men (obviously its to hit and move on) and for women (long term relationship and or being with an unattainable guy for status reasons and or money, or the same reason men want with women).

Plus the US rewards women (no matter who cheated) with copious amounts of unearned additional income when couple has a kid and decide the they want to get child support. That money supports everything but the child in 99.999999% of the cases. YAY women no reason to commit you get rewarded whether or not the relationship with a kid works out or not.

However I do empathize with your point of how women are crushed emotionally when they are hurt, but have you ever thought of how men are emotionally hurt to find out that being a good man is outdated and that method of attaining an honest and stable relationship won't work in this world.

What you said yesterday was nuts about "how some women go out to find sex like men do." I can't imagine why a megan fox or a jessica alba would do something like that. However fat chicks and very least desireable looking women that men wouldn't want to be seen with I CAN see doing something like that, but still bounds of reason and it doesn't happen that often.

Everyone if you want a relationship to succeed find a person with self control who can see things from both sides and who isn't a spend thrift. Please have a firm grip between what is comprise (what you have to do) and pandering (what you shouldn't do that often).

Men and women need ask what your mate's physical and emotional needs are? Otherwise you both will be playing "I sunk your battleship" B4 miss ect. you get it. No one can read your mind if you don't clearly state what you want then its probably not that important that you get it. Dating people who are on your level helps, that way you are not dragging someone behind you or slowing someone else down. Trust me the list ain't that long for a reason, mostly because people won't surrender their ego to common sense.

The point of relationships isnt to get married, it is to get you emotional or physical needs met. Sometimes if works out for the short term, sometimes long.

There are honestly some people (idiots) out there who thinks things automatically get better by getting married, please don't fall into this trap. You change your horrible situation from "up the creek with out a paddle" to up the creek with, no paddle, no boat, no life preserver, and cement shoes (enjoy the ride). Please don't fall into this.

"I am never afraid to be wrong if anything given more information I can change my opinion"

We still cool though Ana.

by terrill on 01/23/2009 02:26:51 PM EST

To answer your question (none / 0)

Yes women don't like being lied to they require being lied to? Especially the self-esteem based questions. How do I look in this ect.

by terrill on 01/23/2009 03:38:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]

hah (none / 0)

You say that like men are any different! "No, honey, your 'size' is "just right"..."

Every person, male or female, gets insecure about their bodies at times. Every (heterosexual) person wants to look appealing to the opposite sex. The difference is that so many people define women's worth solely based on their looks.

by QED on 01/23/2009 04:14:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: yes (none / 0)

I will agree with this

by diglass on 01/25/2009 11:14:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]

So am I gay, or what? (none / 0)

Everyone hides what they want in a relationship for men (obviously its to hit and move on)

I am a male and this is precisely the opposite of what I want. What I want is a committed relationship with a woman who entrances me physically, mentally and emotionally and makes me happy.

I'm 29 years old and reasonably attractive, make great money and have a pretty great future, and yet this goal seems utterly impossible for me (given the empirical evidence of my own interminable series of romantic failures) despite your claim that a committed relationship is precisely what women want.

Maybe your ironclad ruleset isn't so ironclad.

by jarett on 01/26/2009 12:59:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Not buying it (none / 0)

Cenk was being ridiculous. Part of what he said is correct, but as a whole, he's wrong. The part that made least sense was singling out women, but, thankfully, Cenk finally added that men were like that too.

Of course people like to receive compliments that soothe their ego, but no one asks or wants to be deceived. When we receive a compliment, even if we know it's not true, we like the idea that the person paying it thinks its true. Or, we like the idea that the person paying the compliment, knowing it's a lie, and knowing you know it's a lie, still says it because it'll make you feel good. Like a smile, a compliment doesn't cost a thing, but is worth a lot.

There's nothing wrong with saying "You’re the most beautiful women in the world", for example. Of course it's a lie. For one thing, no guy has seen all the women in the world, but between two loving people, it's a statement of how of one person wants the other person to feel.

Sometimes we'll accept a lie believing it to be an embellishment around a core of truth. If you find out that there is no core of truth in the other person's mind, you entitled to be outraged. No one wants a flat out deception, but a lie that shows an honest caring intent is acceptable.

The genetic argument, though containing its part of fact, is bunk if you take it to its extreme binary conclusion: men want to hit it and leave, women want 100% commitment. Actual human beings are more nuanced than that. We inherit our genes from both our parents, and nothing prevents a guy from inheriting stereotypically feminine attitudes. What about the men who like to stay at home? Who stay around to see their children grow? Who bond with their companion for life, or at least, much longer than the 3, 4 years that Cenk keeps mentioning? To make things murkier, a man can look for sex outside of his marriage and still be in love and deeply committed to his wife.

Our genes are not a unified survival strategy. We're a mishmash of competing and opposing drives. One of them is to deceive to get what we want, and people are generally very good at lying. Lies are useful; sometimes they're just convenient. The drawback is that this skill is too good. People can deceive themselves easily since in an effort to hide a truth from others, we often hide it from ourselves.

Cenk's argument can also be harmful, though I don't believe for a moment Cenk meant it that way. The problem is, it's used to justify lying to women. "It's okay to lie to women since women want to be lied to." No, it's not okay. Sure, you can get what you want by lying, that's true in almost everything in life. That doesn't make it okay. It causes great harm.

Guys, think about this: you've been in a relationship, or you can imagine a relationship where the woman deceived you, lied to you for selfish purposes. Was that okay? Did you ask for it? Remember how that felt? Don't make up reasons to do the same to women, who don't deserve it anymore that you did.

As an aside, there's nothing wrong with being a feminist. Feminism is the belief in the right of women to have political, social, and economic equality with men. If you agree with that, you're a feminist.

by Momotaro on 01/23/2009 03:37:36 PM EST

: I love this... (none / 0)

Great argument.
by AnaKasparian on 01/23/2009 04:56:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: I was called a "feminist" (none / 0)

(gasp! not censored???) last night in the "chat room" when I remarked on Cenk's rhetoric. This as if it was a curse! Know my response? "Thanks." (or something to that effect) I am female, not an activist. I believe in the rights stated in the definition above, does he (the "name-caller" not?) BTW, needless to say that relationships built on lies are like castles built on sand on the shore.
You got it right Momotaro
by tifosies on 01/24/2009 01:17:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]

no subject (none / 1)

"I'm not a feminist in any way, but I do expect to be viewed as a strong woman who isn't needy and desperate for a long-term commitment."

Ana, if you, as a woman, expect to be treated with respect, then yes, you ARE a feminist.

You might spend some time thinking about why you assume that a feminist is some terrible, bad thing to be. (HINT: think about the popular views of people who call themselves 'liberal' or 'atheist'.)

P.S. Gender essentialism is totally worthless, and as such, virtually all EP claims are bunk. It's sadly very popular for someone to take a very limited scientific finding concerning gender and extrapolate way too far, projecting their own preconceptions on the data, drawing unwarranted conclusions, all in an attempt to paint the status quo as "scientific". It is not scientific in the least to ascribe to genetics what is much better explained by social conditioning.

by QED on 01/23/2009 04:06:31 PM EST

Well... (none / 0)

...if I'm a feminist, I'm definitely not active in enough in the cause. And I don't view feminism as a negative thing. Just throwing that out there.

by AnaKasparian on 01/23/2009 04:54:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: you work (none / 0)

therefore by definition you are benefiting from feminism. You don't have to be an activist to believe in women's right to equal treatment.

by desertpear on 01/23/2009 06:20:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: good to hear (none / 0)

Well that is fine. You can be a liberal without being a liberal activist. You can be a feminist without being an outspoken feminist. You can be an atheist or agnostic without putting up anti-religious signs in capitol buildings.
However, for the sake of rigor, I will point out that simply benefiting from feminism isn't the same as being a feminist. Leslie Unruh, to take one example, is as vile an anti-feminist as you can be, yet even she benefits from feminism. Indeed, you and I wouldn't even know her name if not for the work of feminists and proto-feminists before her time fighting for the idea that people can learn things from listening to women speak.

by QED on 01/27/2009 01:45:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: PLEASE (none / 0)

Learn the difference between "feminism" and "radical feminism." They are NOT the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Radical_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Feminism
I'm a feminist just as much as any liberal is (or should be).
by jarett on 01/27/2009 02:48:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I 'm kinda new here so cut me a little slack, (none / 0)

but women do like men who are somewhat dangerous or mysterious. This persona can be achieved and perceived in many ways, but one of those ways is through lying and/or keeping a women interested by lying to create the illusion of danger and mystery. It may give the appearance that the lying is the attraction, but the associated danger is the real pull. Dangerous guys in some ways are considered stronger than non-dangerous guys.

