Bell Hooks: Das Patriarchat verstehen

Bell Hooks erklärt das Patriarchat:

Patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit in our nation. Yet most men do not use the word “patriarchy” in everyday life. Most men never think about patriarchy—what it means, how it is created and sustained. Many men in our nation would not be able to spell the word or pronounce it correctly. The word “patriarchy” just is not a part of their normal everyday thought or speech. Men who have heard and know the word usually associate it with women’s liberation, with feminism, and therefore dismiss it as irrelevant to their own experiences. I have been standing at podiums talking about patriarchy for more than thirty years. It is a word I use daily, and men who hear me use it often ask me what I mean by it.

Nothing discounts the old antifeminist projection of men as all-powerful more than their basic ignorance of a major facet of the political system that shapes and informs male identity and sense of self from birth until death. I often use the phrase “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” to describe the interlocking political systems that are the foundation of our nation’s politics. Of these systems the one that we all learn the most about growing up is the system of patriarchy, even if we never know the word, because patriarchal gender roles are assigned to us as children and we are given continual guidance about the ways we can best fulfill these roles.

Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. When my older brother and I were born with a year separating us in age, patriarchy determined how we would each be regarded by our parents. Both our parents believed in patriarchy; they had been taught patriarchal thinking through religion.

At church they had learned that God created man to rule the world and everything in it and that it was the work of women to help men perform these tasks, to obey, and to always assume a subordinate role in relation to a powerful man. They were taught that God was male. These teachings were reinforced in every institution they encountered– schools, courthouses, clubs, sports arenas, as well as churches. Embracing patriarchal thinking, like everyone else around them, they taught it to their children because it seemed like a “natural” way to organize life.

As their daughter I was taught that it was my role to serve, to be weak, to be free from the burden of thinking, to caretake and nurture others. My brother was taught that it was his role to be served; to provide; to be strong; to think, strategize, and plan; and to refuse to caretake or nurture others. I was taught that it was not proper for a female to be violent, that it was “unnatural.” My brother was taught that his value would be determined by his will to do violence (albeit in appropriate settings). He was taught that for a boy, enjoying violence was a good thing (albeit in appropriate settings). He was taught that a boy should not express feelings. I was taught that girls could and should express feelings, or at least some of them. When I responded with rage at being denied a toy, I was taught as a girl in a patriarchal household that rage was not an appropriate feminine feeling, that it should not only not be expressed but be eradicated. When my brother responded with rage at being denied a toy, he was taught as a boy in a patriarchal household that his ability to express rage was good but that he had to learn the best setting to unleash his hostility. It was not good for him to use his rage to oppose the wishes of his parents, but later, when he grew up, he was taught that rage was permitted and that allowing rage to provoke him to violence would help him protect home and nation.

We lived in farm country, isolated from other people. Our sense of gender roles was learned from our parents, from the ways we saw them behave. My brother and I remember our confusion about gender. In reality I was stronger and more violent than my brother, which we learned quickly was bad. And he was a gentle, peaceful boy, which we learned was really bad. Although we were often confused, we knew one fact for certain: we could not be and act the way we wanted to, doing what we felt like. It was clear to us that our behavior had to follow a predetermined, gendered script. We both learned the word “patriarchy” in our adult life, when we learned that the script that had determined what we should be, the identities we should make, was based on patriarchal values and beliefs about gender.

I was always more interested in challenging patriarchy than my brother was because it was the system that was always leaving me out of things that I wanted to be part of. In our family life of the fifties, marbles were a boy’s game. My brother had inherited his marbles from men in the family; he had a tin box to keep them in. All sizes and shapes, marvelously colored, they were to my eye the most beautiful objects. We played together with them, often with me aggressively clinging to the marble I liked best, refusing to share. When Dad was at work, our stay-at-home mom was quite content to see us playing marbles together. Yet Dad, looking at our play from a patriarchal perspective, was disturbed by what he saw. His daughter, aggressive and competitive, was a better player than his son. His son was passive; the boy did not really seem to care who won and was willing to give over marbles on demand. Dad decided that this play had to end, that both my brother and I needed to learn a lesson about appropriate gender roles.

