About these ads

Tom Martin’s “anti-male discrimination” case against the London School of Economics dismissed; he responds by calling his critics “whores.”

Hard wooden chairs: Enemy of men?

Tom Martin, a former gender studies student at the London School of Economics, recently became a minor celebrity amongst Men’s Rights activists and other angry men when he sued his alma mater for alleged sexism against men.

He’s now had his case thrown out of court. Let’s go to the Camden New Journal for details:

Tom Martin, 39, who lives in Covent Garden, claimed he suffered “anti-male discrimination” while studying for a master’s degree in gender, media and culture at the world-famous university in Holborn.

Representing himself at his application for a trial at the Central London County Court on Tuesday, Mr Martin complained of a lack of men-only sessions in the university’s gym and the preponderance of posters in the corridors advertis­ing services for women without the presence of similar materials geared towards men.

Mr Martin, who describes himself as a feminist, said “hard” chairs in the library were uncomfortable for men and that a “male blaming culture” was evident in course materials, which “ignored men’s issues” and focused on wrongs done by them.

Damn those misandrist chairs and their man-hating hardness!

The judge didn’t buy it, saying Martin’s case had essentially no chance of success. He threw out the case and ordered Martin to pay LSE’s legal costs.

Martin, welcome to reality.

On Twitter, Martin responded to the news by calling his critics “whores.” One of many examples:

But I was really discriminated against, you whores!

More examples here, and here.

And, yes, his Twitter handle is indeed Sexismbusters.org.

EDITED TO ADD: Actual headline today on What Men are Saying About Women:

Tom Martin Faces Slut-Feminist Judge, Motion Denied..

EDITED AGAIN TO ADD: Tom Martin has replied to this post in the comments. Some highlights:

My legal complaint did NOT involve a complaint about the seating. You have been misled by the press – The Times and the West End Extra/Camden New Journal both mysteriously got it wrong.

One year prior to joining the university, when visiting its library, I did complain, that the seating being hard created a greater disadvantage for men than for women, as men have considerably smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, and men are heavier too – so for men, on average heavier than women, have more weight bearing down onto a pad which is approximately four times smaller than women’s on average – according to a BBC documentary on the subject.

He then details his attempts to fight this grave injustice. Also, there’s this:

[S]everal comments here are confusing ‘whore’ with ‘slut’. A slut has sex freely, which I am all for. Freedom of association is the ultimate in humanity. A whore charges for sex. Even if a woman is a virgin, but is waiting for Mr Right to buy her something, she’s a whore.

It’s counter-intuitive, but a lot of professional feminists are whores. They expect the government and men to do them special favours. They make up stories to convince men and government to believe that we all owe women something.

But really, if someone were keeping a tab, then…

Women owe men five years pension.
Women owe men some National Service.
Women owe men some inventions.
Women owe men positive discrimination in university curricula.
Women owe men some child access.
It’s women’s round at the bar too.

For the whole thing, see here.

For more charming quotes from Tom, see this post on the blog Butterflies and Wheels.

About these ads

Posted on March 16, 2012, in actual activism, antifeminism, I'm totally being sarcastic, irony alert, misandry, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, Tom Martin, twitter, Uncategorized, whores. Bookmark the permalink. 1,737 Comments.

  1. What a shock, Tom is pro-rape.

    I’m kind of digging his little meltdown the deeper we get. He’s such a little onion of nastiness, always a new layer of ick.

  2. Wonder if he’ll have a complete meltdown? I mean, he’s been at it for days and has gone from smug and slimy superiority to “fuck your civil rights”. Methinks he can’t take much more…
    But then they never can. Can you imagine this guy waking up a woman one day? And having to deal with people who think the way he does?

    That would be divine justice right there.

  3. And the UK’s own stats say that a MINIMUM of 8% of rape claims are ‘provably false’ but this avoids mentioning estimates of all the others where there’s ‘insufficient evidence’ where the likelihood is a LARGE chunk are also false – so fem claims that its 2% or 3% are patently ridiculous – especially when cops think its more like 90%.

    Baroness Scotland got up in the House of Lords and said it was 2 to 3%, and it is recorded in Hansard, that she was contradicting her own Home Office’s statistics.

    STOP LYING ABOUT RAPE YOU WHORES!

