Who Do You Trust More, Men Or Women? - New Studies Reveal Startling Results

'Of course men cannot be trusted.  Just look who's in the White House...If Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, then how can we trust him with our country...Richard Nixon lied through his teeth about Watergate...Ronald Reagan deceived us about Iran-Contra...Martin Luther King cheated on his wife Coretta every chance he got...Kennedy bedded Marilyn Monroe and Russian spies...'

  

While it is unfair to pick on world leaders - Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to President Nixon, famously said that power was the greatest aphrodisiac, so it is quite natural for powerful men to have the pick of the litter - do all men share this penchant for lying, deception, and cheating?

In a new, controversial study published by the Utrecht (Louisiana) University Press (March 2025), Professor Emeritus Lionel P Smathers confirmed this universal, popular conclusion: 

In a double-blind study of over 2000 subjects across a wide range of socio-economic, racial, and cultural categories, the inescapable conclusion is that men, for reasons of birth, genetics, and cultural influence, can be trusted far less than women.  While this was the unanimous conclusion when it came to sexual vagary, it included the crimes of Bernie Madoff, Skilling, Kurniawan, and other infamous frauds. 

There is something in the male makeup, exhibited on the pre-historic African veldt, on Wall Street, and in Washington and Silicon Valley which have given men a predatory, amoral drive for survival while women have been content to sit by the home fires tending to the family. 

'See, what did I tell you', said Vicki Chalmers to her close friend, Bernadette. 'I knew it all the time.  Men are rutting pigs'. 

Her friend demurred, wife to a faithful, loving husband and wonderful father.  'Well, surely not all men, Vicki', she said knowingly. 

'Just you watch out', Vicki replied angrily. 'What goes around, comes around', confirming the suspicions that Wilbur Hanson was not the choirboy Bernadette thought.  Vicki had seen him at the Town & Country bar of the Mayflower hotel on a hot midsummer afternoon, hidden away in the shadows with someone definitely not Bernadette.  'She will have her comeuppance', thought Vicki, angry at her supercilious friend. 

Yes, Vicki  had also been deceived by a wandering husband - in Anchorage with Miss Fairbanks, 'business trips' to Port-au-Prince, weeks of 'staying late at the office'.  She hated to conflate all men based on her own unfortunate experience, but when face-to-face with a smiling, assured, deceived woman like Bernadette Hanson, she had to speak up. 

Not every academic agreed with Prof. Smathers.  In fact his article, reprinted in the New York Review of Literature was the subject of an academic tit-for-tat that went on for weeks.  In a particularly dismissive retort, Prof. Arnold Vibberts of Medford (Oregon) University had the following to say in the familiar sardonic, catty, and unctuous style characteristic of the Review:

With all due respect to my esteemed colleague from Louisiana, research from other quarters, far more disciplined, rigorous, and methodologically sound has shown just the opposite.  It is not just men who are the deceivers, the sexual truants, and untrustworthy public servants, but women who trump their misdemeanors at every turn. 

What my learned colleague conveniently overlooks is pregnancy and the fact that only women know who the father is. Women have used this proprietary information to feather their nests.  Playing on men's natural evolutionary mistrust of women (see Freud, On the Determinants of Male Jealousy, 1904), women have dismissed male patriarchy and chosen their own path to sexual freedom.  

Laura, the main character in Strindberg's seminal play, The Father drives her husband mad with doubts about his paternity, has him committed to an insane asylum, and takes over full responsibility for the considerable family finances and the sole care of their daughter.  Fiction? Hardly.  Research by Figgins et. al in 2022 in which 1500 women were queried about their 'gender potency' results were unequivocal.  Most women were aware of their innate biological and reproductive power and would use it if and when necessary. 

French Deconstructionist Lacan ventured into the argument a number of years before in an influential article on historicism and the ineluctable influences of social imperatives. 'It is not that women are inherently duplicitous', he wrote, 'only complicit, made so by their perennially inferior, subjugated status.  Using whatever power they have over men they are co-equals in sexual terms if not legal or social ones'. 

Women, because of this history and natural proclivity, can be trusted far less than men. This genetic, reproductive investment has given them 'a nuclear weapon in the armory'. 

'Men have not needed to be duplicitous or unfaithful', Prof. Vibberts went on.  Ask Suleiman the Great of Ottoman Turkey, a man whose harem numbered in the hundreds and whose many wives were cloaked, veiled, and immured in granite redoubts.  The Saudis have been on to something for generations.'

Not only academics are in this cat fight on the back pages of the New York Review. Leakage into the popular press when the subject is of such topical interest is guaranteed; and when Women Today opened the discussion to its female readers, the outcry was deafening. The reference to the legitimacy of the repressive Saudi regime in its incarceration of women alone was grounds for the beheading of the so-called academics who champion men's predatory, abusive rights. 

Vicki Chalmers, far too old for Women Today but a closet reader of girly-girl articles in it about how to get a man, read the angry retort in the magazine which opened the discussion up to its readers; and from there the debate became a cause celebre. 

Insults, vicious ad hominem attacks, vile and scurrilous contentions poured forth from both sides.  If anyone ever doubted there was a war between the sexes, this nasty exchange dispelled all doubts. Men from the deepest holler in Appalachia to Wall Street traders both reviled women for their trickery and roughshod feminism and reiterated their natural right to roam. 

Women were equally outraged, and from all quarters were heard the familiar accusations of patriarchy, misogyny, and male supremacy.  'We may not be saints', one reader wrote, 'but we are not sinners'. 

Professor Vibberts who argued  that female 'reproductive supremacy' gave women a potent weapon in their contest with men, and deployed often, was unrepentant. 'The facts speak for themselves', he said in an interview with the BBC. 

'Feminists argue that women need protection from men', Vibberts went on.  'Nothing could be further from the truth, and by ignoring their innate, inviolable reproductive power, they demean all women'. 

This irony has not been lost on social conservatives.  How can you champion women on the one hand, claiming that they are superior to men in all regards, and then demand bastions of protection for them on the other?  'Nonsense'. said Vibberts. 

Vibberts was summarily dismissed from Medford despite his tenure, for 'behavior unbefitting of the University'.  He knew it was coming, for few if any of his colleagues were speaking out against the cant and pseudo-intellectual monopoly of the Left; but he easily won his case on free speech grounds, stating that a cloture of the debate on gender differences was tantamount to gulag repression. 

'How's your marriage, Professor?', one gotcha reporter had the temerity to ask. 

'Of my five current wives', he replied, 'one of them may be telling the truth.'