One evening my brother was given permission by Dad to bring out the tin of marbles. I announced my desire to play and was told by my brother that “girls did not play with marbles,” that it was a boy’s game. This made no sense to my four- or five-year-old mind, and I insisted on my right to play by picking up marbles and shooting them. Dad intervened to tell me to stop. I did not listen. His voice grew louder and louder. Then suddenly he snatched me up, broke a board from our screen door, and began to beat me with it, telling me, “You’re just a little girl. When I tell you to do something, I mean for you to do it.” He beat me and he beat me, wanting me to acknowledge that I understood what I had done. His rage, his violence captured everyone’s attention. Our family sat spellbound, rapt before the pornography of patriarchal violence. After this beating I was banished—forced to stay alone in the dark. Mama came into the bedroom to soothe the pain, telling me in her soft southern voice, “I tried to warn you. You need to accept that you are just a little girl and girls can’t do what boys do.” In service to patriarchy her task was to reinforce that Dad had done the right thing by, putting me in my place, by restoring the natural social order.

I remember this traumatic event so well because it was a story told again and again within our family. No one cared that the constant retelling might trigger post-traumatic stress; the retelling was necessary to reinforce both the message and the remembered state of absolute powerlessness. The recollection of this brutal whipping of a little-girl daughter by a big strong man, served as more than just a reminder to me of my gendered place, it was a reminder to everyone watching/remembering, to all my siblings, male and female, and to our grown-woman mother that our patriarchal father was the ruler in our household. We were to remember that if we did not obey his rules, we would be punished, punished even unto death. This is the way we were experientially schooled in the art of patriarchy.

There is nothing unique or even exceptional about this experience. Listen to the voices of wounded grown children raised in patriarchal homes and you will hear different versions with the same underlying theme, the use of violence to reinforce our indoctrination and acceptance of patriarchy. In How Can I Get Through to You? family therapist Terrence Real tells how his sons were initiated into patriarchal thinking even as their parents worked to create a loving home in which antipatriarchal values prevailed. He tells of how his young son Alexander enjoyed dressing as Barbie until boys playing with his older brother witnessed his Barbie persona and let him know by their gaze and their shocked, disapproving silence that his behavior was unacceptable:

Without a shred of malevolence, the stare my son received transmitted a message. You are not to do this. And the medium that message was broadcast in was a potent emotion: shame. At three, Alexander was learning the rules. A ten second wordless transaction was powerful enough to dissuade my son from that instant forward from what had been a favorite activity. I call such moments of induction the “normal traumatization” of boys.

To indoctrinate boys into the rules of patriarchy, we force them to feel pain and to deny their feelings.

My stories took place in the fifties; the stories Real tells are recent. They all underscore the tyranny of patriarchal thinking, the power of patriarchal culture to hold us captive. Real is one of the most enlightened thinkers on the subject of patriarchal masculinity in our nation, and yet he lets readers know that he is not able to keep his boys out of patriarchy’s reach. They suffer its assaults, as do all boys and girls, to a greater or lesser degree. No doubt by creating a loving home that is not patriarchal, Real at least offers his boys a choice: they can choose to be themselves or they can choose conformity with patriarchal roles. Real uses the phrase “psychological patriarchy” to describe the patriarchal thinking common to females and males. Despite the contemporary visionary feminist thinking that makes clear that a patriarchal thinker need not be a male, most folks continue to see men as the problem of patriarchy. This is simply not the case. Women can be as wedded to patriarchal thinking and action as men.

Psychotherapist John Bradshaw’s clear sighted definition of patriarchy in Creating Love is a useful one: “The dictionary defines ‘patriarchy’ as a ‘social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family in both domestic and religious functions’.” Patriarchy is characterized by male domination and power. He states further that “patriarchal rules still govern most of the world’s religious, school systems, and family systems.” Describing the most damaging of these rules, Bradshaw lists “blind obedience—the foundation upon which patriarchy stands; the repression of all emotions except fear; the destruction of individual willpower; and the repression of thinking whenever it departs from the authority figure’s way of thinking.” Patriarchal thinking shapes the values of our culture. We are socialized into this system, females as well as males. Most of us learned patriarchal attitudes in our family of origin, and they were usually taught to us by our mothers. These attitudes were reinforced in schools and religious institutions.