    Seriously, its so demoralizing working on a rape unit, that the cop who processes the rape claim now gets moved onto another case, so they don’t get corrupted by the realization that so many women are lying and then miss the odd real one due to overwhelming skepticism.

    Fem whores will always resist anything that holds rape accusers to account.

    They know.

  4. Scratch the surface of any MRA, and “fuck your civil rights you lying whores” is what you find. At least, every one that I’ve met so far.

    Quoted for being the inevitable end of every troll on this blog. They’re all reasonable-ish (um, if “whores” and secret videorecording is reasonable) until they run into some women who disagree with them, and don’t stop disagreeing even when they’ve been clearly told to, then you’re about five minutes away from “fuck your civil rights you lying whores.”

  5. fuck your civil rights you lying whores

    Right? The only people who deserve civil rights are people we agree with! Oh wait, no, I don’t think that, I meet minimum standards of human decency.

  6. And the UK’s own stats say that a MINIMUM of 8% of rape claims are ‘provably false’ but this avoids mentioning estimates of all the others where there’s ‘insufficient evidence’ where the likelihood is a LARGE chunk are also false – so fem claims that its 2% or 3% are patently ridiculous – especially when cops think its more like 90%.

    So it’s 8%… which is probably 90% because WHORES?

    But whatever. It’s not like it matters, right? Fuck your civil rights you lying whores. After that, really no point in arguing the details.

  7. @pillowinhell: Tom waking up as a woman would be worth recording, for sure.

    Uh, Tom… yeah, I’m gonna have to go ahead and need a citation for what you said about the demoralization of cops because WHORES… yeah, thanks.

  8. Sometimes my whore brain gets so confused! Tee hee!

  9. Seriously, its so demoralizing working on a rape unit, that the cop who processes the rape claim now gets moved onto another case, so they don’t get corrupted by the realization that so many women are lying and then miss the odd real one due to overwhelming skepticism.

    You base this on what?

    Your extensive experience being a cop? Or your extensive experience in pulling facts out of your ass?

  10. Here’s a few false allegations in action:

  11. Tom’s ass is a fascinating place where all the facts seem to live. None of these facts can withstand daylight, but nothing’s perfect, amirite?

  12. Um can we create a challenge for Tom?

    I suggest that he recites three rape cases that he believes is rape and the women were victims.

  13. Oh, I see-extensive experience watching American sensationalized TV.

    Well I am totally convinced….that Tom needs to not watch TV.

  14. tommy boy, did you not bother read the stats i gave which debunk the 8% rate in the UK, and back up the 2-3% cited by the Baronness? here it is again for you:

    The largest and most rigorous study was commissioned by the British Home Office and based on 2,643 sexual assault cases (Kelly, Lovett, and Regan, 2005). Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. Yet the researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators and were made in violation of official criteria for establishing a false allegation. Closer analysis of this category applying the Home Office counting rules for establishing a false allegation and excluding cases where the application of the cases where confirmation of the designation was uncertain reduced the percentage of false reports to 3%. The researchers concluded that “one cannot take all police designations at face value” and that “[t]here is an over-estimation of the scale of false allegations by both police officers and prosecutors.” Moreover, they added:
    The interviews with police officers and complainants’ responses show that despite the focus on victim care, a culture of suspicion remains within the police, even amongst some of those who are specialists in rape investigations. There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated.[11][12]
    Another large-scale study was conducted in Australia, with the 850 rapes reported to the Victoria police between 2000 and 2003 (Heenan & Murray, 2006). Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the researchers examined 812 cases with sufficient information to make an appropriate determination, and found that 2.1% of these were classified by police as false reports. All of these complainants were then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report.[13],</blockquote

    i was going to bold/italic the relevant bits but it's all actually relevant

  15. You know what’s funny? For all Tom’s grand schemes with encrypted videotape central warehousing and fMRIs and magic consent apps, there’s already a way for society to deal with false accusations.

    Hold a police investigation, hear the accusation in court, allow both sides to present arguments and evidence, and allow a judge and jury to make a ruling on whether they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape was committed.

    It’s far from a perfect system, but you know, it just might work.

  16. Oooh, I know how we can deal with the data issue! We can just have cameras everywhere, including private homes. Then, we can set up a giant force of people to watch the video feeds all the time and only record the crimes. If you’re against it, that’s only because you’re an overly modest WHORE who doesn’t want to stop crime.