So having said that, in virtually all animal species, the female typically seeks a male that is the strongest, the most protective and the most capable of providing for them. This ensures that THEIR offspring are more likely to survive through bred genetic strength and safety. Males in virtually all species seek to produce as many offspring through as many mates as possible - its all about procreation. The stronger of the species are more likely to accomplish that goal. Women could technically seek this same thing, but they are stuck with the gestation period of offspring and cannot reproduce further during that period, so during that time they require protection of the male giving them further reason to seek a single strong mate - While Cenk calls it needy and it may seem an antiquated thought process by today’s standards, it is actually fundamental…..or it is just mental. Take your pick.

By the way, great shirt yesterday.

by Juan de la Dem on 01/23/2009 05:26:25 PM EST

lemme get this right. (none / 0)

men are genetically / morally engineered to lie.

women are irrepressably optimistic. they are strong, but they are so full of love that... (sniffle) they just cant help but hope the next fella will be The One.

:| seriously?

when it comes to sexual politics, there are no "good guys". women are after comfort, men are after sex. that's just human biology. it doesn't mean nothing else exists, but to ignore it, or to say it exists, but for only one gender, isn't productive.

reccommended: "man and superman" by george bernard shaw.

by zba on 01/23/2009 06:00:25 PM EST

It has nothing to do with lying... (none / 0)

I think the entire frame of the discussion is inadequate, and looks in the wrong area. It isn't about whether or not a person likes to be lied to.

One hugely important thing to remember is this: nobody chooses to be attracted to another person. It's impossible to inject logic into your base emotions. You're either attracted to somebody or you're not. That brings us to the question: what is it that people want?

So what is it that people want? The answer is simple: we all want to bask in the feelings and emotions associated with being attracted to another person. For men, physical attractiveness is a big factor (at least at the beginning of a relationship). For women, well... I won't lie here, I'm still trying to figure women out... but I would say that women are drawn more to personality over physical attractiveness.

Lets be honest... you put a man in a room with a hot woman, and he'd be ready to have sex with her immediately. They don't even have to talk because he couldn't care less. But flip the situation around now. Would a woman jump to have sex with a man without a word? The answer is no.

Women look for a person of value. Someone who is confident, socially savvy, a leader, a person of status. That's why women fawn over celebrities. Some of them aren't even as good looking as any other regular dude on the street. But the celebrity has already conveyed all of the above qualities. That guy on the street hasn't, hence he isn't as attractive as the celebrity.

Obviously, we can't all become celebrities in order to demonstrate our wonderful qualities. Hence, men are left with communication (whether that be verbal or otherwise--i.e. body language) to use to attract a woman. We tell stories, make jokes, play games, thus expressing who we are through the things we say and do. You don't have to lie. Lying has nothing to do with attraction. You simply have to say and do things in a... different way, a unique way. A way that makes you stand out from the crowd. A way that conveys your strong personality and traits that women love. A way women enjoy.

It isn't lying. After all, we all put on masks in different situations. The way you act in front of your boss at work differs greatly from the way you act with your husband or wife. I don't see the changes in behaviour as lying but, rather, it's you conveying a different part of yourself.

Maybe I'll tack more on to this later. Watching TYT while thinking and typing is hard. :o

by invert on 01/23/2009 08:12:16 PM EST

: mr. worf: snark factor 4, engage! (none / 0)

"Women look for a person of value. Someone who is confident, socially savvy, a leader, a person of status. That's why women fawn over celebrities."
Because men never look for a person of value, and men definitely don't fawn over celebrities.

"We tell stories, make jokes, play games, thus expressing who we are through the things we say and do."
Women never do this (because women don't have personalities worth expressing, of course).
"Lets be honest... you put a man in a room with a hot woman, and he'd be ready to have sex with her immediately. They don't even have to talk because he couldn't care less. But flip the situation around now. Would a woman jump to have sex with a man without a word? The answer is no."
[/end snark] Actually, yes, except that women are afraid of being hurt by the man. Except that women are afraid of being impregnated by the man. Except that women are afraid of being seen as slutty. Et cetera, et cetera.
It's not that women don't want sex, or sex for it's own sake. They do. Rather, it's that between societal conditioning and rational self-preservation, they can't actually afford to pursue sex single-mindedly like men can.

by QED on 01/27/2009 01:59:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]

one-sided (none / 0)

Yes, some women do behave like needy, weak and defenseless creatures, and yes, society has conditioned them to depend on men financially- a role that not a few women accept as their due. And that's their decision, of course, but they should not be surprised when, having failed to assume the full responsibilities of adulthood, their breadwinners treat them as the dependents that they are.

In the great game of dating, women trade on sex, while men trade on security. Both lie.

Women lie about sex by implication. Expensive dinners and months of emotional babysitting are like an extended internship without pay, at the end of which sex might possibly happen, but often doesn't. When women fail to live up to their end of the deal, we don't usually call them liars because the terms of the contract are never made explicit.

Men lie about security, and they do so in the open. Oh yeah baby, I'm an airline pilot, a doctor, a lawyer. I'll take care of you, I'll watch over you and carry you through life in my big strong arms. Stick with me, sweety-pie, and your feet need never touch the ground.

If you look at relationships in economic terms, men are out their killing themselves for a slim chance at a very small reward. Is it any wonder, then, that we sometimes lie, just as you do? And are our lies really any worse simply because we lie with our tongues, while women lie with their eyes?

Think about that the next time you eat and run, or trick some poor sap in the Netherlands into buying you a new pair of shoes, just because you can.

by ChangwaSteve on 01/23/2009 10:14:04 PM EST

Seems like two different things to me (none / 0)

Nobody likes outright deception, of course. Who loves to be strung along by someone they're totally into and then dumped. You're 100% right when you say women, heck, anyone doesn't like that.

But then - many, if not most, men and women enjoy the game of love. And that game involves all sorts of playful lying.

But I do think the notion that women want to be lied to to not feel like a slut is a bit dated, though I don't doubt there's some truth to that still to this day.

by tacobandit on 01/23/2009 10:54:47 PM EST

Ana listen (none / 0)

most guys are simps , they don't know how to outright campaign for the pussy. They think if you tell a woman the truth you will scare the pussy away. Most guys think you have to lie, pretend to like everything she likes, buy boots in the mall, and other simpish sh/it to get women. True macks know that a way to a womans heart, mind and draws is to get her to RESPECT YOU AS A MAN!!

and how do you do that?? by being 100% percent with her and tell her the truth. You can be smooth and not be rude. but women respect honesty, they may not like it at all times but they respect it.

that's what you want from a woman first. HER RESPECT. Once a woman respects you then everything else is easy. That's why women f/uck with the bad boys cause atleast they are not simpin to make you like them. They are who they are if you like them or not. Women respond to that type of attitude. Women respect that.

Men need to learn how to get a woman to respect them first and like them second. You do that by being yourself no matter what!!!

on to another matter....

Ana next time you see Cenk, tell him

Always

Closing

see the problem is men don't know how to close the deal. They go out on 20 dates, tell lie after lie to make sure she likes him ( cause they are scared to be the man that they should be), start simpin and brown nosing because they don't know how to bring closure to the situation.

are we fuckin or not

are we getting married or not

are we just friends or not

CLOSE THE DEAL ALREADY!!!

Me I'm a closer, I don't leave shit just hanging in the air. You know were you stand with me. I close a bitch lol. While you dudes buying boots and telling tall tales, losing sleep because you worried if she likes you are not. I'm up in her closing the deal because I will Always Be Closing.

by McSwag on 01/24/2009 01:38:55 AM EST

Women being lied to... (none / 0)

I'm brand new so I need to clarify that I do not consider myself a mysogynist; I'm a proficient ballroom dancer and have no problem relating to women while working. However, I'm 50 years old and have been around long enough to come to some very rude conclusions.

It's not that women like being lied to, it's that they are extremely gullible, as are most people. Personally, they seem to choose to believe the crap guys spew forth.

It really boils down to critical thinking skill. Most people are complete morons, regardless of their education or socio-economic status. Look at people who believe in religion, the government in general, or that moron Bush specifically.

If you really want an education as to why people fall for the crap the way they do, you really need to read the book True Believer by Eric Hoffer, found at:

http://www.amazon.com/True- Believer-Eric-Hoffer/dp/006 0800712/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8& amp;s=books&qid=1232781 612&sr=1-5

by SumnerClaridge on 01/24/2009 02:28:08 AM EST

: wait a sec... (none / 0)

"I'm brand new so I need to clarify that I do not consider myself a mysogynist; I'm a proficient ballroom dancer and have no problem relating to women while working."
None of that precludes you from being a misogynist, of course.

by QED on 01/27/2009 02:04:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]

stereotypes, huh? (none / 0)

Sounds like you're tired of being stereotyped.