The contemporary presence of female-headed households has led many people to assume that children in these households are not learning patriarchal values because no male is present. They assume that men are the sole teachers of patriarchal thinking. Yet many female-headed households endorse and promote patriarchal thinking with far greater passion than two-parent households. Because they do not have an experiential reality to challenge false fantasies of gender roles, women in such households are far more likely to idealize the patriarchal male role and patriarchal men than are women who live with patriarchal men every day. We need to highlight the role women play in perpetuating and sustaining patriarchal culture so that we will recognize patriarchy as a system women and men support equally, even if men receive more rewards from that system. Dismantling and changing patriarchal culture is work that men and women must do together.

Clearly we cannot dismantle a system as long as we engage in collective denial about its impact on our lives. Patriarchy requires male dominance by any means necessary, hence it supports, promotes, and condones sexist violence. We hear the most about sexist violence in public discourses about rape and abuse by domestic partners. But the most common forms of patriarchal violence are those that take place in the home between patriarchal parents and children. The point of such violence is usually to reinforce a dominator model, in which the authority figure is deemed ruler over those without power and given the right to maintain that rule through practices of subjugation, subordination, and submission.

Keeping males and females from telling the truth about what happens to them in families is one way patriarchal culture is maintained. A great majority of individuals enforce an unspoken rule in the culture as a whole that demands we keep the secrets of patriarchy, thereby protecting the rule of the father. This rule of silence is upheld when the culture refuses everyone easy access even to the word “patriarchy.” Most children do not learn what to call this system of institutionalized gender roles, so rarely do we name it in everyday speech. This silence promotes denial. And how can we organize to challenge and change a system that cannot be named?

It is no accident that feminists began to use the word “patriarchy” to replace the more commonly used “male chauvinism” and “sexism.” These courageous voices wanted men and women to become more aware of the way patriarchy affects us all. In popular culture the word itself was hardly used during the heyday of contemporary feminism. Antimale activists were no more eager than their sexist male counterparts to emphasize the system of patriarchy and the way it works. For to do so would have automatically exposed the notion that men were all-powerful and women powerless, that all men were oppressive and women always and only victims. By placing the blame for the perpetuation of sexism solely on men, these women could maintain their own allegiance to patriarchy, their own lust for power. They masked their longing to be dominators by taking on the mantle of victimhood.

Like many visionary radical feminists I challenged the misguided notion, put forward by women who were simply fed up with male exploitation and oppression, that men were “the enemy.” As early as 1984 I included a chapter with the title “Men: Comrades in Struggle” in my book Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center urging advocates of feminist politics to challenge any rhetoric which placed the sole blame for perpetuating patriarchy and male domination onto men:

Separatist ideology encourages women to ignore the negative impact of sexism on male personhood. It stresses polarization between the sexes. According to Joy Justice, separatists believe that there are “two basic perspectives” on the issue of naming the victims of sexism: “There is the perspective that men oppress women. And there is the perspective that people are people, and we are all hurt by rigid sex roles.”…Both perspectives accurately describe our predicament. Men do oppress women. People are hurt by rigid sexist role patterns, These two realities coexist. Male oppression of women cannot be excused by the recognition that there are ways men are hurt by rigid sexist roles. Feminist activists should acknowledge that hurt, and work to change it—it exists. It does not erase or lessen male responsibility for supporting and perpetuating their power under patriarchy to exploit and oppress women in a manner far more grievous than the serious psychological stress and emotional pain caused by male conformity to rigid sexist role patterns.