  17. Related to pillowinhell’s challenge idea — Tom, how do you define rape? How do you define a false rape accusation?

  18. ugh poop block quote fail my bad

  19. It has since 1166-with modifications of course. :)

  20. If you’re against it, that’s only because you’re an overly modest WHORE who doesn’t want to stop crime.

    In which case, of course, fuck your civil rights!

  21. Tom you need to check out a thesaurus for some new insults. Whore has totally lost any shock value whatsoever. Keep it entertaining will you.

  22. “Overly modest WHORE” is not a phrase I hear a lot.

    Anyway.

    Apparently this isn’t Tom Martin’s first time saying this shit in public:

    http://www.westendextra.com/news/2012/mar/inflated-rape-figures-claim-ex-student-suing-lse-tom-martin-says-sex-slavery-%E2%80%9Cvoluntar

    A FORMER gender studies student who is taking the London School of Economics (LSE) to court for alleged sexism has claimed that sex slavery is “voluntary” and that official rape statistics are “inflated”.

    The event, entitled “Is Feminism Sexist?”, was held at University College London in Bloomsbury on Tuesday.

    Tom Martin, 39, debated with the National Union of Students’ women’s officer Estelle Hart in front of an audience of 200 people.

    Mr Martin said: “My belief is that 50 to 90 per cent of rape claims are made up, the rape statistics are inflated to make men look more rapey than they really are.”

    Responding, Ms Hart said: “I think the key is in the name, no slavery is voluntary.”

  23. my daughter believes in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus

    Tom believes that 50-90% or rape claims are false

  24. Tom, I don’t understand your life. It is so completely out of touch with the reality that I know. What is your everyday life like? What do you eat for breakfast, how do you interact with your friends and family, and how do you navigate the world? I really want to know.

  25. I don’t know if this has been added to the conversation or not yet, but here’s the 2004 study Tom Martin referenced. Shockingly enough, he misinterpreted its claims! I have the smelling salts ready for those of us who can’t handle that news.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

  26. Tom’s pushing 40 with both hands and is acting like a teenager? Wow. I’m sure there’s a color code what I just said, but I can’t be arsed to care. He’s old enough to know better.

  27. ^for what. Typing, why must you be such a WHORE?

  28. The Home Office commissioned a ‘study’ to recook the books on rape to fit in with the administration’s new position that it thinks rape accusers should be believed.

    The reason it is politically expedient to do this for government officials and paid ideologues, is because the true false rape percentage does not particularly matter – so it becomes a political football.

    The government were caught telling the police to lie about sex slavery statistics for instance, in the case of Operation Pentameter 2, to make it look like there were sex slaves when there weren’t. The same government who claimed if men went with foreign prostitutes it would be rape. So the government lie about rape all day long.

    They claimed there were 80,000 sex slaves (being raped then) in UK, when there were none.

    Anyway, another way of measuring the percentage of rape claims that are false, are to consider the cases where incontrovertible evidence has arisen one way or another.

    Where multiple witnesses, or photo evidence, or video/cctv/mobile phone evidence has come to light, and where that evidence has been documented by the police, and then simply count how many times this evidence proves a rape did take place, or proves it didn’t.

    I can’t remember a single case where video evidence has come to light proving a rape DID take place (although I am certain some will exist).

    The great thing about doing the above study is that you’d get some publishable data showing that most investigations where footage comes to light also prove falsity – AND, then you’ve got enough footage for another documentary on your hands.

    Call the documentary Rape Lies (and Videotape).

  29. Answer the challenge whoremaster. Cite three rapes you belive are true and the victim was female.

  30. No, really, how do you get through a day? Do you have any female friends? Female family members? What are your intimate relationships like? I really cannot imagine having this level of distrust and hatred towards half of humanity.

  31. What colour is the sky on your planet Tom?

  32. I can’t remember a single case where video evidence has come to light proving a rape DID take place (although I am certain some will exist).

    Here’s an article about a woman who was raped on videotape and was arrested for making a “false accusation”:

    http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-99/campus.html#arrest

    (For everyone but Tom: BIG OL’ TRIGGER WARNING on that link. FYI.)

    The poor menz.

