Cathy Young schreibt in einem Artikel etwas zum gegenwärtigen Zustand des Feminismus und inwiefern dieser belegt, dass das Patriarchat tot ist:
Sie weißt zutreffend darauf hin, dass viele viele Doppelstandards für beide Geschlechter bestehen:
Gender-based biases are not a one-way street. If women are still stigmatized more for sleeping around, men are stigmatized more for not having enough sex — even by some feminists whose choice insult for sexist men is to imply sexual deprivation. Women may experience more disapproval for delegating child care; men, for failing to be providers. We can endlessly debate whether these norms are rooted in nature or culture and whether they are valuable or harmful (or some mix of both). The fact remains that such double standards are not only perpetuated by men and women alike but, in this day and age, at least as likely to be favorable to women as to men.
Hier ihre Darstellung für Beeinträchtigungen von Männern.
It’s really not that hard to find instances in which men are judged more harshly than women. Last May, after Arizona woman Jodi Arias was convicted in the brutal murder of her ex-boyfriend, jurors deadlocked on the death sentence because some saw mitigation in her alleged mental and verbal abuse by her victim — despite evidence that Arias was a habitual stalker. Around the same time, when novelist James Lasdun published a book about his nightmarish experience of being cyber-stalked by a former creative writing student whose romantic overtures he had rejected, a review in The New Yorker chided him for failing to admit his attraction to the woman and his role in leading her on. Reverse the genders in either case, and there would be howls of outrage about “victim-blaming.” (Both incidents are also reminders that women aren’t the only victims of abuse and violence from the opposite sex.)
Und schließlich stellt sie darauf ab, dass die Beeinträchtigungen, die teilweise vom Feminismus vorgetragen werden, eher unbedeutende Kleinigkeiten sind, die teilweise genauso von Frauen getragen werden:
Ultimately, the examples of patriarchy at work offered in responses to Rosin prove her point. They consist of complex issues oversimplified into a war on women (such as proposed abortion limits, which women in some cases support more than men); outlandish exaggerations (women can’t walk down the street without getting groped or catcalled); culturally marginal irrelevancies (some ultraconservative Catholic group advising against college education for women); or grievances so petty that it’s hard to tell if they’re satirical or serious. A list of “39 Things We’ll Miss About Patriarchy, Which Is Dead” on New York magazine’s website included “vibrators shaped like cupcakes,” public restroom lines, and men hogging space on public transit. And several writers mentioned “Titstare” — an incident both trivial and revealing of strong societal disapproval of even mild sexism.
Sie tritt dann für einen Feminismus (viele würden wohl eher einen Humanismus sagen) ein, der für beide Geschlechter da ist:
More broadly, I am convinced that if feminism is to have a positive future, it must reinvent itself as a gender equity movement advocating for both sexes and against all sexism. Focusing solely on female disadvantage was perfectly understandable when, whatever paternalistic benefits women might have enjoyed and whatever burdens men might have suffered, women were the ones lacking the basic rights of adult citizens. But today, there is simply no moral or rational justification for any fair-minded feminist to ignore (for instance) the more lenient treatment of female offenders in the justice system or the anti-father biases in family courts. The concept of feminism as equality of the sexes is increasingly on a collision course with feminism as a movement championing women.
Und über den heutigen Feminismus hat sie wenig gutes zu sagen:
In its present form — as a secular cult that should call itself the Sisters of Perpetual Grievance — feminism is far more a part of the problem than part of the solution. It clings to women’s wrongs and turns women’s rights into narcissistic entitlement. It is far too easily prone to bashing men while painting women as insultingly helpless and downplaying their human capacity for cruelty. (The notion that abuse and dominance would not exist without patriarchy is not only naively utopian but utterly sexist.) It is also deeply irrelevant to most women, only 5 percent of whom consider themselves “strong feminists,” even though 82 percent believe that men and women should be social, political, and economic equals.
Der Feminismus als Teil des Problems, der Frauenrechte zu einem narzisstischen Anwartschaftsrecht für Frauen macht und sich in Männer-Bashing verliert, während er Frauen als hilflos und unschuldig präsentiert. Dazu der direkte Vorhalt in einer sexistischen Utopie zu leben, wenn man meint, dass mit der Auflösung des Patriarchats alle Probleme verschwinden. Dazu der Vorhalt, dass der Feminismus für die meisten Frauen schlicht nicht relevant ist, auch wenn diese Gleichberechtigung wollen.