Roslin weist auf einen interessanten Artikel hin. In dem Artikel heißt es, dass ein Außerirdischer schnell zwei verschiedene defekte bei den Geschlechtern feststellen würde:
Bei Frauen:
The female defect is her desire to infantilize herself; to project a facade of weakness and victimhood. The female does this because part of her identity is contingent on compelling males to act on her behalf. This is a mechanism which allows the female to feel desirable, important, and powerful. The female often mistakes this behavior as personal empowerment, when in reality it is quite the opposite. Taking personal responsibility is something she will inherently resist, because as soon as she takes personal responsibility and stops infantilizing herself, her identity can no longer command others to act on her behalf. Thus, the female defect keeps her from assuming personal responsibility, which presents a barrier to her self-actualization.
This is why the self-actualized female finds playing the victim so repugnant; she is shunning part of her old identity.
Und bei Männern:
The male defect is his desire to compensate for the infantilized female. He does this because part of his identity is contingent on earning female validation. He thus demonstrates his ability to protect, provision and inform. This is a mechanism for feeling useful, powerful, knowledgeable, and important. The male defect leads him to compete with other males to demonstrate his primacy to females, and it ultimately turns him into a guardian, which keeps him from relinquishing responsibility. This becomes his own barrier to self-actualization.
This is why the self-actualized male sees competing for female validation as idiotic; he is shunning part of his old identity.
Also bei Frauen die Möglichkeit Leute dazu zu manipulieren, bestimmte Sachen für einen zu tun, sich selbst kleiner machen als man ist, damit der andere einen beschützen und helfen will. Schwäche als Stärke sozusagen
Bei den Männern der Wunsch, dass sie einen braucht, wichtig für sie zu sein. Konkurrieren um ihre Gunst, nützlicher sein als der Andere.
Beides hat aus meiner Sicht schon einen wahren Kern, wenn auch nicht in dieser absoluten Form. Aber gewisse Geschlechterklischees bauen in der Tat jeweils auf diesen Grundsätzen auf und fliehen gerne in diese Mechanismen.
Seine Schlußfolgerungen daraus für den Feminismus:
An understanding of the male defect is vital for contextualizing feminist criticism of men. Our defect, for example, is why many feminists are partially correct when they point to demonstrating power as a male motivation. We display power to demonstrate our readiness to compensate for the infantilized female. Our defect is also the source of feminist complaints about “mansplaining.” Men engaging in “mansplaining” are largely attempting to demonstrate their knowledge and value in order to demonstrate their capability to compensate for the infantilized female. Additionally, the “fatherly” guardian status that results from our defect is why the feminists are superficially correct about patriarchy, but why they are also leaving out half the picture.
Ich finde es durchaus einen interessanten Gedanken, deutlich zu machen, dass sich das Demonstrieren nicht unbedingt gegen Frauen richtet, sondern häufig gerade ihnen ein Zeichen geben soll, dass man sich um sie kümmern könnte. Wird die zu bevormundend wird es dementsprechend als lästig und anbiedernd angesehen, eine gewisse Gleichgültigkeit kann auch hier zeigen, dass man es nicht nötig hat, sich entsprechend zu beweisen.
Und zum Patriarchat:
Patriarchy and infantriarchy are simple concepts that reflect a relationship of codependency between the male and female defects. If the male defect is over expressed in society, female infantilization is compelled, and patriarchy results. If the female defect is over expressed in society, male compensation is compelled, and infantriarchy results.
Thus, the traditional paradigm of pre-feminist Western culture wasn’t in its totality a patriarchy, because it was built around the expression of both the male and the female defects. The fact that there exist both males and females who wish to return to traditionalism proves this. The traditionalist female was thus perfectly happy to infantilize herself, and infantriarchy was a part of traditionalism that cannot be ignored.
The feminist response to this, of course, will be to claim that patriarchy infantilizes women and that the second concept is therefore unnecessary. To clarify this response, the feminist will essentially be claiming that the male defect is wholly to blame. This line of reasoning is problematic because it denies the existence of the female defect, and in doing so it assumes women are perfect and asserts that the defect necessarily exists solely within men.
Das zeigt zumindest schöner als die reine feministische Theorie, dass es ein Zusammenspiel der Geschlechter ist. Um so sehr die Frauen meinen, dass sie lieber bestimmte Tätigkeiten abgeben um so eher werden Männer diese auch Annehmen. Wobei es aus meiner Sicht etwas an der Sache vorbeigeht, hier einfach nur die Übernahme der Verantwortung als männlich und die Abgabe dieser als weiblich anzusehen. Es werden bestimmte Verantwortungen abgegeben, etwas das Geld verdienen etc. Genug Frauen übernehmen und übernahmen aber auch entsprechende Verantwortung, sei es für die Kinder oder bei der Verwaltung des Haushalts in diesem traditionellen Beispiel.
Because feminism doesn’t acknowledge the existence of the female defect, it denies female complicity in traditionalism, and thus distorts the male defect of compensating into one of oppressing. Thus, feminists mistakenly believe that women were uniquely oppressed because they’re using half of a theoretical model to examine traditionalism.
The notion of female oppression becomes highly dubious when one considers the female defect. The female defect, for example, becomes apparent when a woman claims that women have always been the primary victims of war, despite the countless millions of men who have died. The female defect has led a woman to cry about being victimized over a t-shirt, and it has led a journalist to claim that MHRM efforts are based on “victim envy.” So it isn’t terribly surprising that the female defect might lead certain women to claim that human history was one long story of female oppression. It is simply an expression of the female defect. It is the female projecting her victimhood.
Das im Feminismus zu einseitig gedacht wird und nicht berücksichtigt wird, dass auch Frauen ihren Anteil an den Geschlechterrollen haben, diese wählen, weil sie ihnen vorteilhaft erscheinen, selbst auch aktive Spieler im Spiel der Geschlechter sind, würde ich auch so sehen.
What then, is feminism?
To be fair, I have met a handful of feminists whose goals I thought were legitimate. To a significant extent, however, feminism is merely a sociopolitical platform for these defects, an arena for them to play in, and the cultural force which is expanding infantriarchy. Feminists claim their movement is about female equality, but I disagree. Being an expression of the female defect, feminism is merely a movement to express female victimhood; more specifically, it is an expression of female victimhood to compel sociopolitical male compensation with the humorous goal of preventing female victimhood.
This results in a merry-go-round to hell, wherein feminism actively entrenches the same value it seeks to fight.
Because feminism is essentially an expression of female victimhood working to end female victimhood, most feminists are stuck in the destructive convulsions of an individual fighting against a victim identity she has chosen for herself.
Also Feminismus als Opfer des Patriarchats verbunden mit der Aufforderung an die Männer doch endlich einmal ihre Privilegien abzubauen und die Nachteile die Frauen haben, durch aktiven Ausgleich zu beheben. Also letztendliche eine Aufforderung die Frau aus der Opferrolle zu befreien indem man darstellt, dass man ein Opfer ist.
Alles Evolution 