  33. The Home Office commissioned a ‘study’ to recook the books on rape to fit in with the administration’s new position that it thinks rape accusers should be believed.

    damn, those lying whores are just everywhere

  34. What colour is the sky on your planet Tom?

    the color of television, turned to a dead channel

  35. shorter Tom:
    .
    the proof, which is backed up by more proof from somewhere else, doesn’t fit my theory
    This is evidence of a feminazilizard global conspiracy.

  36. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU…GETTING IT ON, AND DNA TESTING ALL YOUR BABIES JUST FOR BACKUPS.

    Really, I am having flashbacks to the scene in 1984 where they find out there’s a telescreen in their rented room and that the Big Brother people watched/listened to them get it on.

    Additional fun question with the fascist dna test forcing, what about identical twins? My aunt has three children to a pair of identical twins. She even got the welfare people to waive any paternity issues around the one because paternity couldn’t be determined. My cousin’s father is one of a set of identical twins, both of whom slept with her mother during the time period in which the conception could have occurred. The other two have their paternity known based on the timing of the twins prison stays. Now, considering that it is scientifically impossible at the moment to know who is the one child’s biological father, who goes to jail?

    And, I do wonder why when, according to you, cops think 90% of rape reports are lies they would ever be likely to get strong response from police departments.

  37. I have trouble with the idea that people like Tom really, truly believe what they say, because they do not act in a logical manner for the world they believe exists. If you think that the government makes up statistics because whores and misandry, what were you expecting to get out of your court case? How did you think such a government would react to a man pointing out systemic, Snidely Whiplash-type abuse of men? What plans did you have in place to get your story publicized in the event that the government twirled their mustaches and made you disappear into a prison or a shallow grave?

  38. He also ignores Tetragametic Chimerism which I always found fascinating.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa013452?query=TOC&

  39. with regards to the police assessment of rape claims the study also found that:

    some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators and were made in violation of official criteria for establishing a false allegation.

    there’s a reason we establish criteria…so we can have consistent reporting and hopefully minimise prejudice.

    and furthermore:

    The interviews with police officers and complainants’ responses show that despite the focus on victim care, a culture of suspicion remains within the police, even amongst some of those who are specialists in rape investigations. There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated.[11][12]

    so…that would point to an underreporting of actual rape, and an overclassification of false rape based on prejudice not too far removed from your own

  40. OK, here’s a case where photographic evidence came to light proving that a woman who was accused (and convicted) of making a false rape claim really had been raped:

    http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110413/NEWS01/704139783

    I especially like the part where she got the $500 fine back, but her record won’t be cleared until she has a lawyer file a motion for her.

    Now answer the challenge, Tom.

  41. Umm. That link is no longer available.

  42. musing on MRAs…i am suddenly struck by the resemblance of their world vision to this:

    UK Manboobzers of my vintage may well remember this as i do.

  43. Lying liar Tom,

    But Hellkell,

    Women are four times more misandric than men are misogynistic (Goodwin and Rudman 2004), so when you say misandry isn’t a real thing much like false rape, you obviously mean like misandry false rape is a big thing, but that you’re either ignorant or lying or trying to joke about it – and indeed you are.

    You keep citing that paper as proof of your stance. Here’s a link to the abstract of that paper. There’s nothing at all in it that describes misogyny or misandry; Rudman and Goodwin were looking at in-group bias towards women, not bias against men.

    Your phraseology, “[w]omen are four times more misandric than men are misogynistic” is a fundamental misrepresentation of their research.

    J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Oct;87(4):494-509.
    Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?
    Rudman LA, Goodwin SA.
    Department of Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA. [Rudman’s e-mail address omitted]

    Abstract
    Four experiments confirmed that women’s automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men’s and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.
    (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved
    PMID: 15491274 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

  44. Thanks for pointing to a couple of rape claims that were proven to be genuine thanks to video evidence. As I said, they do exist.

    I could probably dig out at least 100 where video evidence has proved the claims false though – but well done for finding those two.

    Whilst searching, be sure to inform us of all the falseys proven by video evidence along the way. Reliable reporting and all that.

    Well done for getting the picture.

  45. I could probably dig out at least 100 where video evidence has proved the claims false though – but well done for finding those two.

    Your actual evidence is nothing compared to the evidence he could probably find!

