Die Seite „No seriously what about teh menz“ wird von Feministen betrieben, soll sich aber den Problemen von Männern widmen und gerade damit aufräumen, dass Probleme von Männern im Feminismus nicht behandelt werden.
Ein paar Angaben in den FAQ finde ich dabei gar nicht so schlecht:
What’s this “masculist” thing some of you guys keep talking about? Doesn’t feminism already cover gender equality?
Being a masculist is in a lot of ways just like being a feminist: it means that you think men should be equal to women. Just as some if not all of our contributors identify as “feminist,” so, too, do some or all of them identify as “masculist.” Where feminism seeks to improve gender equality with a focus on issues affecting women, masculism seeks to improve gender equality with a focus on issues affecting men. Taken together, these two (complementary!) movements form “gender egalitarianism.”
It’s safe to say that all egalitarian people who are masculists are also feminists, and all egalitarian feminists are also masculists — they just might not know the word. The two movements of feminism and masculism are complementary, not opposed. They fight the same issues, just with different focuses. Sexual equality is not a zero-sum game (i.e., you don’t have to decrease one group’s rights in order to increase another’s), so if you think you’re a feminist, you should think about being a masculist too.
Some people argue that feminism has historically meant “the fight for gender equality,” and it is silly to go about changing the meaning of the word this late in the game to include masculism. Others believe, though, that because feminism is such a diverse tree, it doesn’t make sense to say that it’s all about gender equality all the time. Still others make the point that since “feminism” is (in name and practice) focused on women, it can’t alone lay claim to the title of “the movement for gender egalitarianism,” so we need masculism there as a balancing force. See what I mean about the herd of cats? But the takeaway point is this: If you’re down with equality, and you’re down with feminism, you should get down with masculism, too.
Das finde ich einen fairen Ansatz: Der anderen Seite zugestehen, dass sie einen anderen Fokus hat, aber dieser auch seine Berechtigung hat. Das nur in einem Zusammenspiel beider Richtungen eine gerechte Lösung gefunden werden kann. Natürlich wird dies jeweils nur mit den beiden gemäßigteren Lagern der Richtungen funktionieren.
Und zu den Nachteilen der Männer:
But men are already equal to women, aren’t they?
Not exactly (just as women aren’t exactly equal to men). Greta Christina has a series of four posts about sexism against men. Clarisse Thorn writes about the word “creep” and has an enormous thread series (at one point, she calculates that it’s as long as the Bible) on masculinity and feminism. And, of course, the post that started this blog off: Ozymandias’s Who Cares About Men’s Rights?
The point is, men experience sexism, mistreatment, and discrimination in many places in society (to name just a few examples, the draft, female genital mutilation versus circumcision, divorce proceedings, false rape allegations, dangerous working environments, depression and suicide, falling education rates, under-reported rape and domestic violence, etc.). Just as men have an advantage (or privilege) over women in society in many respects, the reverse is also true. That’s the point of this blog: We need to start better addressing the ways in which men get the short end of the stick. (…)
Recognizing that you have “privilege” in some areas just means recognizing that not everything is equally easy for everyone in a given situation. You’ve heard the phrase “driving while black?” (It means that police question or harass African Americans who drive more than Caucasians.) If you’re not black, then you have some “privilege” there. Another situation might be in heterosexual dating: Men are still usually expected to do all of the work finding and asking out a woman. If you’re a woman, then you have “privilege” there. On the other hand, according to some studies, men are more likely to be hired for high-paying jobs, which is a “privilege” that men have.
Ich mag den Privilegienbegriff immer noch nicht, weil er meiner Meinung nach nicht geeignet ist, die Sache zu erfassen und zu sehr gruppenbezogen ist. Aber die Einsicht, dass – wenn man in dieser Theorie bleibt – auch Frauen privilegiert sind, würde schon mal viel voranbringen. Die Theorie, dass Vorteile, die Frauen haben eigentlich nur „wohlwollender Sexismus“ sind, weil man ihnen mit diesen Vorteilen nur deutlich macht, dass man sie nicht akzeptiert, halte ich für wenig überzeugend.
Ich habe mir die Seite noch nicht so genau angeschaut, finde aber jedenfalls diese Passagen durchaus ganz interessant. Mal sehen, ob meine Erwartungen erfüllt werden.
Alles Evolution 