"I guess I'm tired of men looking at women as these needy, weak, and defenseless creatures who need to have their asses caressed to be happy."

you're right.. that's gay men, not women. we're the weak, limp-wristed creatures. Not women.

good thing you don't stereotype others, right Ana?

by Fortunate on 01/24/2009 03:06:56 AM EST

I didn't say a single thing (none / 0)

About gay men. So I don't know what point you're trying to make.

by AnaKasparian on 01/24/2009 12:49:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]

this time (none / 0)

In that particular discussion, the subject of gay men did not come up, but both you and Cenk, like 99% of all people including gays themselves, stereotype us frequently, with complete ignorance toward the idea of individuality.

by Fortunate on 01/24/2009 04:16:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Everyone is stereotyped. (none / 0)

Gay men are lumped into the woman's stereotype by straight men who think where one puts his penis is a relevant topic.
It's not.

by YuryTheEnglishTutor on 01/24/2009 11:46:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Overhyped (none / 0)

This question belongs on a script for another Sex & The City episode. I can almost see Carrie typing pensively on her computer screen: "Do all women really want to be lied to?"

Of course not.

First of all, sweeping generalizations about human psychology are rarely accurate. Even if the majority of women wanted to hear pretty lies, it wouldn't apply to every single one of us. Similarly, not ALL men lie when it comes to romance and commitment. To see you and Cenk engaged in this argument was a little ridiculous. I thought TYT didn't do black and white, but gray instead.

Second, how are we defining "lying"? If lying means paying someone a compliment (overinflated or not), or listening, or being attentive, or showing interest -- then there are very few people who would not find that appealing. Men or women. Who doesn't want to feel like they are loved, that someone thinks they are beautiful or handsome, that someone is interested in their point of view and life experiences? Humans seek affection and affirmation because we are social creatures. We don't exactly thrive when sequestered away in isolation, no matter how strong and self-sufficient we might be. Some people may become overly needy and dependent on external positive reinforcement, but it is hardly the case with all women.

On the other hand, if "lying" means deliberately misstating intentions about the relationship, then I have to disagree with Cenk. If a woman is actively seeking commitment, simply hearing the desired lie is not good enough. In the short term, it might result in a payoff of warm fuzzy feelings and sex, but in the long term, it turns into anger, hurt, feelings of deception, as well as a temporarily shot down self-confidence. We want things that are pleasant, not those that cause us emotional pain. Masochism is only fun in BDSM scenarios ;)

Annya

by annya127 on 01/24/2009 05:02:05 AM EST

: Holy Javascript explosion, Batman! (none / 0)

Can we still edit comments? Because WOW that is screwy!
by jarett on 01/26/2009 09:22:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Misinterpretation (none / 0)

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what Cenk was saying, but I believe his argument wasn't that women know that they are lied to all the time and enjoy it, but that they like to hear what they want to hear.

If you are on a date, you are going to shower her with complements. Some are going to be lies, some aren't. Some are going to be bigger and smaller than others. But that's how our society works. He's not saying that women PREFER to be lied to. I think that is how you are taking it and why it is bothering you so much.

by GST on 01/24/2009 07:41:16 AM EST

No one wants to be lied to; they WANT to BELIEVE (none / 0)

Both sexes have a very powerful ability to go into denial of reality.

Women want to believe that a man is nuturing and interested in you as a person because that is the way WOMEN are. They want to believe that men think the same way. So women are depressed to find out it was a lie and it was all about the body.

Men want to believe it when the woman acts all interested and impressed in with their triumphs because men think more competitively. They want to believe that women think the way they do. They are horrified if they found out the women weren't THAT impressed and faked the orgasm too.

It really is God's ugly trick to make women and men attracted to each other and try to live long term together. I'm not gay but it's always seemed to me women would be a lot better off with women and men with men. There would be no need for lying or pretending they felt the same way.

by blueheartinaredstate on 01/24/2009 12:10:39 PM EST

If your not a feminist, you are stupid (none / 0)

You said you are not a feminist in any way, that is a pretty dumb comment. Feminists stand for the equal rights and treatment of women and you claim to not be a part of that in any way. Well those women are the reason you can vote in elections and they all did it without showing cleavage. Your gold platter life would not be possible if it wasn't for those original feminists that took a stand against injustice. I am a man and consider myself a feminist. Its embarrassing to hear a woman with no pride or understanding of the sacrifices of women who were fighting societies' pressures before you were even born. If you want to be considered a strong and respected woman then start acting like one. If men are so pathetic that they go crazy when they see breasts then stop showing yours off. Don't give me no bullshit line that you wear low cut shirts for yourself, you wear them so men will notice you and then you get angry at the men who do pay attention. Sounds a little doubled sided to me.

by gargantuen on 01/24/2009 02:16:18 PM EST

Re-read my blog (none / 0)

I didn't belittle or demean feminism in any way, shape, or form. I don't see myself as a feminist because I haven't devoted my life to it as many real feminists have. I do support feminism. Don't put words in my mouth.

by AnaKasparian on 01/24/2009 08:25:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: I think it's the age gap. (none / 0)

by YuryTheEnglishTutor on 01/24/2009 11:49:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Dear Ana, (none / 0)

I am surprised to see your comments on this subject. Cenk has expressed blatant sexism ever since I started listening to The Young Turks -- and you have tolerated it, usually without comment or protest, even when it has been personally demeaning to you. Yet I have heard you, albeit infrequently, refer to yourself as at least somewhat liberated. In fact, you also have participated in conversations which objectify women, portraying them as of interest solely as sexual objects. Cenk's offensive comments are often followed by your twittering giggle, and a mildly humorous rejoinder. While I contend that women who are interesting only because of their sexual behavior are not, in fact, interesting at all, you help to promote the idea that they are.

You weaken liberation, and serve to belittle women.

I had three very close female friends in high school in high school (68-72) who collectively trained who were the first "liberated" women that I knew. Although they were just learning about women's liberation themselves, they made sure that I learned. It wasn't a difficult lesson, because thinking about other people being equal to me in all significant matters (and ignoring the relatively insignificant issues such as physical ability) came very easy to me. But many other people persist in carrying forward older views of women as weak, manipulatable, relatively unintelligent, and primarily sexual.

These ideas retard our intellectual evolution.

I am not sure, but I could be persuaded that Cenk makes his sexist remarks not because he fully believes them but because he thinks they're entertaining. Some people undoubtedly are entertained by those remarks. But I'm not one of them, and I would be pleased if you examined your own sexist attitudes for possible redress.

One good place to start would be taking a hard look at the content of the third hour of the show.

The way that women achieved what equality they have is because they took it, not because men finally began to recognize their unjust attitudes. While a lot of men do work to reform their personal sexist attitudes, no one who wants their freedom can or should depend upon their oppressor to see the evil of their ways and change. If you want your freedom you have to take it. Otherwise, you won't get it.

A case in point was the Equal Rights Amendment. Legally, it was unnecessary. The equal protection clause of the Constitution confers upon women rights equal to those of men. But a lot of people don't realize that establishing women's equality under the law wasn't the purpose of the ERA; it was, instead, to adjust people's attitudes. But the sexists -- both male and female -- prevailed in that battle. As a result, even at this late date, Cenk finds a wide audience for his sexist humor.

While sexuality certainly is a pleasant topic for discussion, I hope that the staff at TYT learns that their distinguishably sexist comments not only are not "progressive" but serve to weaken the efforts of true progressives to create a more just society.

The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 01/24/2009 03:06:42 PM EST

Ana ruins the entire liberal movement? (none / 0)

She sure is powerful.

Men and women are not born with a natural understanding of each other. There's always going to be friction.

Calling Ana someone who "weaken[s] the efforts of true progressives to create a more just society" because her experience with the sexes is different from yours is silly.

What other positions disqualify you from being a "true progressive"?

by YuryTheEnglishTutor on 01/25/2009 12:08:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Fallacious Misconstruction (none / 0)

I always enjoy a good debate and welcome challenges to my ideas. Sadly, you offer no such challenge.

Your second sentence alone fails on at least three counts:

(1) People are not born with prejudices. They learn them. This is a widely-accepted principle following many formal studies of the issue.

(2) To say that people are not born with a natural understanding of <fill-in-the-blank> is a useless statement, because people are not born with a natural understanding of anything at all.

(3) The "friction" of which you speak is not an obvious consequence of the existence of two sexes. To say that it is requires a logical argument to support that conclusion, and as far as I know none has ever been presented. You certainly fail to present one here. You don't even bother to define that "friction".