  46. Tom. Three rapes of women you belive are true. Cite. Now.

  47. I could probably dig out at least 100 where video evidence has proved the claims false though – but well done for finding those two.

    okay so do it.

  48. By the way, since the journal article is not free, if anyone is able to get access to the full paper by way of an institutional licence, I would love them to report whether it confirms Tom’s point of view.

    As far as I can tell, the research abstract points in exactly 180° opposition to Tom’s quotation of it: the experiment is describing in-group behaviour, so the “four times as much” refers to men favouring men, versus women favouring women. Another way of putting that would be, men are four times as misandric towards their fellow men, than women are misogynistic towards other women.

    I’m not surprised at all that Tom is so dishonest to turn around the research this way.

  49. I used to think calling MRAs “pigs” would be appropriate.

    But that’s too generic. “Pricks” is a better world.

  50. Xanthe, I just read the introduction, and it talks about how most dominant groups show in-group bias more than minority groups, so a white person has a stronger implicit preference for other white folks than a black person does for black people. The authors then go on to talk about how gender is the only grouping that doesn’t follow this, as men have less in-group bias, while women have plenty.

    I’ll keep reading, but it is very interesting to me that Tom went the way he did with his interpretation. I feel like a stronger argument would be that men would, of course, show lesser in-group preference because they are the political and social minority, not women. But that would require that he understands the articles that he reads.

  51. Xanthe:

    You need to read Goodwin and Rudman, not just the abstract. What you will find, is that it’s Goodwin and Rudman burying the facts, not me. On the last page of the research, they admit there’s what they feministically call ‘a reversal of sexism’ regarding the results of implicit attitude tests (IAT) which shows women attribute negative traits to men four times more than men do to women or men.

    You can read the research for free, if you go to my youtube video, and follow the instructions in the lowbar

    Also, the other thing that Goodwin and Rudman touch on in their interesting paper, is that people’s attitudes to the other sex are affected by fear-mongering, by inflating a sense of risk associated with the other sex – and this is a hint about why it is so wrong of feminists to be inflating rape statistics, or domestic violence statistics, or drinks spiking, or date rape, or stranger rape, or taxi driver rape, or male dominance, or male monsterism etc – it makes an already sexist female population even more weary about men.

  52. Didn’t I already debunk you terrible video?

  53. @Maya

    yes, you bravely took it apart, excruciating detail by excruciating detail

  54. Tom Martin,

    I asked for someone else to read Rudman and Goodwin – not you. You obviously cannot be trusted not to lie about research.

  55. Yes Maya, you did. Tom is indeed repeating himself, again, once more.

    (Wait, is he not very secretly MoJoJoJo?

  56. I bet if I looked I could probably find video of Tom Martin having sex with a donkey. I mean, I’d put it at about a 90%-97% probability.

    ARE YOU NOT CONVINCED BY MY PROBABILITIES

    THEY ARE NUMBERS AND EVERYTHING

  57. Tom, your assertion you bring the proof. Now, about that challenge. Three rapes you believe to be true.

  58. random 6×7,

    thank you for doing that. Tom seems to think that the authors are hiding stuff on the last page, so perhaps you could skip ahead to check the veracity of that claim. Also, do you know how they are measuring these numbers and what sort of a sample group was used in the various experiments?

  59. How is it that every time Tom brings up a study, it’s proven to say something opposite to what he claims. I’ve only seen one admission of a mistake. Now he just seems to be accusing everyone who comes up with data different than he likes of covering up, burying facts, and other general conspiracy theory nonsense.

    @Tom Martin:

    Also, the other thing that Goodwin and Rudman touch on in their interesting paper, is that people’s attitudes to the other sex are affected by fear-mongering, by inflating a sense of risk associated with the other sex…

    You mean like saying that 97% of all rape accusations are false? Or that paternaty fraud is so prevalent that it is prudent to legislate mandatory paternaty tests? Or that nearly all women are whores (a bad thing)? Yeah.. You’re probably right about

    … and this is a hint about why it is so wrong of feminists to be inflating rape statistics…

    … Oh. Well then. Huh. You, my friend, have a very special brain.

  60. Well, here’s a positive development. Baroness Scotland actually exists. I thought, no way, that can’t be an actual title and/or person. But it is!

