In a piece first published two years ago (but apparently so insightful that they republished it this week), AskMen's relationship correspondent Madeline Murphy provides a wonderful example for anyone who has ever encountered the argument that because someone is female, she is cannot be sexist. Murphy claims that she is acting on the behalf of all women, revealing the dirty secrets we, as a gender, have been hiding for so long. But whose side is she really on? We tally up the winners and losers in Ask Men's inane article to see who, in this gender war baiting piece, comes out on top.

The "Lies:"

1. "I'm not mad at you." According to Murphy, women are insecure, passive aggressive creatures, who are fundamentally unable to admit when they have been annoyed by a man's "minor screwup" (for example, forgetting your birthday). Murphy suggests that men should approach this situation by "calling her on her real feelings and discussing why she's so angry."

Winner: Men. Women come across as whiny bitches who can't handle their own emotions, while men get to take the moral high ground through accusing their significant others of lying.

2. "I don't mind if you go to strip clubs with the boys." This is a lie that women tell to make themselves seem "less pathetically needy." This is another no-win situation for women. Either they are liars and hate their boyfriends for having a little harmless fun the boys (by objectifying naked strangers) or... well, if you aren't needy and insecure, than I guess you are not a real women. Murphy instructs men to handle this situation by not going to strip clubs; "You're probably better off just not going. Ask yourself: Are two hours of bare booty worth weeks, even months, of bitchy comments?"

Winner: Tie. Men are deprived of the privileged of spending a "boy's night out" ogling naked women, but women are insecure harpies bent on securing their boyfriend's unhappiness.

3. "I'm just not ready for a boyfriend right now." This is actually a lie I've told. As Murphy points out, it is sometimes used as a way to let a guy down easy when you have zero interest in seeing him naked (read: an Ask Men subscriber). She advises men to keep their dignity and walk away.

Winner: Women. The lie was "told with the best intentions," and if Ask Men readers decide to follow the advice and gracefully bow out of an awkward situation, than the noble liar wins.

4. "I don't mind picking up the tab tonight; you always pay anyway." Ugh. This one is the worst of the bunch. Murphy tells men to go to a date prepared to pay, at least during "critical dating stages." Later on, we assume, men should feel free to accuse their dates of lying, and demand that they pay up.

Winner: Men. Sure women get a free meal, but they are also portrayed as money grubbing liars unwilling to pay their own way.

5. "That was f*cking great!" Murphy says: "When women are committed to a man, they focus on him, often believing, time and time again, that he is 'the one.' Because girls have this tendency, they also tell guys whatever they think they want to hear (like they just had an orgasm), just to make them feel good about themselves." In the AskMen universe, when a woman says she enjoys sex, it means she thinks you are "the one," and she actually had a horrible time. Another no-win situation. But! Murphy suggests that men handle this situation by just not asking awkward questions like "did you come?"

Winner: Tie. While Murphy's final suggestion is one of the only positive things about this ridiculous piece—who hasn't been annoyed from time to time by post-coital interrogations?—the claim that all women lie about enjoying sex is downright wrong, not to mention insulting to both genders.

Final Tally: Gender stereotypes win by a landslide. Despite the occasional spattering of good advice, AskMen once again proves that, in their relentless pursuit of the title "Most Sexist Publication," there are no real winners.

5 Lies All Women Tell [AskMen]

Our dateline is New York, that would be the first shocker. And as a special meta-bonus, the prizewinning specimen is an actual email sent by a dude by way of analysis of another dude's Crap Email about How I'm Just Not In A Place Right Now Where I'm Looking For A Serious Relationship. (But dude, your Nerve profile said 'New York' and everyone knows that the motto of this town is If You Can't Have A Harmonious Monogamous Relationship Here... ).