Throughout this essay I stressed that feminist advocates collude in the pain of men wounded by patriarchy when they falsely represent men as always and only powerful, as always and only gaining privileges from their blind obedience to patriarchy. I emphasized that patriarchal ideology brainwashes men to believe that their domination of women is beneficial when it is not:

Often feminist activists affirm this logic when we should be constantly naming these acts as expressions of perverted power relations, general lack of control of one’s actions, emotional powerlessness, extreme irrationality, and in many cases, outright insanity. Passive male absorption of sexist ideology enables men to falsely interpret this disturbed behavior positively. As long as men are brainwashed to equate violent domination and abuse of women with privilege, they will have no understanding of the damage done to themselves or to others, and no motivation to change.

Patriarchy demands of men that they become and remain emotional cripples. Since it is a system that denies men full access to their freedom of will, it is difficult for any man of any class to rebel against patriarchy, to be disloyal to the patriarchal parent, be that parent female or male.

The man who has been my primary bond for more than twelve years was traumatized by the patriarchal dynamics in his family of origin. When I met him he was in his twenties. While his formative years had been spent in the company of a violent, alcoholic dad, his circumstances changed when he was twelve and he began to live alone with his mother.

In the early years of our relationship he talked openly about his hostility and rage toward his abusing dad. He was not interested in forgiving him or understanding the circumstances that had shaped and influenced his dad’s life, either in his childhood or in his working life as a military man. In the early years of our relationship he was extremely critical of male domination of women and children. Although he did not use the word “patriarchy,” he understood its meaning and he opposed it. His gentle, quiet manner often led folks to ignore him, counting him among the weak and the powerless. By the age of thirty he began to assume a more macho persona, embracing the dominator model that he had once critiqued. Donning the mantle of patriarch, he gained greater respect and visibility. More women were drawn to him. He was noticed more in public spheres. His criticism of male domination ceased. And indeed he begin to mouth patriarchal rhetoric, saying the kind of sexist stuff that would have appalled him in the past.

These changes in his thinking and behavior were triggered by his desire to be accepted and affirmed in a patriarchal workplace and rationalized by his desire to get ahead. His story is not unusual. Boys brutalized and victimized by patriarchy more often than not become patriarchal, embodying the abusive patriarchal masculinity that they once clearly recognized as evil. Few men brutally abused as boys in the name of patriarchal maleness courageously resist the brainwashing and remain true to themselves. Most males conform to patriarchy in one way or another.

Indeed, radical feminist critique of patriarchy has practically been silenced in our culture. It has become a subcultural discourse available only to well-educated elites. Even in those circles, using the word “patriarchy” is regarded as passé. Often in my lectures when I use the phrase “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” to describe our nation’s political system, audiences laugh. No one has ever explained why accurately naming this system is funny. The laughter is itself a weapon of patriarchal terrorism. It functions as a disclaimer, discounting the significance of what is being named. It suggests that the words themselves are problematic and not the system they describe. I interpret this laughter as the audience’s way of showing discomfort with being asked to ally themselves with an anti-patriarchal disobedient critique. This laughter reminds me that if I dare to challenge patriarchy openly, I risk not being taken seriously.

Citizens in this nation fear challenging patriarchy even as they lack overt awareness that they are fearful, so deeply embedded in our collective unconscious are the rules of patriarchy. I often tell audiences that if we were to go door-to-door asking if we should end male violence against women, most people would give their unequivocal support. Then if you told them we can only stop male violence against women by ending male domination, by eradicating patriarchy, they would begin to hesitate, to change their position. Despite the many gains of contemporary feminist movement—greater equality for women in the workforce, more tolerance for the relinquishing of rigid gender roles—patriarchy as a system remains intact, and many people continue to believe that it is needed if humans are to survive as a species. This belief seems ironic, given that patriarchal methods of organizing nations, especially the insistence on violence as a means of social control, has actually led to the slaughter of millions of people on the planet.

Until we can collectively acknowledge the damage patriarchy causes and the suffering it creates, we cannot address male pain. We cannot demand for men the right to be whole, to be givers and sustainers of life. Obviously some patriarchal men are reliable and even benevolent caretakers and providers, but still they are imprisoned by a system that undermines their mental health.