    “Her story is a history of firsts: she was the first black woman to be made a QC in 1991, and at 35 the youngest Queen’s Counsel since William Pitt the Younger. She became the first black female government minister in 1999 and the first woman and black person to be appointed Attorney General since the post was created in 1315.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/baroness-scotland-the-cost-of-being-in-political-life-1916518.html

    Also in deep hot water over an undocumented nanny and what sounds like church-molester apologism. But actual person. I am stunned to find two words out of Tom “whoriarchy” Martin that actually stand up to fact checking. The others not so much.

  61. Here is the underbar of my video, with the free link to the Goodwin and Rudman research, and some other eye-watering statistics too:

    References: Women 4 times more sexist than men: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274
    – unfortunately, the researchers have hidden their findings within the above paper – so reading the extract is not enough, but it is well worth the $11 to download, or you could read it free, by going to http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~socoglab/publications.html and find the listing:
    Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 494-509.
    Clicking the link labeled “Request Paper” at the end of that entry will bring up a window that will email a PDF of the paper to whatever email address you enter.

    No pay gap for under 30s, and part-time women out-earning part time men: http://fullfact.org/blog/dominic_raab_gender_gay_pay_gap-2461

    Per unit of effort, women earn more than men per hour overall: Go to http://www.roydenhollander.com/MediaCoverageWS.htm
    and download video clip entitled ‘Neil Cuvuto show, August 21th, 2008′. Roy Den Hollander says women earn 3% more than men for all work-related hours – and here’s how he got that number:
    ‘Females earn more per unit of time at work than males. The average man spends 44% more time working or doing work related activities than the average female. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Time Use Survey 2007, Table A-1. So for every hour a guy works, a girl works 42 minutes, but the average female makes 77% that of the average man. If the two were paid equally per unit of time actually worked, then the pay for the average female would be 69.5% that of the average man—not 77%–so girls are overpaid.

    You’ll have to update the figures because I believe now the Dept of Labor stats are girls making 80% that of a guy and the Dept of Labor has a more current Time Use Survey.’

    As for women more likely to use weapons, poison, element of surprise, or an accomplice: http://www.batteredmen.com/batsacks2way.htm

    As for women initiating 70% of DV and being 70% of lone abusers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOu_BszChIE – Martin S. Feibert’s enormous annotated bibliography is in the lowbar of that video.

    Indian domestic violence allegations (98% false) video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in_4QhWQaq4

    Tom can be contacted at sexismbusters@hotmail.com

  62. Xanthe, I have access to the article; will try to post some info. Oh, I see random6x7 is reading too — very glad to see that since I don’t have a background in psychology.

    Some interesting quotes so far:

    this analysis suggests that women (as well as men) should possess automatic gender attitudes that are relatively free of bias, when in fact, women strongly prefer women (i.e., are implicitly sexist). Moreover, we cannot assume that men’s absence of implicit sexism (vis-a`-vis evaluation) signals that they are more egalitarian than women. For example, compared with women, men are more likely to associate female gender with negative traits (e.g., incompetence, weakness, and coldness; Richeson & Ambady, 2001; Rudman, Greenwald, & McGhee, 2001) and subordinate rather than leadership roles (Rudman & Kilianski, 2000). These findings add mystery to the phenomenon of men’s weaker in-group bias. If men readily associate women with negative traits and low-status roles, why would they not also evaluate women unfavorably?

    So their research question was:

    “Why do women automatically like women more than men automatically like men?”

    Our primary objective was to assess support for five possible explanations for this phenomenon (sex differences in balanced gender identities, gender stereotypes, developmental events, male threat perceptions, and attitudes toward
    sex). The overarching aim was to discover whether other sources of implicit attitudes, including cognitive balance and emotional conditioning, might override cultural status when predicting automatic gender attitudes.

    we suspect that because of early (even preverbal) attachment to maternal caregivers, people’s mental machinery may be geared to automatically favor the feminine sex. In support of this interpretation, people who reported being raised primarily by their mothers also showed stronger pro-female bias, and the sequence of events is
    clear in this case.

    As expected, compared with women, men were more automatically linked to threatening attributes (e.g., violence and aggression; see also Rudman, Greenwald, & McGhee, 2001, Experiment 2). More important, male threat associations predicted automatic pro-female bias for both men and women. Thus, men’s greater proclivity for violence and aggression may bolster automatic preference for women, the less threatening sex.