So anyway: "Mara" is a 27-year-old lawyer in Williamsburg who used Nerve to meet "Steve", a 37-year-old chef and coffee shop proprietor in Williamsburg, whom she vented about to her 33-year-old welder-artist roommate "Rob" when her suggestion to come by Steve's coffee shop was met with an email of the sort we have just described. Contextual details: Mara is in an open long-distance relationship, which is why she specified on Nerve that she was not looking for a relationship; she was offering to come by the coffee shop because she hadn't been available the evening before.

how are you? thanks for the text last night... i kind of figured that at 11pm rendezvous would be too late on a school night. in terms of this weekend... i don't think i'm up for a visit to the shop yet. and while i'd rather talk to you about such things in person, i'll give you the quick rundown here, and we can talk about it more later...

first, i really like hanging out with you (i hope that's obvious). at the same time, i'm at a place in my life where i'm not looking for a serious committed relationship. to keep that in balance, i need to
keep some things separate... at least for now. that's the short (and honest) truth...

if you still want to hang out monday, let me know... i'd love to. if not, i totally understand...
x, steve

After Mara responded to Steve with a sweet but curt reply containing the word "presumptuous," she complained about the situation to Rob, who said something along the lines of "we wouldn't have to send emails like that if women weren't so bent on marrying us all the time," etc., which gave Mara a bit of the "twisted thrill in killing the enemy" sentiment Rob referenced in his missive about gender differences etc.

Mara now wonders whether she should move out. Our inclination is no, that actually the fact of taking a moment to think about this stuff counts in Rob's favor, and that spelling and grammar and logic do not need to be the strong suits of one's roommate if their names are on the lease of a nice enough apartment, and Mara says they have an awesome roof.

But there is more than a little to find fault with in this email, so much that Georgia and I will be discussing it further on Crap The Blog later on, because we have seen so many perfectly good uncommitted sexual relationships prematurely poisoned by the "Look, you may have never encountered this before because I can tell you are looking to have my babies" neg. (And also because, uh, Steinbeck? Because of the economy or something?) Here's Rob explication of Steve's email:

I can see you thinking this way. I say that, and I use those words not to sound like I know what you're thinking, or even that I know you very well at all ... Lord help me for all the things I think that I know. I clearly know very little, most if it being useless ... When I say "I can see you," I mean it in a way that sounds more like, "that makes sense."

I have lived these thirty something years. I have had all too many poor ideas, maybe a few good ones along the way. And what I think about things will probably never matter to anyone outside of myself,
not the way I seem to court relationships. I have, to be honest with you, grown so disillusioned that I often disregard even my own opinion as little more than more noise in world that is already too loud.

What I have to say then, are not opinions. I have some thoughts. They could go one way or another. They could be worthless or valuable. They could help, they could hurt, or in all probability they will make no difference whatsoever. But, I'd like to share them, or ask them, or set them forward and maybe as time passes we can evolve them between the two of us, and maybe that will be worth something.

You, I believe (which is not to know), have a keen sense of justice. If someone were to ask me what I think makes Mara turn around day after day, I would say, "Justice." This is quite simply, what little I know of you. The thing is that "justice" leans in to the word "fair" which in turn leans in to the word "equality." I'm not saying anything. I have no idea what is true or not. I am not proposing an argument but something more like a hypothosis. "Does justice mean equality?"

And I also need to stop right here and say that I am not talking about something or someone being better than another ... only, definably different.

I tend, I will confess, to not believe in a world of equality. I think I am smarter than a lot people. This is another confession (please don't hurt me). I think that it would be stupid for me to believe anything else. For one: it would serve me no good. For two: the evidence is everywhere. People don't seem to take the time to think about things. I do. Am I supposed to be ashamed about this? Or am I to regard this one who clearly has chosen to think very little as my equal in some way?

I don't think that would make for a good life. I remember telling myself once when I was walking out of bar in New Orleans (on my way to work of all places) that genius requires the warranted or unwarranted
faith that you might just be better than most, if for no other reason than you have tried.

And all of this is somewhat off the subject of the sexes, but it leads in some way.

I'll put this up in the air, "A government is one thing, a marriage is another."

Let it sit there. What I mean is that a government is under an obligation to a whole, to a mass ... in fact I don't believe it can afford to start making exceptions. A government is about laws and laws are inevitably about stereotypes, which is how they achieve any semblance of fairness. "All people that speed are careless drivers." "There is no good reason to steal from another man." "There is no such thing as a benign trespasser." Stereotypes. A government is forced to look at the whole and it has to deal with that vague whole. Justice, in this sense, becomes something larger than us, something that sweeps us up in it for better or worse ... for the good of the whole (or the rich) is greater than the few. Justice.