The argumentative flaws in the rest of your post are equally atrocious. Given that you just complimented a post by Ana where she complains that the person to whom she was replying was putting words in her mouth, I am surprised to find you attempting to do the same thing to me, although I doubt that you are aware that you did so. What is worse, however, is that you fail to present a case that what I said was "silly", making your claim null and void. While it's possible that you deliberately misconstrued what I said in a weak attempt to raise an argument, doing so simply makes you look ignorant. Your claim has no substance.

But that isn't the worst part of your reply: The ridiculous non-sequitur of your final sentence is baffling, and indicative that you may be incapable of being interesting in a discussion of any issue. You're welcome, of course, to try again, but only if you can present a real argument with some meat to it. But so far, you're unimpressive.

The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 01/25/2009 01:03:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Let's go backwards (none / 0)

In your ultimate paragraph, you said, "While sexuality certainly is a pleasant topic for discussion, I hope that the staff at TYT learns that their distinguishably sexist comments not only are not "progressive" but serve to weaken the efforts of true progressives to create a more just society." I inferred from this statement that those who make sexist comments are not true progressives. Who judges what is and is not sexist? I also wanted to know if other things disqualify you. I like guns; does this make me a false progressive?

In your penultimate paragraph you summarize my failings. I'm not an objective judge, so let's move on.

(3)Friction is inevitable because men and women are different in today's world, and it takes significant effort to understand that which is different from you. The difference is there now, so the friction is inevitable.

(2)True, but I figured out lots of things rather easily. Those were things that were consistent, so I simply had to learn the rules and follow them. People, however, are all different, so there are no rules to learn. Therefore, I can reach a natural understanding of math, basketball, or fish, yet am often confused by women.

(1)This is the issue at its core. If the world as a whole today was fair and just, then everyone would be raised with empathy for the opposite sex, and this would be a non-issue. However, we are nowhere near there yet; society itself imprints the prejudices, though one can obviously transcend them.

None of this is the point. There is nothing wrong with making jokes about women, possible even sexist jokes. That is not sexism; that is naughty humor. Sexism is serious. It's half the women in South Africa being raped within their lifetime; it's male college graduates climbing ladders while the girls type and take dictation; it's my mom working a shitty job for ten years while a man would have been made management long ago.

P.S. This reads for more harshly than it sounds when I speak it; I'm not trying to be an anonymous internet asshole.

by YuryTheEnglishTutor on 01/27/2009 03:25:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Strange use of language (none / 0)

What "disqualifies" me? Trying to squeeze a contextual meaning out of that sentence is enough to make me want to ignore you. But asking "who judges what is and is not sexist" is much worse than silly. It makes me wonder if you know what sexism is. Sexism is "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex" (see Merriam-Webster). That's actually a pretty objectively measurable criterion for anyone who has any sense at all.

Clearly, I have no idea what kinds of relationships you've had with women, but I experience no "friction" (which you force me to define for myself) in 95% of my relationships with women, which is the same as the amount of "friction" that I experience in my relationships with men. Perhaps your problems are due to some personality conflicts with women that you are unable to resolve. I am inclined to place the responsibility for such "friction" on you, individually, than on the fact of the existence of two sexes. To do otherwise would be to say that you are not responsible for your behavior.

That is simple logic, and unassailable. (Therefore, it's a sure bet that you'll try to waste more of my time by trying.)

I'm sorry, but I just can't give you any more of my time. You ended by saying that a sexist joke isn't sexist. You are thereby disqualified from being taken seriously. And just so you don't wonder if I'm trying to be an anonymous internet asshole by being harsh in my criticism of your terribly weak and self-contradictory position, my name is David Dickinson, and I stand by my comments.

The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 01/30/2009 09:05:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: That is simple logic, and unassailable. (none / 0)

So because you have rarely had problems with the opposite sex, it must therefore be true that no such problems exist?
You are the exception, not the rule. Most people have trouble with the opposite sex. It's because boys and girls are different. Again, they are often different because society raises them to be different, but they are different nonetheless.
My original point has not changed. You said Cenk was hurting real progressives with his sexist humor. I disagree, because I don't think sexism is humor. Rather, I think sexism is a behind-closed-doors thing.

by YuryTheEnglishTutor on 02/03/2009 03:55:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]

It truly is a bit maddening... (none / 0)

There are comments that are continually repeated here (by men for the most part), and it's driving me insane at how absurd it is.

The comment essentially amounts to this: "If you don't want guys to make sexual comments about your breasts, don't wear revealing clothing." You know what it reminds me of? An old defense that rapists used in court against victims. "If she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have worn that revealing dress." It's beyond silly. And to think such a defense worked in the past...

What? Do you guys want your country to revert to oppressive ideals? Cover a woman from head to toe? She can wear whatever she damn well wants, because that's what she happens to like to wear. Period. End of discussion. It's up to you to man up, get some balls, tuck your tongue back into your mouth, and shut your mouth about it. That's what a real man does. How's that for some male chauvinism for you?

Because seriously guys... as much progress as we've made in the world in terms of equality, the comments here prove we haven't progressed enough. And this is a liberal site! I dread to see the kinds of things people say on conservative sites.

Oh, and please don't say you respect and love women's rights in one sentence, but then immediately bash them in the next. It makes you disingenuous. It makes you a liar. You obviously don't respect women's rights, and saying otherwise doesn't make it true.

For the record, I come from a matriarchal family where my grandmother was a single mother of five boys. My other grandmother was a single mother of two boys and one girl. I have two sisters myself (no brothers), and my mother has my father on a leash. When I say I know how to respect women, you can be sure it's the truth.

by invert on 01/24/2009 03:07:32 PM EST

Thank You (none / 0)

I couldn't have said this better myself.

by AnaKasparian on 01/24/2009 08:22:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]

settle down (none / 0)

Oh yeah for sure women can wear whatever they want. Who is trying to control what women wear? Not me. And to jump from chest-gazing to rape and burkas in a few sentences- isn't that a bit hysterical?

All the guys on the site are saying, I think, is that if women dress revealingly, that's an invitation to look. Guys do it too- do you think we wear muscle shirts because they're comfortable? They're not.

Revealing clothing is not an invitation to leer, stalk, or make inappropriate comments, but it's definitely meant to be appreciated. I mean, what else is it for, ventilation? Staring at yourself in shop windows, because you dress for yourself and none other? Please.

by ChangwaSteve on 01/25/2009 09:14:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]

: If you show it, I may or may not look... (none / 0)

It depends on if I'm interested. But every woman on the planet has a cleavage, and if I spend all day looking at one, I'll miss all the others.
My message to women is this: If you don't want people to look, don't show it. If you do show it and someone looks but you don't like it, on what basis could you complain? That you're a hypocrite? Sure, someone may be a jerk about it and stare, but that just means there are two jerks in the room. This argument is ridiculous.

The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul
by EveningStarNM on 01/25/2009 03:40:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: I was expecting a reply as such... (none / 0)

I know sexual comments are a far cry from rape itself. The point was not to connect those two. Far from it, the point was the deflection of blame. And I am not surprised that this was missed. Most men obviously have trouble understanding the inner-workings of the female mind. Rather unfortunate that nearly all the males here fall under that category.
The idea is that, somehow, it's the woman's fault for the man's actions. So go ahead and read this quote with this new perspective in mind:
"She shouldn't wear revealing dresses if she doesn't want rude comments by men."
You can substitute "wear revealing dresses" and "rude comments" with anything you want. Try "get a job" and "to be sexually harassed". Keep the deflection of blame idea in mind as you do this. Maybe you'll begin to understand the absurdity of it.
Just because a woman wants to look nice (honestly, who doesn't like to look good?), it does not imply the woman wants men to make rude comments about them. Nor does it mean they want to have sex with every man they see.
Again: it is not the woman's fault. It is the man's fault for opening his mouth and spewing forth the stupidity. Have some self control for goodness sake. Take some blame for once. You can look a couple of times, that's fine. That's expected. Nowhere in any of these comments do I, nor Ana, condemn the simple act of looking. Go ahead and reread if you need to. Once again, it's up to you to man up, get some balls, tuck your tongue back into your mouth, and shut your mouth about it. That's what a real man does. Control yourselves.
In this day and age, in the countries we live in (Canada in my case), there's no excuse for these attitudes that still blanket our societies. And it isn't me that needs to settle down. It's all you guys freaking out about seeing a bit of cleavage, and then going off about how she had it coming.
In Ana's words: "It's pretty pathetic."

by invert on 01/25/2009 04:34:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]

something to think about (none / 0)

If I were dressed as a fireman, and your house caught on fire, would you ask me to put it out?

Yes it may be true that most fireman dress like that, but just because I dress like that doesn't mean I am one.