  63. …people’s attitudes to the other sex are affected by fear-mongering, by inflating a sense of risk associated with the other sex…

    Well, I can think of one person here this is true of…

  64. Oh, Tom, did you read that article when you were drunk?

    Hokay, so. The authors tested several theories about why women have strong in-group bias while men do not. The idea is not that women dislike men, but that they prefer other women more than men prefer other men. They used Intro to Psych college kids for their tests, and they do talk about some of the issues with that. The researchers used the implicit attitude test (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/) which was modified to fit the questions they were trying to answer.

    Test number one! Maybe it’s a cognitive balance issue? It turns out, women are more likely to have the implicit idea that “I am a woman. I am good. Ergo, other women are good”, where men are much less likely to have that last bit.

    Test number two! Maybe it’s because Mom tends to be the main infant caregiver, thus creating a general preference for women. Also, maybe gender stereotypes are an issue. The mom thing turned out to be the case – people raised by their mothers prefer women. The stereotype thing was not an issue for implicit bias, although it comes into play for explicity bias.

    Three! Men are scary? Yes, this is a factor. Interestingly, men have a higher explicit association with other men and threat than women do with men and threat, so I really don’t think the scourge of false rape claims is a factor here.

    Four! Sex! I thought this one was fascinating, except that the researchers kept talking about how women were less enthusiastic about sex. That claim deserves examination in terms of cultural issues, but whatever, I can see why and how that might be the finding. Anyway, heterosexual women had a higher preference for men, no matter how much sex they’ve had. Men, on the other hand, have a higher preference for women if they’ve had a lot of sex, but not if they are fairly inexperienced. The researchers had some explanations, like they might resent women for not having more sex or some of the inexperienced guys might be “incipient homosexuals” – these are college guys, and that is an age when lots of people are still exploring and figuring that shit out.

    So, overall, men prefer women and not men because mom, safety, sex, and cognitive balance. Other issues that were not explored but were brought up were men being afraid of being called gay if they preferred men, something that is not nearly as much of an issue for women. They also mentioned that women may have a bond due to their similar minority circumstances, but that doesn’t really explain why other minorities have less in-group bias.

    I don’t know what Tom thinks the researchers were trying to hide. The “reversal of sexism” refers to women’s and men’s implicit positive beliefs about women, which are in contrast to the explicit beliefs that more closely align with stereotypical, sexist crap. Again, minority groups (which women are politically and socially if not numerically) usually lack the in-group bias that majority groups do, so the case of gender is particularly interesting. The paper does not talk about women’s attitudes toward men or vice versa except in explaining the sexual relationships or the threat thing, neither of which make women look particularly man-hating.

  65. More from the article:

    First, women implicitly preferred men if they also liked sex. Second, men echoed this pattern, but with an important caveat—only if they were high on sexual experience. Thus, men supported our expectation that if they associated women with sex (through sexual encounters that likely lead to emotional conditioning), they would prefer women to the extent they liked sex. By contrast, men low on sexual experience implicitly disliked women to the extent they liked sex.

    (Aside: The quote above seems to explain a lot about MRAs.)

    Although men are inarguably the dominant sex, they are raised by their mothers, threatened
    by male violence, dependent on women for sex, and deprived of cognitive balance vis-a`-vis gender attitudes. Similarly, women are the subordinate sex, but they are raised by their mothers, intimidated by male violence, less enthusiastic about sex, and possess a cognitively balanced gender identity, which bolsters in-group bias for the majority of women.

  66. “I could probably dig out at least 100 where video evidence has proved the claims false though – but well done for finding those two. ”

    And yet you haven’t. Funny how it is that you have all this wonderful evidence to support your claims, but won’t share it. Funnier still that whenever you do manage to come up with something that actually exists, you grossly misrepresent it.

  67. random6x7’s summary is excellent. (You rock!) I can only hope my quotes also help support that summary.

  68. Thanks! The quotes you pulled were awesome. I have to say, the whole sexually-inexperienced men thing made me think of certain MRAs, too.

  69. Crumbelievable

    *Tom finishes reading a lengthy, in-depth article*

    “Got it! Women are whores. On to the next one…”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,417 other followers

%d bloggers like this: