Warum nur die feministische Wissenschaft zählt („TotalRej“)

Aus dem Buch „Professing Feminism“ hatte ich bereits „IDPOL“ angeführt. Ein weiteres Konzept, dass nach den Autorinnen von vielen Feministinnen vertreten wird (wenn auch nicht so ausdrücklich) ist „TotalRej“ oder Totale Rejektion, also totale Verwerfung. Dabei geht es darum,  dass das gesamte maskuline, patriarchale , eurocentrische Erbe abgelehnt wird und dann versucht wird, einen neuen feministischen Ersatz für das zu finden, was in diesem entsprechend verkörpert ist.

Earlier generations of feminists believed that if principles of basicdecency, justice, and fairness were applied to women, most of women’s grievances would be resolved. There was nothing wrong with the principles themselves, according to the older view—it was simply a matter of extending them fairly to women, children, and the disadvantaged. TOTAL REJ feminists, by contrast, argue that two hundred years of American „enlightenment“ have failed to deliver the goods to women—we cannot even pass the Equal Rights Amendment. There are deep reasons, then, why women are justified in doubting that piecemeal modifications of the present society will ever liberate them. Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go—even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity, and precision on which the former depend.

Und etwas näher zu der dahinterstehenden Denkweise:

A much-beloved aphorism taken from an essay by Audre Lorde is often quoted on this point: „the Master’s tools will never dismantle the Master’s house. (…) One contributor to the Women’s Studies E-mail list took the suggestion to its drastic con- • lusion: “ I think you could burn the house down. Why would one want to use the master’s tools?“

We wish to make it clear that what we are objecting to is the rash nihilism of this game. We have no quarrel with serious debates about feminist challenges to and interventions in traditional disciplines. But in many Women’s Studies settings, arguments about traditional knowledge tend to be reduced to avowals of a kind of feminist knownothingness. This is the posture we characterize as TOTAL REJ

Es wird dann dargestellt, dass aufgrund dieser „Neueinkleidung“ und der Ablehnung der nichtumgeformten Theorien vieles an Einordnung verloren geht und auch Kritik aus anderen Bereichen ausgeblendet wird, zudem wird dadurch ein Denken gefördert, welches eben gerade nur die Ausrichtung auf das Fach und die dort übernommenen Gedanken fördert. Erst nach feminstischer Neuinterpretation und nur in diesem Rahmen wird Wissen einbezogen, ansonsten eben abgelehnt.

Hier ist es noch einmal gut dargstellt, welche Folgen dies haben kann:

Students sometimes act as if the invitation to engage in a wholesale condemnation of nonfeminist writings and ideas were to be taken literally. Why should they have to read Darwin, Marx, or Freud when those authors wrote only sexist nonsense? A historical shift has clearly taken place when a Women’s Studies student feels justified in submitting a paper (as reported by a political science professor we interviewed) consisting of the single line: „Freud was a cancer-ridden, cigar-smoking misogynist.“ And how reassuring the thought that one can ignore all science, all economic theory, and all technology because, after all, these brainchildren of „malefactors“ just oppress women, as some Women’s Studies students now write on their affordable, efficient word processors while listening to a CD as their wrinkle-free jeans are being washed in the laundromat and their Stouffer’s spinach souffle is heating up in the microwave. What young female students in search of meaningful education most need is broad exposure to countervailing ideas. In a normal program of studies they would indeed receive such exposure, at the very least through distribution requirements in a comprehensive arts and sciences curriculum. But TOTAL REJ encourages them to discredit everything that is not feminist, and the highly charged moralistic atmosphere cultivated by Women’s Studies throws up hard-tosurmount barriers around the student who might wish to explore other points of view.

Hier wird eine gefährliche Einengung des Blickes deutlich, die rechtfertigt, warum man sich nicht mit anderen Wissenschaften auseinandersetzen muss, und wenn dann nur in der Interpretation feministischer Wissenschaftler. Es ist der Grund, warum bei biologischen Argumenten nur auf Fausto-Sterling, Voss oder Fine verwiesen wird und alles andere nicht gelesen wird, sondern einfach als sexistische Kackscheiße abgetan wird.