At the social end of this issue is, as always, the underlying gynocentric tendency of people in general to view women and their behavior through rose-colored glasses. Various sources report that both sexes exhibit this bias. A 1991 review of 300 college students by Alice H. Eagly, Antonio Mladinic, and Stacey Otto, found strong evidence that women are evaluated more favorably than men.
A series of four experiments done by Laurie A. Rudman, PhD, of Rutgers, and Stephanie A. Goodwin, PhD, of Purdue University, and reported on in 2004 in their paper “Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men?” found that women are five times more likely to show favoritism for women than men are to show favoritism for men. Among other things, both sets of researchers measured respondents’ tendency to attribute words viewed as positive based on gender, and found that both more readily assigned them to women than to men. Both also found both sexes associated violence or aggression with men. This combination of biases is an obvious contributing factor to the phenomenon of automatic belief when a woman accuses a man of any kind of abuse.
Clues to the modern prevalence of gynocentrism in human perspectives throughout history can be found on gynocentrism.com, run by Peter Wright. In his article “Timeline of gynocentric culture,” he provides evidence that while isolated gynocentric acts and events may predate the time period, it was in the Middle Ages that gynocentric perspectives and attitudes became a cultural norm. From his article, “Gynocentrism 1:0, 2:0, and 3:0” and the graphic provided in the post “Gynocentric Culture Complex (GCC)” one can find its genesis in a nexus of developing aristocratic practices, including the transformation of chivalry from a strict, manly art of war to include a code for romantic lovers.
Gynocentric norms attach discomfort to removing those rose-colored glasses and encumber any inclination toward skepticism regarding female complaints with malaise. Rather than confront the possibility that a woman is wrong or lying about having been victimized, the typical response is sympathy, validation, efforts at offering comfort, and problem-solving. Often, women relating their complaints take offense at even the appearance of skepticism, such as police questioning regarding details of a crime, even when those details may help convict the perpetrator.
Women’s advocates have expanded on this, pushing for law and policy that accommodates accusers whether the accusation is true or not, and hinders the defense of the accused in order to protect accusers from the perceived abuse of due process. Then, they use the resulting increases in conviction rates as supposedly justifying evidence. “Look,” they argue… “Look how many men are convicted! How does this not convince you that these women’s complaints are valid?”
What am I talking about?
Law, Policy, and the Courts tolerate women lying about:
- Father involvement
- All aspects of family violence
- Income and wealth distribution in property disputes (divorce)
- The woman’s reasons for committing a crime - especially when the woman blames a man for her actions.
Society tolerates women’s advocates lying about all of the above. In addition:
Women’s advocates lie about the nature and causes of income and circumstance disparity between the sexes. They falsely present men as far more capable of fending for themselves than women under those circumstances.
They lie about the characteristics of masculinity, in part by gendering dysfunction and then generalizing it to all men. They support this lie by basing their promulgations on the premise that women’s misandry defines masculinity. They falsely gender perceptions of criminal behavior…
...then they fight for leniency for female criminality under the pretense that men and masculinity are to blame for women’s crimes. Then they use conviction rates as evidence to further gender and generalize perceptions of criminal behavior and how the individual is defined by his actions.
Women’s advocates’ lame excuses for law & policy which mandates condoning female liars are filled with circular reasoning.
They claim false accusation is rare, use the argument that it is rare to excuse presuming the majority of accusations true, use that standard to limit statistical documentation of false accusations to only those proved false beyond a shadow of a doubt, and then cite that documentation as proof that false accusation is rare.
They ignore or outright deny the impact of the accusation on the life of the accused. Then they claim the accused crime is worse than the lie, and then, ignoring the fact that if the accusation is a lie there was no crime, falsely pit the welfare of violent crime victims against potential consideration for victims of false accusers… then that false comparison is used to minimize the experiences of the accused, and in turn, that is used to bolster denial of the accusation’s impact.
They claim that if a man has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear from being investigated and potentially tried because of a woman’s lie, based on the supposition that the truth will come out. Then, they operate on the belief that a woman’s perception defines reality, and in particular, a man’s attitude, intent, and actions. They advocate as if skepticism toward accusations & holding liars accountable will intimidate real victims into silence. They treat evidence standards and due process standards as abuse, and demand that society, law enforcement, and the judicial system listen and believe when a woman accuses a man. They’ve chipped away at the process of fair and balanced investigation and hearing, and are now using the resulting bias to claim it’s proved that fair and balanced processes deny victims access to justice and put them at risk of censure… then treat the result of these built-in biases as evidence that women never lie about intimate partner and sexual violence.
They cannot answer the question, if having nothing to hide means having nothing to fear, why should real victims fear anything in response to liars being exposed and facing censure?
When confronted with objections, women’s advocates use logic fallacies and more lies as a bludgeon to try to force tolerance for lying on women’s behalf:
They ignore, deny, or abuse into compliance any women who don’t subscribe to their victim narrative, then treat doubting the word of women’s advocates, individually or as a group, as an accusation that all women (for whom they presume to speak) are lying.
They treat skepticism toward their claims regarding prevalence, dynamics, or other characteristics of a problem, or disagreement with their proposed solutions to a problem, as an act of denying the entire problem and in particular, its impact on women and women’s right to seek relief.
One manifestation of this is the treatment of skepticism of hysterical exaggerations of the prevalence of female victimhood as if the doubter approves of victimizing women.
They use feminism’s social science practice of lax vetting of research that supports the victim narrative as a body of manufactured evidence. This usually involves citing a body of often self-referring or circularly-and-often-incorrectly-referring academic research and writing. Then, the prevalence and scope of the lie are treated as evidence of its presumed validity. The lie has officially been told and expanded on by a lot of academics and advocates. It is therefore an accepted fact.
They use gendered ad hominem - attempts to demonize skepticism toward claims about women’s issues by treating association of it with masculinity as a disqualifying factor, under the claim that men’s lack of female experience makes them ignorant of the nature of the issue and therefore unable to comment on it. This is then used to treat such skepticism as if it is by nature an ignorant act.
Then there’s when they think equality is a bad thing… They treat equal consideration of male experience of an issue women’s advocates call a women’s issue as an attack on sympathy for women, openly considering compassion for men “misogyny.” When that leads to less discussion of male experiences, they treat that as evidence that such experiences are more rare, or less impacting.
An approach I think of as Zero Sum Guys involves treating objection to generalization of outlying dysfunctional behavior among men to all men as a somehow wrongful effort to absolve all men, including the dysfunctional, of accountability for themselves. Any resulting arguments are treated as evidence of lack of accountability among men.
An approach I’ve labeled Zero Sum Nerve treats any acknowledgement that women can also engage in dysfunctional behavior and highlighting incidence as if it is a generalization dysfunctional behavior and characteristics to all women while ignoring any dysfunction in men. This attitude is displayed in support of considering any criticism of any woman’s behavior misogyny.
What the hell, really, is this shit? These advocates’ arguments are a mess, clogging up the gender issues debate and hindering any real progress. It’s like standing in the middle of a mass of debris from a natural disaster, trying to figure out where to begin.
My answer is this:
Here… have a shovel.
It’s time to take out the trash.