What I'm trying to direct myself to is that a government uses equality (best case scenario) as the measure of justice. Which is reasonable, necessary and good. I, for one, think that people should not have
opinions of a government until they have asked themselves, "what should a government do exactly?" "Of what good is government at all?"

These are often terribly hard questions for people to answer. They simply haven't thought of it. They think about whether they like the war in Iraq or not. They think about the hard economic times and want
a change. Very little of them think about the actual business of governing. I have three very firm ideas. I think a government should provide healthcare to everyone. I think a government is responsible
to give every child an equal chance at success and an education. I think a government should manage our freedoms such that they don't encroach on another's. I might have some more, but these are central.

The first thing I remember, as I say this, is an argument I had to endure with a fairly wonderful and liberal human being ... because when I talk of fair education I think of boarding schools and uniforms, I also think of testing and specialized curriculums in high school or even earlier.

Have some patience with me, because I think this all ties in to men and women.

So let me start by explaining myself.

1. We cannot guarantee a fair education if we cannot control the home environment. The answer: take everyone out of the home and give them the same chance.

2. Uniforms eliminate financial advantage and conflict.

3. Science and life at large have become so involved that students need more time
to learn it all. Given a choice between the expense of an "extra-grad school, or specialized high schools, I would choose the latter (as a leader).

So this girl was up in a riot. She was an art history major. She did drugs, worked full time, had kinky sex. In short: she lived a full life and was entitled to her opinion of things. But she was accusing
me of stifling creativity (as if that is even possible), and raising a culture of soldiers (as if a mathematics curriculum was the end of human morality).

The thing I am thinking about now is that "a government needs to be concerned with equality AND justice because it is concerned with the whole." As a world leader I don't really have the luxury to give a
damn whether your child might be a great painter one day, or whether you'd prefer that to be. And just because you are a parent doesn't mean you know anything at all outside of how to fuck. My point would
be that a leader has to answer to the whole and should. Government imposed equality upon justice because it lacks the resources to do otherwise. As the king of the world I know that I will die having
upset a billion stupid people, and a several hundred thousand intelligent people ... but the bar I could hold myself to, and the argument I could make when all was said and done: "I gave everyone an equal chance."

And that is the only good argument that would be available to me. Equality and justice. I could say that I gave them both,

Now this girl was rather silly and assumed all sorts of things. I am not against the arts or creative thought. She seemed to feel my ideas were repressive as if I proposed telling people what they should and
should not do ... rather merely I proposed an impartial, probably flawed system of determining what they were in fact good at and giving them the chance to pursue this based on their merit, not their finance. She, clearly, was the sort of person that never thought much about an ideal government at all, because she was founding all her argument on the idea that a capitalist/democratic government was clearly the only moral and good way to govern. As if creativity and art is available to everyone in America as it is.

Why do I bring this up? Because I think that you see the world in a grand scale that most people don't. You think like a world leader. God bless you for it (if I am right ... and if I am not rest assured
that whatever God there might be does not listen to me or care for my blessings). You seem to think in terms of movements. You tell me that a man who is obsessively concerned about the distance of his sexual relationship with you is a bigot. You speak on behalf of women and not so much on behalf of yourself. For in fact, you haven no personal objection to his idea. You like to fuck and so does he and
it would seem that no emotion is involved at all. But it gets to you that he keeps informing you of your place in his life. You call it "stereotyping," and with that word you get offended on behalf of all women.

Where am I going with this. Alright, this is my big gamble. I like you very much. In fact, as I walked out of the house tonite I thought about what a good and wonderful woman you are (or at least what I see
you to be). You are smart as a whip ... you clearly hold yourself to higher bar than the rest of us ... you have worked and succeeded and kept your integrity ... really Mara I can't think of a better woman
than you. You have been kind and understanding and easy to live with. You are honest and sexy and careful.

I give you all of these impressions because I don't want in any way to sound like I am criticizing. I am only talking about ideas and possibilities. I could be so awfully wrong about you ... and I am no one to judge anyone at all.

So having said all of this, my hypothesis (which is to say my theory, which is to say I have no founded proof): You have a difficulty not being a leader. That's it really. I mean, on a personal level this
guy meant you no offense. He was: being a guy, and that should not inherently offend you.

Men are different when it comes down to me and you and him and her. It is one thing to see the world at large and another to see the world at hand. That is what I have hoped to illuminate. I could be wrong
and perhaps I failed because of that. I could be right and I failed anyway. I could also be making more of something that really doesn't merit it at all.

All I can account for is the effort, for whatever it is worth.

As a society men and women are all just possibilities to give an opportunity to ... but as a lover, as a boy: men and women are neither equal or the same ... and as a poet or a write I would have to say that it would be a tragedy to call them so.

If I were John Steinbeck I would say (casually) that you have penis envy. If I were a little more civil I would say that you probably would prefer to be a man. If I were something less I'd either have no
opinion or I'd fail to acknowledge a vague sense of envy. But all of these statements would reflect the same idea: that your problems with men are not societal, but they are inherent ... and they might not
even be problems at all. I am only trying to answer an accusation (two in fact).

Look, as earnest as your anger might have seemed ... I think the dude was just trying to be honest with you. I don't think he gave any thought to women's rights at all because he was more concerned with
you, right in front of him, and not hurting you ... and I don't think that warrants an angry response. Men are men. We are brought up to that way, and if we weren't we wonder what the hell we should have
been brought up to be. We have cocks that penetrate, a need to compete, we say stupid and inappropriate things: but we see the world as men. And women are different, not less but clearly different. For one thing: you'd never hear a man getting angry at woman who kept insisting the sex was just casual.

When you put a man and a woman together all sorts of things begin to happen that maybe we don't like to admit, but they happen and they are there. And it has nothing to do with justice or fairness, because it
has everything to do with love ... which is a much different and often more violent thing.

I guess what I am saying is that even if it is well within your right to choose your relationships based on equality and fairness, it would be a failure to judge your lovers that way. You'll miss things. Love
is not fair or equal and that is a reflection of the nature of things... men are men and women are women ... no man is going to embrace his child with such selfish adoration (or most men at least) as much as no
woman is going to feel some twisted thrill in killing an enemy (or at least most women). And I'm not trying to demean or criticize either... its just that if you take them away and you call it all equal and
fair ... then what do you have left?

We were talking about the mythology of "moves" tonite. Cute conversation, but maybe relevant. I told you tonite, perhaps the only great insight I feel like I might have ever come upon: a woman will
cum when she wants to. Your job is to make he feel comfortable or desperate enough to do it. In this regard I have found that talking can produce results that no movement or swirl otherwise have might.
And one of the consistent truths of this matter? Grab her hair. I won't say that it will work with every girl, but my god it helps with most. Grab her hair ... eliminate in this way her responsibility, or in other words let her just react ... or in other even more words: be a man and take her.

This doesn't get me promotions, if doesn't make me any friends ... but it seems (at least in my very humble experience) to help a woman cum.

Maybe this is societal. Maybe women just feel guilty about cumming and so they prefer to feel forced, maybe I have a skewed experience... or maybe the nature of things is under it all.

I say: do what you want with your life. Be what you want. Be the king or queen of everything if you can convince the world to believe that... but we will always be men and women.

You might have a good argument to the contrary. You might convince me otherwise ... but that would be on you. I can listen to everything. I try at least to hold no opinion that can't support itself.

But I think above everything I am saying .. be easy on us Mara. We have had an experience and it is definably not yours. Your virtue (which is not speak of your lack of perversion but your ideals)
is going to attract good people, good men. Be easy on them and I think you'll find that they are trying.

Or perhaps even more to the point ... look at people for what they are and not what you think they should be. Whether they are men or women. And how would you feel if I accused you of being sexist for giving
that luxury to your friends and not to your lovers?

But that is just a question. I don't know where it is going to land. I could be as wrong as I ever am.

Really, I am terribly happy to have you around. I want these to be the thoughts you asked me for and not some sort of blindside critique. They are not meant that way. This isn't a letter full of truths... these are thoughts to chew upon, to trade and talk about ...

We’re going with laugh- it shows four women screaming in a walk-in closet full of shoes (clearly a Sex and the City reference) when they are interrupted by the sounds of four men freaking out in a closet of their own. Sure, it relies on certain dated stereotypes, but anything that mocks SATC is OK by us. And we kind of want that beer closet.

A study done at the University of Minnesota showed that one in five young women say they eat fast food more than three times a week, while 33% of dudes head out for Mickey D's more than three times a week. It makes me wonder, though, just how accurate these surveys are because they're self-reported by the eaters themselves. I've certainly lied before about what I'm eating to make it sound healthier. Are the men in your life really chowing down on Doritos more than you, or are you an equal opportunity junk food offender?

Diet Survey: Men Eat Meat, Women Eat Veggies [CNN]
Study: Young Men Eating More Fast Food [Minnesota Public Radio]

Related: Cohabitation Is Bad for Women's Health [New York Times]

"Men have a weaker sense of smell," Fisher explains. "Guys aren't as likely to notice... that they're snoozing in stinky sheets." [Ask my ex boyfriend. -Ed.] That's not it, Palmer claims. Men are plain old lazy! He writes: "Do you know how much a pain in the ass it is to put that fitted sheet on?" Well here's one we agree on! And, for the record, not all women change their sheets all the damn time. Although maybe today we will, now that we're thinking about it.

As for why guys assume that other guys they don't really know are losers, Cosmo posits that it's a caveman thing, i.e. anyone not in the inner circle is the enemy. And a threat. Grr! Palmer calls bullshit on that too. "Guys don't do constant evaluation of other guys, unless we are sizing them up for fighting purposes. This is a feminine trait, and stating that we think in the same manner is false." Feminine trait? Hmm, not sure about that. But also, aren't guys who think strangers are losers just projecting? As for why men prefer women to be on top (Cosmo says "Pleasing you is a priority," Palmer says guys "would rather bring you to orgasm with you not leading the way... Sitting there and letting you use us like a chair-mounted dildo detracts from the ego boost."). We think, top or bottom, isn't the guy just thankful to be getting laid? Lastly, to answer the question "Why do guys need to win at everything?" (Cosmo blames testosterone, Palmer blames "No Fear" T-shirts) — we'd like to ask: Who likes to lose? And since when is it gender-specific? Also: Why doesn't Cosmo hire a man to decode dudes?

Lies Cosmo Tells Women [Double Viking]

Related: Pointless Banter [Kevin Palmer]

Though Melanie Ayres, a co-author of the study, asserts that the findings "compellingly debunk simplistic stereotypes about gender differences in language use," it seems more like the study is reinforcing gender stereotypes instead of breaking them down. Ayres does conclude, however, that use of language is more of a social than a biological construct, so perhaps if women were encouraged to use language to influence others rather than emotionally connect with them, we wouldn't always be portrayed as frivolous gossips. Regardless, I can't tell you how many times men have told me that I'm being "loud" when I vehemently express an opinion. Have you ever heard anyone tell a man that he needs to quiet down?

Men Talk More Than Women Overall, But Not In All Circumstances [Science Daily]

"Women are not making it up when they say they're damned if they do, damned if they don't," said Stephanie Shields, the psychology professor who conducted the study. "If you don't express any emotion, you're seen as not human, like Mr. Spock on Star Trek," she said. "But too much crying, or the wrong kind, and you're labeled as overemotional, out of control, and possibly irrational."

'Big Girls Don't Cry,' But Big Boys Can? [USA Today]

Women don't pursue producing and directing careers because they would rather have kids.
Ms. Ziskin says, "I think it's harder for women whose peak career-making years coincide with their peak baby-making years. Directing is a job that requires 100 percent of your time and energy and it's therefore hard to have children." Ms. Peirce points out, "I think the indie world is actually great for women, and for gay people. Because if you have a story, you're going to be able to [tell it]. That's where a lot of women get their start. But you get into your second, your third movie, and you're building a career, and it's hitting smack up against those years when you want to have a child. I mean, you can't get bonded [insured for the film] if you're pregnant." Callie Khouri admits that she chose her career over giving birth. "I didn't have kids because I felt like, I'm not going to be able to do both things. I'm not going to fail at two things," she reveals. "I'm the kind of person — it's hard for me to leave my dog. And my dog I can bring to the set and I don't feel so guilty about it. So I made a conscious decision... I'm going to give that up because I want to have a career." Margaret Nagle thinks that there's a double standard for working moms and working dads: "I was working with this producer, and his kid would have an ear infection and he'd leave the meeting, and everybody would go, 'Oh, God, he's so great,'" she says. "And I went, 'If I took that call and left this meeting because my kid had an ear infection, I'd be fucking vilified.' It would be over. There would be a call to my agent. I remember just thinking, 'You're probably going to see your mistress. You're not going to the kid with the ear infection.'