Patriarchy promotes insanity. It is at the root of the psychological ills troubling men in our nation. Nevertheless there is no mass concern for the plight of men. In Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, Susan Faludi includes very little discussion of patriarchy:

Ask feminists to diagnose men’s problems and you will often get a very clear explanation: men are in crisis because women are properly challenging male dominance. Women are asking men to share the public reins and men can’t bear it. Ask antifeminists and you will get a diagnosis that is, in one respect, similar. Men are troubled, many conservative pundits say, because women have gone far beyond their demands for equal treatment and are now trying to take power and control away from men…The underlying message: men cannot be men, only eunuchs, if they are not in control. Both the feminist and antifeminist views are rooted in a peculiarly modern American perception that to be a man means to be at the controls and at all times to feel yourself in control.

Faludi never interrogates the notion of control. She never considers that the notion that men were somehow in control, in power, and satisfied with their lives before contemporary feminist movement is false.

Patriarchy as a system has denied males access to full emotional well-being, which is not the same as feeling rewarded, successful, or powerful because of one’s capacity to assert control over others. To truly address male pain and male crisis we must as a nation be willing to expose the harsh reality that patriarchy has damaged men in the past and continues to damage them in the present. If patriarchy were truly rewarding to men, the violence and addiction in family life that is so all-pervasive would not exist. This violence was not created by feminism. If patriarchy were rewarding, the overwhelming dissatisfaction most men feel in their work lives—a dissatisfaction extensively documented in the work of Studs Terkel and echoed in Faludi’s treatise—would not exist.

In many ways Stiffed was yet another betrayal of American men because Faludi spends so much time trying not to challenge patriarchy that she fails to highlight the necessity of ending patriarchy if we are to liberate men. Rather she writes:

Instead of wondering why men resist women’s struggle for a freer and healthier life, I began to wonder why men refrain from engaging in their own struggle. Why, despite a crescendo of random tantrums, have they offered no methodical, reasoned response to their predicament: Given the untenable and insulting nature of the demands placed on men to prove themselves in our culture, why don’t men revolt?…Why haven’t men responded to the series of betrayals in their own lives—to the failures of their fathers to make good on their promises–with something coequal to feminism?

Note that Faludi does not dare risk either the ire of feminist females by suggesting that men can find salvation in feminist movement or rejection by potential male readers who are solidly antifeminist by suggesting that they have something to gain from engaging feminism. So far in our nation visionary feminist movement is the only struggle for justice that emphasizes the need to end patriarchy. No mass body of women has challenged patriarchy and neither has any group of men come together to lead the struggle. The crisis facing men is not the crisis of masculinity, it is the crisis of patriarchal masculinity. Until we make this distinction clear, men will continue to fear that any critique of patriarchy represents a threat. Distinguishing political patriarchy, which he sees as largely committed to ending sexism, therapist Terrence Real makes clear that the patriarchy damaging us all is embedded in our psyches: Psychological patriarchy is the dynamic between those qualities deemed “masculine” and “feminine” in which half of our human traits are exalted while the other half is devalued. Both men and women participate in this tortured value system.

Psychological patriarchy is a “dance of contempt,” a perverse form of connection that replaces true intimacy with complex, covert layers of dominance and submission, collusion and manipulation. It is the unacknowledged paradigm of relationships that has suffused Western civilization generation after generation, deforming both sexes, and destroying the passionate bond between them.

By highlighting psychological patriarchy, we see that everyone is implicated and we are freed from the misperception that men are the enemy. To end patriarchy we must challenge both its psychological and its concrete manifestations in daily life. There are folks who are able to critique patriarchy but unable to act in an antipatriarchal manner.

To end male pain, to respond effectively to male crisis, we have to name the problem. We have to both acknowledge that the problem is patriarchy and work to end patriarchy. Terrence Real offers this valuable insight:

“The reclamation of wholeness is a process even more fraught for men than it has been for women, more difficult and more profoundly threatening to the culture at large.”
If men are to reclaim the essential goodness of male being, if they are to regain the space of openheartedness and emotional expressiveness that is the foundation of well-being, we must envision alternatives to patriarchal masculinity. We must all change.