Look at your argument from another paradigm.

by diglass on 01/25/2009 08:00:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]

One word comes to mind... (none / 0)

The one word that comes to mind when I read this is... what? I am honestly at a loss as to the point you're trying to make here. It doesn't logically flow with anything I've said.

I'm not even sure if you're supporting me or opposing me.

by invert on 01/25/2009 09:30:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]

well (none / 0)

It is in response to the dressing provocatively issue.

by diglass on 01/25/2009 11:16:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]

clearly (none / 0)

To spell it out clearly for you, many women state "just because I am dressed like a slut doesn't mean I am one"

I am saying if I dressed like a fireman and your house was on fire, what would you say when I said "just because I am dressed like a fireman, does not mean I am one"?

Most people would say "then why are you dressed like one"

by diglass on 01/25/2009 11:22:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Repeating my previous posts all over... (none / 0)

I barely understand what you're getting at. I'd appreciate it if you attempted to further explain how it even remotely connects to any of my previous posts. I'm still racking my brain over it. But we'll give my reply a shot anyway... if my post gets at what you meant, fantastic!

You are merely helping me prove my point. There you go, blaming the woman for something you have done. So she puts on a low-cut shirt. Looks great, we see a lot of cleavage. Now because of her clothing, that suddenly gives you the freedom to make inappropriate comments about her breasts? Really now... Really?

Lets say a rude comment is made. Who's to blame for it? According to you, it's her fault. She dressed provocatively, therefore she should accept the fact that you're going to say these things to her. After all, if she's dressed like a firefighter (I love being PC), we'll treat her as such, right? She's got to be expecting it. But guess what? In reality, it's not her fault. It's your fault. Let that register in your head. It's your fault. No matter what she has on, you were the one being disgusting and pathetic.

I've repeatedly stated that guys need self control. I love women. I love good looking women. I love looking at good looking women. I love looking at good looking women in revealing clothes. I'm not going to lie or apologize for it. I am a man after all. But will I go out of my way to fawn all over her and say rude things to her about her body? No. I have self control. I know what to say, how to say it, and when to say it. I have respect for her and know there's a lot more there than her body. Surprise! Women have brains too.

By the way, when I go out, I don't look for women dressed in a certain way and expect them to do anything for me. It's not their job to please me. Because hey, relationships are two-way streets. But when I see somebody in a firetruck with atypical firefighter gear on, you're damn right I expect them to douse the flames on my house. It's their job. If they claim to not be a firefighter, I'm calling the cops and reporting them for impersonating one.

Besides, what does it matter anyway? The bottomline is that women should not be forced to cover themselves up from head to toe in order to avoid a bunch of pathetic losers from drooling and saying inappropriate things to them. She likes to wear the clothes she wears, so that's what she'll wear. Period. End of discussion. It's the men that need to change their ways. Why should she have to put up with the idiocy? After all, women would not even be showing their ankles if guys never stopped heckling them about it in centuries past. Actually, you know what? We should've kept the ladies down by continuing with our machoism. Screw respecting women's rights. Screw equality.

I can picture it now. Ana on TYT wears pants with pant legs that go up to her calf muscles. She likes wearing them. The men go crazy over how hot her ankles are, lewd comments included (e.g. "Oh baby, your ankles are so well rounded and strong. Mmm..."). They then proceed to tell her that if she didn't want for this to happen, she shouldn't have worn those pants. It's her own fault! You hear me, Ana?!! Stop showing your ankles, you slut!!!

Please excuse me while I go roll my eyes. I really wish people could realize that this entire debacle is simply one of the ways men keep women "in their place".

by invert on 01/26/2009 02:36:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]

thanks (none / 0)

"when I see somebody in a firetruck with atypical firefighter gear on, you're damn right I expect them to douse the flames on my house."

there you go

Either way I don't expect anything from any woman, but if I see a woman dressed like a slut, I'm going to tell myself, that woman does not have much self esteem, because she is dressed like she is trying to win the look how slutty I can dress prize.

I don't see what the point is anyway, based on appearance, 67% of guys would not consider a serious relationship with a woman dressed in that manner. So if they just want to get fucked, I'm sure they can accomplish that, but they could accomplish that too dressing however they like.

Say it's winter and I were dressed like a robber with a beanie on and had to move my car. I just left the bank running on foot to get to my car so I didnt get a parking ticket. Many people would think I just robbed that bank.

I don't care what people wear, but if you're dressed like a slut then you should probably be prepared for SOME people to treat you as a slut. It's your choice to wear that.

Just like it would be my choice to wear a fireman suit and tell you "Just because I am dressed like one does not mean I am one"

by diglass on 01/26/2009 05:00:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Le sigh. (none / 0)

None of what I've said is computing for you. You've proven my point once again but don't realize it. You take one little sentence from my post (out of context too, mind you) and ignore the rest.

A person dressed as a firefighter (identifying them for their given job) is far different from a woman dressed in random clothing (something she happens to be wearing at the time). It's a bad metaphor that doesn't fit.

I have certain expectations for a person in firefighter gear. Just like I have certain expectations of a person in a police uniform, or a nurse outfit, or an astronaut outfit. It's their job. It's discrimination based on inoffensive notions.

If you have certain expectations for a random person in a low-cut shirt, and base your treatment of them on what they're wearing... I don't even want to talk to you. It's ridiculous. If you'd like, we could go back to the "if she didn't want to be raped..." quote I spoke about in the initial post. She wanted it right? Or she wouldn't have worn that clothing. She should be "prepared for SOME people to treat" her as if she wants to be raped if she's going to dress so provocatively.

Le sigh.

It isn't her fault. It's my fault. It isn't her fault. It's my fault. Repeat that in your head ad infinitum.

As for your silly example of a person running from a bank with a mask on. Oh yes, somebody we assume committed a crime and with whom we are about to call the police on is definitely related to a bunch of horny pathetic men making rude comments to a woman in revealing clothing.

Please.

But hey, you have a point. We make assumptions about people given what they're wearing. What an incredible revelation that I'm certain nobody knew about! Wow!

That isn't the point of contention here. It's about whether or not you act on those assumptions. And once again, we go back to my point of self control. Why should women just suck it up and accept the fact that men will heckle them about showing their ankles? They shouldn't. They can dress however they want and not be put down by men. Let me requote myself for the hundredth time: "It's up to you to man up, get some balls, tuck your tongue back into your mouth, and shut your mouth about it. That's what a real man does."

It isn't her fault. It's my fault. It isn't her fault. It's my fault. Repeat that in your head ad infinitum.

by invert on 01/26/2009 07:24:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Invert, let me try to help using the FIREFIGHTER (none / 0)

When dressed as a Firefighter, anyone would fully understand that a person whose home is on fire would therefore expect you - because of your firefighter costume, AND their current emergency circumstances- to BE THE FIREFIGHTER you are pretending to be.
The FAULT falls on the person identifying YOU for the mistaken identity and/ or misinterpretation of your outfit. Its THEIR FAULT in this particular situation.
Why?
1. Firefighters have a very distinct easily recognizable outfit.
The above situation is the jist of your argument.
I will also add the following
2. The person doing the identification is in a moment of emergency and crisis and does not have the time to stop and think whether or not you may be in a costume pretending to be something that you are not.

Now let us apply this same argument to women.

A woman is wearing an outfit that you and the majority of people agree would be deemed to be "sexy". This is the equivilent in your argument to your "firefighter outfit".

As a result of this woman wearing this "outfit", when a man looks at this woman he finds her attractive and thus he DOES WHAT?
I hope I do not have to spell this out for you....
1.?
2.?
3.?

In your arguement the man's actions based on what clothes the woman is wearing are the woman's fault (firefighter)....NOT the man's fault (person with burning house), even tho it is the man(person w/the burning house) who is the one that is actually doing the performing/speaking/doing/ etc.... the action in question. Which is in your firefighter example the WRONG action.

The fault in the examples gets moved from the one taking the action in the first example of the firefighter, to the one who does not take any action in the second example - woman wearing clothes.

THe point is as Invert has said many times, and others here have tried to help clarify and btw this message has been said about the Taliban, and the Mullahs in Iran, and anywhere else in the world that women are forced to cover themselves because of the supposed lack of ability of men to be able to concentrate in temple or mosque, or in the street, that men cannot control thier urges if they are exposed to women at all in any way so women must be kept a home and never allowed out of the walled in compound, or if they are allowed out they are tobe covered head to toe so as to not provide a distraction to the men. TO the MEN.