Women don't direct as many movies because the scripts don't come their way.
Cathy Konrad claims, "The material that gets made at studios is a function of the culture: what is branded and what makes money. I'm not saying that women only want to make dramas, but I do think that you'll find a lot more women that want to tell stories about people than cars." On the other hand, Ms. Khouri, despite writing Thelma & Louise, says she would love to do a movie about cars. "The stuff that comes to me is still way girlier than I would go after on my own," Khouri says. "I spent years trying to get a baseball movie made, and that didn't happen. I wanted to make a NASCAR movie. The stuff that comes to me, I'm always like, 'I don't want to do this. There's crying in this.' That's what sifts down to me, and it is frustrating. I would like to work outside of the female-centric world. But if it's got a woman in it, I'm going to have a better shot at [getting] it." Big action movies make money, but, Ms. Nagle says, "I've never wanted to make anything blow up. That was something my brothers did, and I never wanted to watch movies where people blew things up." Kimberly Pierce, on the other hand, is pro-explosions. "I love blowing things up," she admits. "I just did Stop-Loss, a war film, and there was nothing more exciting than when they set those cars on fire."


Women would go to the movies more if there was something worth watching.
The panel discussed the success of the Bourne movies, which appeal to women even though they have "all that testosterone." Also, though it was marketed to women, men went to see The Devil Wears Prada because "Everybody's had a scary boss," says Ms. Nagle. In addition, Spider-Man was an action-packed movie with emotional heart, so it had a broad appeal.


If Hollywood won't help, you have to do it yourself.
In the end, the women admitted that while there are only one or two women (Julia Roberts and Reese Witherspoon) that can get a picture green-lit by a major studio, Ms. Khouri and others just end up making their movies independently, with other actresses. Says Ms. Nagle, "There's more than one way to skin a cat. If you can't take one path, we're learning to take another path. And that's a very good path for chicks like us to learn."

Chicks Behind The Flicks [Salon]

In 2006, for instance, a popular science book called 'The Female Brain' claimed that women on average utter 20,000 words a day, while men on average utter only 7,000. This was perfect material for soundbite science - it confirmed the popular belief that women are not only the more talkative sex but three times as much - and was reported in newspapers around the world.

Cameron goes on to explain that a psychologist named Janet S. Hyde, who specializes in meta-analysis, wrote an article about gender similarities. Scientists believe that one study on its own does not show anything: Results are only considered reliable if a number of different studies have replicated them. Hyde reviewed a large number of studies concerned with all kinds of male/female differences, aggregated the results, and came up with a number — a formula, d, — indicating the size of the overall gender difference: Looking at the chart (there's a PDF here), the last column indicates whether the figure given for d is an effect that is very large, large, moderate, small, or close to zero. (Still with me?) And in almost every case, the overall difference made by gender is either small or close to zero.

Two items — spelling accuracy and frequency of smiling — show a larger effect - but it is still only moderate. In other words, hundreds of studies, hundreds of participants, hundreds of men and women, and the difference between their results was, very often, close to zero. So why do we still believe that there is a vast chasm of communication between the sexes?

In relation to men and women, our most basic stereotypical expectation is simply that they will be different rather than the same. We actively look for differences, and seek out sources that discuss them. Most research studies investigating the behaviour of men and women are designed around the question: is there a difference? And the presumption is usually that there will be. If a study finds a significant difference between male and female subjects, that is considered to be a "positive" finding, and has a good chance of being published. A study that finds no significant differences is less likely to be published.

If it does not reflect reality, why is the folk-belief that women talk more than men so persistent? The feminist Dale Spender once suggested an explanation: she said that people overestimate how much women talk because they think that, ideally, women would not talk at all.

What Language Barrier? [Guardian]