Home > Issues > Irrationality > The Insanity of Uncle Tom Groves

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies


The Insanity of Uncle Tom Groves

© Peter Zohrab 2008

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map



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 ?


Apply the rules to the facts.



Am I a Real Man ?


Apply the rules to the facts.



Decide against the man.



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.




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

26 July 2015