Assuming that its OK for any man to treat any woman in the ways you are describing for any reason - least of which being her clothes is as if you think that men stop growing emotionally from when they were 12 yr old boys finding thyour eir first National Geographic or their father's playboy. AND that THAT IS QUITE OK... It is not. And we have all seen what that kind of attitude toward woman can do to a culture and to people.

Firefighter outfit or t-shirt and jeans - if you want to be treated with respect - earn it first by understanding that both the firefighter and the woman are both the mis-seen person in the examples, and it is the ones who make the observation of the firefighter and the woman who are the ones in the wrong and must change.

by sbandb on 01/26/2009 09:19:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]

look (none / 0)

I never said I treat women this way or that it is right to do so, just that it happens, and it will continue to happen as long as some women choose to wear less fabric than my left sock.

I don't treat women like whores because they are wearing a whore uniform, I treat them the same way I would like to be treated, unless they are a dittohead, then I just try to make them feel foolish just as I would a man.

I'm just saying I can choose to wear a fireman uniform, and if I said the same thing women say "just because I am dressed like a slut doesn't mean I am one" is like saying "just because I am dressed like a Jewish person doesn't mean I am one, or just because I am dressed like a priest doesn't mean I am one etc.... the list goes on and on.... it would not be acceptable

Granted not all whores wear the same uniform, but neither do Police officers in every other city, but they do all wear something similar.

The thing is some women CHOOSE to dress like that for attention, those women are getting what they asked for whether it is positive or negative.....

I wish our society was different, but we all have roles and expectations based on our appearance and unfortunately people judge other people based on their looks here. In 20 or 30 years hopefully everyone can walk around naked or I could wear a "fuck jesus" shirt without anyone saying anything to me, but this is the society we live in for now.

by diglass on 01/27/2009 12:21:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]

AHHHHHHH! (none / 0)

GAH! No it's not the same is what we're trying to tell you!

"I never said I treat women this way or that it is right to do so, just that it happens, and it will continue to happen as long as some women choose to wear less fabric than my left sock."

The above quote really bothers me. My angry filter reads it like this: "Hey, guys can go and heckle women in revealing clothing all they want. It happens and will keep happening if women keep wearing revealing clothing. I don't do it, so who cares? Lets not do anything about it." You've proved my point of the deflection of blame again. And it's the mentality that many oppressive nations in the world have. As somebody mentioned, it's the kind of thing Iran does. Is the fact they keep their women oppressed fine to you? Because that's how their men happen to function in that particular country. If women don't wear long sleeved shirts and pants that go down to their ankles, they'll instantly get called out on it. And who knows what will happen to them at that point. You condone this? From everything I've read by you, the answer appears to be yes. Don't say otherwise because I am following your logic now, and you continuously peg the blame on the woman. You'd shrug and tell me she should've worn something different if she didn't want to be treated that way.

Mission accomplished: women slapped back into their place.

I'm done though. I really don't know how to rephrase what I said a third or fourth or fifth time. Cheers to sbandb for trying to put it in a different way.

by invert on 01/27/2009 06:37:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Invert (none / 0)

The whole reason I started posting on this thread was to say that a lot of women are just as dirty as a lot of men are.

Just because I understand why something happens, does NOT mean I condone a GOD DAMN thing.

I will tell you all day a woman who dresses like that for attention is going to get ATTENTION whether it is positive or negative. Women understand that some guys are going to act like that when they wear shit like that.

Should guys act like that? NO

BUT it happens.

Quit trying to take my words and spin them, I've stated myself pretty fucking clear by now.

What the fuck do you want me to say? OK ALL YOU GUYS OUT THERE, MAKE SURE YOU DON'T SAY ANYTHING TO A WOMAN THAT CAN BE TAKEN THE WRONG WAY..... ESPECIALLY IF SHE'S DRESSED LIKE A SLUT!

Please continue on your little tirade sir, I really enjoy you making me out to be whatever you want me to be. I'm sad that you do not understand what "I do not agree with it" means.

If I were wearing a fucking borat g string to a club, do you think SOME women wouldn't say anything degrading to me?

Guess what? SOME Women drug guys and sleep with them, I know firsthand...

Women do the same shit Men do.

Go make a petition.

by diglass on 01/27/2009 11:46:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]

A good first step! (none / 0)

Now you're saying you kind of agree with me. I'm glad! You see that it's wrong for men to put women down for the clothing they wear. Good. But we remain in disagreement about other things.

Do I expect you to go out there and protest about this issue? No. What I do expect is for you not to do what you did in this thread: defend the men who are in the wrong by tossing the blame on the women. And yes, you did defend them. You have spent vast amounts of time and energy to attempt to explain and adamantly defend your position.

Oh, if a woman is dressed in a way that makes men crawl out of the woodwork to heckle her, I say more power to that woman. She's willing to take the heat and push the bounds no matter the cost. Maybe one day all the women in Iran will tear off their long sleeves and long pant legs, and say screw you to the laws that the men there instituted. Or maybe men will grow up and learn to stop being douchebags. One can only hope.

"The whole reason I started posting on this thread was to say that a lot of women are just as dirty as a lot of men are."

"If I were wearing a fucking borat g string to a club, do you think SOME women wouldn't say anything degrading to me?

Guess what? SOME Women drug guys and sleep with them, I know firsthand...

Women do the same shit Men do."

The above quotes make me shake my head. You still pin the blame on the woman, and now you attempt to twist the situation around the other way. "Look!" you say, "Women do it too!" As if that somehow vindicates your views.

The playing field isn't level between men and women. You have to realize this. You have to realize that women are still considered inferior to men in this world. Let me know the moment when women become the superior and dominant sex in the world. Let me know when men encounter the glass ceiling in their careers. Let me know when men receive lower wages in comparison to women. Let me know when men have to seriously worry about showing too much skin. Let me know when there are more female managers than male managers. Let me know when men are sexually harassed more than women. Let me know when men are forced, by law, to cover themselves from head to toe. I could go on and on. If the above were true, maybe then you'd have a point.

Does this mean I'm fine with women doing the same stuff as men? Of course not. If the situation were reversed, I'd be ranting about this in reverse. But it's not. And it's absolutely silly for you to try to twist it around. "They do it, so I can do it too!" Ridiculous.

You don't agree with it, you say. Yet you stay and continue to defend it.

By the way, I volunteer at a local women's shelter. I'm already doing my part by seeing firsthand what happens when men with messed up realities take out their aggression on women. It was her fault for making him angry, right? *Sigh.* This is probably why I get so worked up about this issue.

by invert on 01/28/2009 01:18:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Almost done (none / 0)

Prevention of socially unacceptable behavior, be it rape or warfare or rude sexual comments, demands a proper understanding of the circumstances that trigger such behavior. If the objective conclusion is that under certain circumstances all men will make sexual comments to a woman because of the way she is dressed or all men will rape, or all countries will go to war, there is no value in wishing or pretending that men or nations are somehow different. The value lies instead in identifying the circumstances that facilitate verbal or physical rape or war. Only then can some attempt be made to ensure that those circumstances occur less frequently, and hopefully not at all.

The only reliable pathway to understanding the situation is via objective analysis, even if en route some conclusions may be unpleasant, unpalatable, or socially incorrect by your standards.

Therefore, you must first try to put yourself in another's shoes and not just look at this issue, or ANY issue you care about from only your paradigm. That is the only way you can really solve a problem.

by diglass on 01/28/2009 07:18:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Fun. (none / 0)

You're a hypocrite.

Sorry, but it's the truth.

Read my recent post to marcusau2's thread as to why I'm being so blunt about it. I'll give you a short summary here. You're telling me to put myself in another's shoes. I have. I've put myself in the women's reality and looked at the truths surrounding why the behaviour of men is inexcusable.

You haven't. You continue to sink into your male frame of thought, refusing to look at it in a different light. You continue to say it's her fault for men's actions. Thanks, you proved me right time and time again with every post you've written here, as I've pointed out repeatedly.

And do you really believe that I don't know the male condition? That I don't know the way men think? Of course I do! I've got a penis too (and no, you may not touch it)! That's my reality. I simply choose not to be a horny pathetic excuse of a man from the herd of horny pathetic excuses of men.

I know why men are so rude to women. Because most of them are stupid and have a superiority complex. Because they blame the woman for anything the man does. Because they lack self control. Because they refuse to or have an inability to empathize with women.

Every point which I have explained in depth in previous posts. If it doesn't compute for you, I really have no idea what I could say at this point. All I know is that it isn't me that needs to step out of their comfort zone and see what else is out there. Oh yeah, by the way, nice job flying off on a tangent about how to solve problems in the world--which doesn't address anything I said in the post you replied to.

