Tom Groves is an Uncle Tom, to an insane degree.
According to Wikipedia,
"Uncle Tom is a pejorative for a black
person who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner
to White American authority figures, or as seeking ingratiation with
them by way of unnecessary accommodation."
I am writing about Uncle Tom Groves, who is just the President of a
bridge club, because I believe that his irrationality is just the tip
of the iceberg of male subservience to female domination in
Western societies. After all, men around the World have been
complaining of bias in family courts, and it is doubtful that they are
all imagining it. It is extremely difficult to prove this bias in general,
because it would involve spending a huge amount of time getting to grips
with the law and the facts of large numbers of individual cases -- quite
apart from the issue that family courts usually restrict the publication
of cases.
In the case of Uncle Tom Groves, we can see how one man, the President
of a mainly-female organisation, can act chivalrously, as if the females
are his harem and any male in dispute with one of his harem members
is thereby guilty of a sexual offence. Men in power have probably always
behaved like this -- and, meanwhile, the Feminists have been claiming
that having only men in power is detrimental to female interests (See
my articles: The Frontman Fallacy, Feminism
is the Product of Female Selfishness and Male Chivalry, and
Feminism is a Form of
Chivalry)!
The Incident
So let me tell you about Tom Groves. After
a break of 20 years or so, I decided to resume playing bridge, which
is a female-dominated game, and joined the local bridge club. Since
the bidding system used by most members was different from the one I
was familiar with, I decided to join the class which was being taught
how to play bridge and how to bid using that bidding system. Tom Groves
was helping out at one session, by sitting at the table where four of
us were learning, and giving us assistance as we played practice hands
of cards.
Since one of the things we were being taught was the etiquette of bridge
and what to do if a rule of bridge was breached during play,
I asked him what you should do if female opponents kept showing you
their hands. I was being harassed by Feminists who kept showing
me their hands, forcing me to either look away or to complain to them,
which detracted both from my concentration and from my enjoyment of
the game. I did not want to gain an unfair advantage by taking note
of what cards they were holding, because that would detract from the
element of skill which is so central to why people play club bridge
(duplicate bridge).
But I did not have a chance to tell Uncle Tom Groves why I was asking
him what to do when women kept showing you their hands -- as
soon as I asked the question, he became obviously outraged that I should
ask such a question, said nothing, and abruptly left the table!! Later,
he came back, with an apologetic expression on his face.
Tom Groves' Thought Process
Is this a case of a man complaining about
a woman ? |
Yes |
|
Am I a Real Man ? |
Yes |
|
Decide against the man. |
No |
|
|
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apply the rules to the facts. |
|
|
Apply the rules to the facts. |
|
|
|
Now, Uncle Tom Groves is a nice guy, and so are the other people I
am writing about in this article. That is not the point: being a nice
guy is really about being obedient to mother-figures, and I'm sure Hitler
was a nice guy, and played with kids and animals in a caring manner,
at times. The point is not whether these people are nice guys, in some
context, the issue is whether they are evil oppressors of their fellow
men, in other contexts.
There really are a lot of people who, like Tom Groves, confuse sexuality
with the Sex War. As I explain in my article, The
Psychodynamics of the Sex War, the Sex War is not "business
as usual." The Sex War is when half (slightly more than half) the
population is waging war on the other half. The strange thing about
the Sex War is that the half that is being attacked is (mostly) not
fighting back. That is because they don't even know there is a Sex War
on -- and that is because the Feminists have conquered the media and
the education system, which therefore are not telling men what is really
going on. I do tell men what is going on, but then I am regarded as
weird, because I'm saying something that doesn't mesh with what the
media and education system are saying!
Other Examples
This bias is particularly evident in cases of alleged Domestic Violence.
A documentary on the Family Court was produced by the Court itself and
shown on television. It was called The Family Court: Behind Closed Doors,
and screened on TV1 on 19 March 2001. The way the judge dealt with a
Domestic Violence allegation against a man was particularly telling.
After listening to the man's opening statement, the judge (Judge Adams)
summarised his affidavit as saying that the man had had to put up with
a lot himself as well (from his ex-girlfriend). Then the Judge said,
"I guess that implies that you got out of control." However,
the point of the man's testimony was that his ex-girlfriend had been
guilty of psychological and/or physical abuse, and therefore either
they should both be punished or neither of them should be. The Domestic
Violence Act 1995 outlaws both physical and psychological violence,
after all. For the Judge to simply refuse to consider the possibility
that the woman also should be equally liable to be punished for her
actions was gross sexist bias.
In 1999 I interviewed Mr. J. J. Taylor, Family Violence Prevention
Coordinator at Police National Headquarters. I had just come across
Professor Martin Fiebert’s
Annotated Bibliography of Domestic Violence Research . It is constantly
being updated, but on 5 June 2005 its summary stated:
"This bibliography examines 169 scholarly investigations:
133 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate
that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than
men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The
aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 152,500."
On the telephone, Mr. Taylor had agreed there was a disparity between
what academic research said about the roles of males and females in
Domestic Violence, and what the media usually said. But he changed his
tune when we met.
At the meeting itself, it turned out he believed the standard Feminist
explanation for that discrepancy, and handed me some police statistics
and other information on Domestic Violence arrests. I handed him a copy
of the Fiebert bibliography, then spoke about the six (minor) workplace
assaults I had been the victim of over the past 12 years at the hands
of three females – just four floors above where we were sitting.
He covered his mouth with his hand as if he was covering an itch to
smile. Certainly, the expression in his eyes suggested he was smiling!
It was significant to see this reaction from someone in his position
in the field of domestic violence.
Then Mr. Taylor mentioned another relevant New Zealand survey on this
topic – "Findings About Partner Violence" by Moffitt,
Caspi and Silva (1996), which showed the same thing as the overseas
studies – that women hit men at least as often as men hit women.
This is where Mr. Taylor came out with his most telling statement.
He said that you can't just count "hits" in that way, and
that, in one case referred to by Moffitt (et al), the woman had kicked
the man because he was holding her by the throat. The implication was,
of course, that she was acting in self-defence.
So I asked Mr. Taylor why the man had held the woman by the throat.
He was taken aback by that question -- he just replied, "Because
he was assaulting her !" Feminists and police officers like Mr.
Taylor follow the chain of causation only just far enough back to establish
(to their satisfaction) that the woman is the innocent party in such
circumstances. Women do bad things for good reasons, whereas men just
do bad things!
In 2007, I heard a Radio New Zealand interview (on the Nine To Noon
programme) with lawyer Jeremy Pope, who has headed the Legal section
of the Commonwealth Secretariat and the organisation Transparency International.
He is a very nice guy -- I know, since I'm related to him. I heard him
tell about an international organisation which had given one million
dollars to a woman in Africa who said she wanted the money to fight
violence against women, but the woman just disappeared with the money.
Jeremy Pope then blamed the international organisation for giving her
the money, and did not criticise the woman at all!
See also: Al Qaeda and the MUC-Induced Psychopathology
of the West.
