My previous writings on the “Automatic Outgroup Derogation of Men” are explorations of human moral perceptions based on the research of Dr. Laurie Rudman in her article Gender Differences in Automatic Ingroup Bias.
Dr. Rudman’s use of IAT’s make her results unreliable and manipulable by introducing key social stresses. It does show that men appear to “lack the mechanism” to see each other as ingroup members or default human beings. Both of these, central to my thesis, were more effectively outlined in Dr. Vandello’s 2008 paper, “Precarious Manhood,” referenced here for completeness.
In 2019, Dr. Tania Reynolds published a paper describing a cross-cultural moral bias and typecasting of men as “Stereotypical Perpetrators of Harm.” This was the type of vigorously verifiable, reproducible, measurable result I was waiting for.
The implications of this paper will conform to ideas familiar to traditional gender scholars. It will also challenge other deeply held ideas.
Dr. Reynold’s research uses Kurt Gray’s Dyadic Moral Model and suggests that Women are objectively typecast as frail, meek, and childlike non-agents. Men, by contrast, are typecast as robust agents.
Also in 2019, I found out from Mallory Millett that her sister, famed Marxist Feminist Kate Millett, had attended the same Catholic Diocese’ Girl’s School System as my mother and aunts. A lot of pieces fell into place.
My brother and I were treated very differently, in a way that was incredibly unfair.
ASCHITI Model of Gender Perception
In Grossness as a Human Value Indicator, I created a crappy metaphor to simplify human mate selection, as a complexity management and boundary maintenance problem, using Liebig’s law of the minimum to describe one of the many ways male valuation is described in terms of complexity containment metaphors.
It’s gross.
Never failing to take a taboo topic or gross metaphor too far, I present the ASCHITI Model of Gender Perception, which describes how reality is distorted in human interactions. This would be an extension of Seager and Barry’s Cognitive Distortion Gamma Bias, which is a turd for men and women alike, but rather than a harm/care dyadic moral model, I add other vectors for a more detailed view.
ASCHITI Model of Gender Perception
(Agency – Status – Care – Harm – Identity – Typecast – Issues)
According to Dr. Reynolds, men are perceived Agents, and women are perceived as patient objects.
In Precarious Manhood, Vandello posits across 5 studies, that womanhood is perceived as a biological state of adult female humans, whereas manhood, by contrast, must be earned and maintained. This is often accomplished via toxic, maladaptive, and asocial behaviors. Men are typically status-seeking, often to the point of harming others or themselves.
Men are specifically selected for their willingness and ability to commit to produce and sacrifice themselves to protect or provide for women and children. Women, by contrast, deserve choice.
Dr. Reynolds demonstrates across several studies that men are stereotypical perpetrators of harm and that women by contrast deserve compassion.
Dr. Laurie Rudman’s paper Gender Differences in Automatic Ingroup Bias illustrates the “flaw in all men” that I describe in my series as an inability to form immediate and automatic bonds making them a default outgroup. Women, by contrast, irrespective of their preference for women are bound by the constraints of female identity.
This may, in part, explain the taboo regarding stereotyping or generalizing women that does not exist for men. I explain in a Weak Case for the Humanity of Men, that stereotype accuracy may explain in part why men are less likely to automatically associate with men as a group.
Men are typecast as perpetrators; women victimized as helpless and typecast as weak and harmless.
Nobody wants to hear about the problems men have, some want to stop anyone from hearing about them. Solving women’s issues would make the world better for everyone.
The Gamma Bias and the ASCHITI Model of Gender Perception both describe data-driven frameworks, verifiable through vigorous experimental methods with measurable, reproducible results.
As scientifically measurable biases, we can determine they will become exploited under stress, as stress replaces deliberation with intuition via the SIDI Model.
Next up: Global Mass Hysteria
A Case for The Biophobic Marx Hysteria from Stearns County, Minnesota.
This is part II of a series on Human Grossness and the Biophobic Marx Hysteria from Stearns County, Minnesota Swamps.
This series is based on the research of Dr. Tania Reynolds, the writings of Dr. Gad Saad and 80 years of the combined independent field observations of Mallory Millett and Jewel Eldora.
From Prohibition to George Floyd, there is something in the water in Minnesota. Millett, Mosquitos and Marx.
Reference Materials:
Mallory Millett [1]
Gad Saad Consuming Instinct ; Parasitic Mind