Dang it, I guess this wasn't as short as I thought it would be.

by invert on 01/28/2009 09:25:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Anyway... (none / 0)

I'm done, so bye. Respect to your point of view, even though I strongly disagree with it.

by invert on 01/29/2009 01:19:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]

The Asshole Line (none / 0)

It is all a game, and both sides like the chase. It is just matter of tolerance, self-esteem and physical attraction that determines how long the game will last. I call it the asshole line. A women will put up with just about anything if her self esteem is low enough or the sex is good enough, and vice versa. But women seem to have a higher tolerance due to the similar characteristics of desirable playmates.
Unfortunately for Cenk and many others, once she gets that ring the game is over.

by sisco66 on 01/24/2009 08:08:19 PM EST

Is this comment about men related to the question? (none / 0)

Does this have something to do with the question of whether women like to be lied to? It reads like a non sequitur.

by Ferdinand on 01/24/2009 10:30:58 PM EST

Rants have their own rules... (none / 0)

...the first one being that they should help to vent emotional energy. While her statement about the YouTube video could be considered a discontinuity in a fluid argument, it is not non-sequitur, since it does not attempt to draw a conclusion base on the original argument about whether or not women "like" being lied to.

As a rant, it's a good post.

The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 01/25/2009 01:13:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]

: Mars/Venus (none / 0)

As a male I am not taking sides, but lots of insight from wisdom attributed to JFK, who had some experience: love is god's joke on women, sex is god's joke on men.
by Bernie Reilly on 01/25/2009 07:01:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: Now I get it (none / 0)

thanks EveningStar, it makes more sense now. I did not get that she was writing about comments posted on youtube (I did not see the argument there.) So her comment seemed off the wall at first.
by Ferdinand on 01/25/2009 10:19:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]

maybe what women like, is to invest.... (none / 0)

well, this is my newly formed theory, Women don't like to be lied to, they just believe the lies, because they want the realtionship to succeed.
what do i mean with, they want the relationship to succeed?
well, lets go to that example of women being lied to, that most people probably had contact with, the women that is being blatantly lied to, by a man and that, still believes them, despite evidence and friends concerns, why would they believe them over the obvious? well it is my theory that when the first signs of lying occur, there is a choice to believe in the relationship, and that has time goes on, and evidence starts piling people have simply invested so much of themselves and their faith in the relationship, that they don't want to let go of it, and prefer to keep living a lie, to reaching the conclution that their emotional investment in the relationship was for nothing. now next point.
why does this happen more to women?(it can happen to both genders). Well has many have written in this blog, women are more prone to look for stable relationships, so when a guy comes along, that they feel might be a good one, by whatever standards, they are likely to invest more emotionally, and there for, to more easely believing lies.
Now, why is there a missconception, that women like to be lied to? well, here is the thing, women don't like to be lied to, what they like is to believe that the relationship will work, and that she is free to invest herself in the relationship. Now from a male outside observer, that sees women believing obvious lies, there are 2 obvious answers for why are they acting like that, 1-they are dumb, or 2-they like being lied to, now because most man, can recognise women has being just has smart(if not smarter) has a man, they choose to believe that they like being lied to, without realizing the not so obvious answer that women just want to believe, that they can be loved, by an honest person because that means that their love is honest and true.

by Hefnar on 01/26/2009 05:10:51 PM EST

: sry for the spelling (none / 0)

Sry for the mistakes, first comment ever, awfull spelling, and didn't read it after writing it, just wrote what i was thinking.
by Hefnar on 01/26/2009 05:22:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: Women being lied to (none / 0)

I like boobies, but when I tell the womenz that..they getz mad. :)

by Spyderwalk on 01/28/2009 12:28:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Late Response (none / 0)

Perhaps it's a little late to comment here but I'll shoot anyway. In response to the original topic I agree with many sentiments expressed here in that no one likes to knowingly be lied to and the key term is knowingly.

I believe Cenk's comment can be interpreted that way or it can be interpreted in a much deeper (and perhaps far-reaching) way. In this second interpretation "lied to" can mean something totally different with stronger psychological and sociological implications. Willful blindness is the first thing that comes to mind. Many, but not all, women are willfully blind to reality as per social conditioning or simply because it's easier. For some reason the notion of plausible deniablity seems to be most applicable here. It's almost as though the woman in question operates on three different compartmentalized levels, one level being a total realization of the truth and the second level being an altered reality where the lie is desired and comforting. The third level comes into play when the lie falls apart and everything crumbles as a result. It's at this time when the woman can deny all knowledge of the game and refute ever participating in it with reasoned argument due to the third level's knowledge of the existence of the other levels without necessarily understanding the details. This is much the same way plausible deniability works in political theory except there is no fall gal in this example even though the compartmentalized second level is technically complicit in the charade and bears some of the responsiblity along with the liar.

I mentioned previously that I believe many women fall victim to this sort of blindness but it is by no means limited to women. In the system of courting that exists today many men fall victim to this type of compartmentalized rationalization all the time with the difference being that there is no direct agent lying to them as the lie is structured within the system as they find when they wake up one day and ask themselves why they married the woman they chose for superficial reasons. This sort of thing happens all the time in other areas not pertaining to romantic relationships and is simply part of the human condition. Acknowledging it seems to be useful and necessary in a society that is built around desired outcomes versus explicit biological reality.

As to another sub-topic brought up here about cleavage (one that I recall Ana mentioning on the show recently) . The poster Invert as well as Ana are ridiculous. At the most basic level we as humans wear clothes for a reason, to protect ourselves from the elements. People that dress ostentatiously do it for a reason, they are expressing themselves for others as we are social creatures. The concept of fashion and art for that matter would be meaningless without other people to appreciate self-expression. Let me ask you a question Ana, when you wear clothes that accentuate your cleavage who are you wearing those clothes for? If you answer yourself I would expect to see your life obstructed with mirrors. There is a reason that fashion designers designs outfits to accentuate cleavage or legs, hips, etc. It isn't for direct personal gratification. If you think it is then I would direct you to watch the episode of South Park where Eric Cartman buys an amusement park for his own enjoyment and bans everyone else from attending because that is who you are. South Park example aside I would argue that most women that wear revealing clothes take indirect pleasure from the fact that they have a body that is desireable and pleasant to look at. This isn't to say I'm advocating excessive oogling, but some oogling is expected if you're going to be reasonable.

by marcusau2 on 01/28/2009 04:18:09 PM EST

"NO U" (none / 0)

WHOOSH! The point flies over the head of another person.

I'm not saying don't look at women who happen to be in low-cut shirts. You're like the fourth person who thinks this is the case. It's not. I repeat myself: neither myself nor Ana have condemned the act of looking. Find a line where either of us tell anybody to stop looking.

Alright... let me try another route here to help people "get it". Go out with a dildo strapped to your head, with a dirty t-shirt, non-matching pants, and shoes of different colours on. Let me know how that feels. Then go out wearing clothes like a GQ model, and let me know how that feels. One feels a lot more comfortable than the other, right?

I don't go out in my Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles pajamas, though I'm sure it'd be a lot of fun. Maybe I'll do that sometime soon. But I know I'd certainly feel better wearing my GQ-esque clothing when I go out. People will look over at me and give me a smile, I like that. People compliment me on my clothing, I like that. We like wearing what we wear because, like you said, we're social creatures and enjoy the social status we acquire because of it. Do I, as a man, enjoy the attention? Yes I do. You know, say I'm in my TMNT pajamas, even if a woman makes an inappropriate comment to me, that opens up the chance for me to carry on a conversation with her. Sex is on my mind and I'll take any opening I can to attract her. A strong and confident man wouldn't be fazed by it.

Now, can I apply my experience, as a man, to a woman's experience? No, I can't. Look, men aren't women. What a newsflash, eh? But apparently it is news to the guys here. You can't apply your own personal experiences as a man to that of women. The inner-workings of the female mind differs from yours. The world as a woman experiences it is far different from your own. And until you're willing to accept that, this won't go anywhere. What I'm saying is that the previous two paragraphs you see above? They're pointless. They don't help you understand women at all because it's a man's experience. Just like how all of your current outlooks are inadequate to understanding women.

As I have repeatedly stated over and over and over again... provocative clothing does not imply that women want to be heckled or have inappropriate things said to them. They don't like it, shouldn't have to deal with it, and it's not their fault these guys are being morons. Control yourselves. Have some class. You can look, just don't be a douchebag and go crazy about it.

At the end of the day, women have a lot more choice than men. She can turn around and be banging the guy behind her if she wanted to. The pathetic ones that won't get anywhere will be the ones making lewd comments about her body, while the real men will do the real work.

So who is the ridiculous one here? You are. Because you don't get it at all.

by invert on 01/28/2009 09:19:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Reply (none / 0)

First off, I never once stated that it was appropriate for a man to proposition a woman because she's wearing a low cut top or something like that. That's a ridiculous mis-characterization of my argument, and it may be due to me not fully understanding your point. I was referring to a dialogue between Ana and Cenk from a few shows back. I'm not sure what your point is because you attempt to draw an analogy for me to "get it" and in the process you dismiss your own insight as you state:

You can't apply your own personal experiences as a man to that of women. The inner-workings of the female mind differs from yours. The world as a woman experiences it is far different from your own. And until you're willing to accept that, this won't go anywhere. What I'm saying is that the previous two paragraphs you see above? They're pointless. They don't help you understand women at all because it's a man's experience. Just like how all of your current outlooks are inadequate to understanding women.

If this is the standard for negotiating the tricky road of gender variation then by what right do you have an informed opinion on what women think/feel as you are by your own definition unqualified to hold one. Additionally, if what you say is true then it must logically be true that women have no clue what it is like to be a man as evidence from your own words, "The world as a (man)woman experiences it is far different from your own. And until you're willing to accept that, this won't go anywhere." So by your own admission women don't know what it's like to be a man who's incapable of controlling his wandering eyes. This argument cancels both party's complaints out and is foolish in general, but this is what you get when you present a specious argument.

Now on to reality. I understand that people dress for comfort and I can buy into the top-tier fashion lines are more comfortable argument even though I am skeptical. What I don't buy into is my cleavage being out is more comfortable than not, or wearing a mini-skirt in the dead of winter is more comfortable than pants. You can't pass this off to me as reality because adherents are either liars or fall so far off the scale of common human experience to be not worth considering i.e. outliers. It's clearly about style not comfort and once again we are back to style being about self-expression and this by definition requires at least one additional person to appreciate your flair. So ultimately, if you are expressing yourself you will be oogled so expect it. You also may be judged as well though not by me. It seems to be a common human trait to judge self-expression and apply a value judgment to something as one does when they browse an art gallery. I'm not comparing people to art, but there is something about fashion that is reminiscent of art, or arguably should be considered art. When your exhibit highlights an area that evokes sexual stimulus in males you get oogled.

Finally, It's necessary for me to say I'm not blaming women for the abuse they take from men that go way over the top and enter the land of harassment or abuse. This is totally unacceptable behavior and a violation of a person's rights in my opinion. I just want to keep it real as they say. I'm all for self-expression and I am generally non-judgmental or at least make an effort not to be, but I must call things for what they are. I also must say that it is quite possible for the most unassuming and conservatively dressed woman to have a more lackadaisical attitude in selecting sexual partners (which I have no problem with just keep it safe). Things are not always as they seem, and I am more persuaded to attempt to define a person by their actions rather than appearances or preconceived notions.

by marcusau2 on 01/28/2009 11:19:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Not a repost Corrections made (none / 0)

First off, I never once stated that it was appropriate for a man to proposition a woman because she's wearing a low cut top or something like that. That's a ridiculous mis-characterization of my argument, and it may be due to me not fully understanding your point original. I was referring to a dialogue between Ana and Cenk from a few shows back. Now, I'm not sure what your point is because you attempt to draw an analogy for me to "get it" and in the process you dismiss your own insight as you state:

If this is the standard for negotiating the tricky road of gender variation then by what right do you have an informed opinion on what women think/feel as you are by your own definition unqualified to hold one. Additionally, if what you say is true then it must logically be true that women have no clue what it is like to be a man as evidenced by your own words, "The world as a (man)woman experiences it is far different from your own. And until you're willing to accept that, this won't go anywhere." So by your own admission it would be fair to say women don't know what it's like to be a man who's incapable of controlling his wandering eyes. This argument cancels both party's complaints out and is foolish in general, but this is what you get when you present a specious argument.

Now, on to reality. I understand that people dress for comfort and I can buy into the top-tier fashion lines are more comfortable argument, even though I am skeptical. What I don't buy into is, my cleavage being out is more comfortable than not, or wearing a mini-skirt in the dead of winter is more comfortable than pants. You can't pass this off to me as reality because adherents are either liars or fall so far off the scale of common human experience to be not worth considering i.e. outliers. It's clearly about style not comfort, and once again we are back to style being about self-expression and this by definition requires at least one additional person to appreciate your flair. So ultimately, if you are expressing yourself you will be observed and possibly oogled because we are sexual creatures, so expect it. You also may be judged as well, though not by me. It seems to be a common human trait to judge self-expression and apply a value judgment to something as one does when they browse an art gallery. I'm not comparing people to art, but there is something about fashion that is reminiscent of art, or arguably should be considered art. When your exhibit highlights an area that evokes sexual stimulus in males you get oogled.

Finally, It's necessary for me to say I'm not blaming women for the abuse they take from men that go way over the top and enter the land of harassment or abuse. This is totally unacceptable behavior and a violation of a person's rights in my opinion. I just want to keep it real as they say. I'm all for self-expression and I am generally non-judgmental or at least make an effort to be, but I must call things for what they are. I also must say that it is quite possible for the most unassuming and conservatively dressed woman to have a more lackadaisical attitude in selecting sexual partners (which I have no problem with just keep it safe). Things are not always as they seem, and I am more persuaded to attempt to define a person by their actions rather than appearances or preconceived notions.

by marcusau2 on 01/28/2009 11:51:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: I think we're on the same wavelength. (none / 0)

My post above wasn't directed solely to you. It's more of an extension of that other thread which has grown into a monster.

"If this is the standard for negotiating the tricky road of gender variation then by what right do you have an informed opinion on what women think/feel as you are by your own definition unqualified to hold one."

You misunderstand. I'm merely pointing out that you can't take a male perspective, attempt to shove it into a female perspective, and expect it to align and make perfect sense. It's like trying to jam a square block into a triangle opening. What makes sense for guys, how we experience society and work, our interactions with friends and strangers... they're different, whether we like it or not.

My argument works on multiple levels, sex just happens to be one of them. I could never be a Native American living on a reservation. I could never be a homosexual man who grows up in a hostile environment. I could never be a multi-billionaire that owns 50 mansions... though I suppose there's still time to try. Does that mean we could never understand one another? No. And I never claimed that, go recheck my post if you'd like.

I am merely advocating that people take off their self-centered lenses and realize that others experience things differently from you. We can, at the very least, try to put ourselves in their shoes. You seem to be an individual who can do that.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with you. I think we hold similar stances, so I'm not even sure why we're in each other's faces. I know that there are dudes out there who will heckle women. I've never argued against that fact. The thing that started my ranting was the non-stop statements that the offensive comments ladies get is somehow the lady's fault for wearing those clothes. It doesn't matter if they're expecting it or whatever. It should not happen... as I know it currently does. Guys need to learn to shut up and have some control. Additionally, I don't care about the level of revealingness. It's irrelevant to me. Case in point: the situation in Iran. It's somewhat similar to what's going on here (though at a vastly higher level), except they start freaking out at E&A (elbows and ankles) instead of T&A (hint: this A isn't ankles).

And I think you're in agreement with me... so yeah. :o
by invert on 01/29/2009 01:13:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Wow.. (none / 0)

Reading some of these comments makes me glad to be single. Apparently, because I have a penis, I am a congenital liar and womanizer, and am also unable to form coherent thoughts whenever a scantily clad woman is near. All of these stereotypes are true and socially acceptable, because they are being perpetuated by women, and therefore could not possibly be sexist in any way.

"I guess I'm tired of men looking at women as these needy, weak, and defenseless creatures".

I bet, and I'm tired of women presuming all men are the same because some neanderthal somewhere decided to holler at a woman walking by. Guess what, I have a brain too just like you, and it doesn't run all day long repeating "gotta fuck gotta fuck gotta fuck gotta fuck". Because of this fact, I can resist the urge to yell out like an idiot, and my brain helps me with other things like my education, career, and hobbies I enjoy; shocking I know.

Maybe once we as a society drop ALL the stereotypes, we will start to understand each other better. Until then, I'll enjoy the single life immensely.

by Hador on 01/29/2009 03:00:00 PM EST

Why not a feminist? (none / 0)

Dear Ana,

Thanks for blogging it out. One thing I found suprising in you blog, "I am not a feminist in any way". Why not? How has feminism gotten a bad name? I thought that feminism is basically the philosophy that society should treat men and women as equals. My girlfriend and several of my female friends call themselves feminists and I think of it as a positive thing. I think that a young woman writing a opinionated blog like this about her boss is rather feminist. I am a man so I really don't get asked whether I am a feminist, so I am just curious why you don't think of you're self as one.

by dpleanza on 01/29/2009 08:41:46 PM EST

Do Women LIKE to Be Lied To? | 94 comments (94 topical, 0 hidden)