Da ist echt viel drin. Insbesondere ein vollkommens Fehlverständnis der Dynamik zwischen den Geschlechtern und eine Überbewertung von Gewalt. Aber auch ein unglaubliches Schöndenken und die Abwehr aller Kritik als Umdeutung in einen Beweis, dass sie recht hat, gerade weil ihre Position als lächerlich angesehen wird.

Es scheint mir ein gewisser Wahnsinn zu sein, der aber beängstigender Weise von einer im Feminismus durchaus angesehenen Person kommt. Die Beweise sind Anekdoten, eine tiefere Analyse fehlt zumindest in diesem Abschnitt vollkommen. Das Patriarchat bleibt nebelhaft, eine Verschwörung, von der man auch nach ihrem Text nur weiß, dass irgendwie keiner davon weg kommt, anscheinend noch nicht einmal alleinerziehende Mütter.


29 Gedanken zu “Bell Hooks: Das Patriarchat verstehen

  1. Instead of wondering why men resist women’s struggle for a freer and healthier life, I began to wonder why men refrain from engaging in their own struggle. Why, despite a crescendo of random tantrums, have they offered no methodical, reasoned response to their predicament: Given the untenable and insulting nature of the demands placed on men to prove themselves in our culture, why don’t men revolt?…Why haven’t men responded to the series of betrayals in their own lives—to the failures of their fathers to make good on their promises–with something coequal to feminism?

    Das ist lustig. Wer nicht „seinen Mann steht“ gilt nicht als echter Mann. Die Softiegeneration zu der ich gehöre hat bei Frauen den öffentlich geäußerten Wunsch nach echten Männern hervorgerufen. PUA ist die Antwort auf dieses Verlangen der Frauen.

    Sehr oft habe ich von Frauen gehört, warum diese jungen syrischen Flüchtlinge nicht zuhause ihren Mann stehen. Ja warum eigentlich? Das Denken dieser Frauen dreht sich in einem unendlichen Teufelskreis immer nur um sie selbst. Sie sind nicht notwendigerweise dumm, sondern denken nur energiebewusst.

  2. Irgendeiner wird es eh anmerken: in ihrem Namen gibt es keinen Großbuchstaben.

    Interessant fände ich, warum sie mit ihrer anekdotischen Evidenz bei so viel Frauen offene Türen einrennt.

    Der Spruch „Mädchen dürfen das nicht“ scheint demnach noch immer gefühlt das Los vieler Frauen zu sein. Und der Spruch „Jungs dürfen das nicht“ wird nicht in exakt gleicher Form gebraucht.

    Da Frauen im Schnitt nicht in der Lage sind, sich in das Leben eines Mannes einzudenken und da eine der Sachen, die Jungs nicht dürfen, das Sich-Über-ihr-Schicksal-beschweren ist, hat das Unterdrückungsnarrativ wohl so eine Strahlkraft.

  3. By the age of thirty he began to assume a more macho persona, embracing the dominator model that he had once critiqued. Donning the mantle of patriarch, he gained greater respect and visibility. More women were drawn to him. He was noticed more in public spheres. His criticism of male domination ceased. And indeed he begin to mouth patriarchal rhetoric, saying the kind of sexist stuff that would have appalled him in the past.

    Ich bin nur froh, dass dieser verlorene Sohn doch noch in die gütigen Arme des Patriarchats zurückgefunden hat und jetzt ein glückliches und erfolgreiches Leben führen kann.

  4. Der radikale Feminismus muss irgendwann Frauen die Schuld am „Patriatchat“ in die Schuhe schieben; früher hiess es schlicht, dass alleinerziehende Mütter ihre Söhne ohne den Einfluss von Vätern nun zu kompletten, emotional geheilten Wesen umerziehen können und jetzt merken sie plötzlich, dass genau diese Strukturen, die die Befreiung hätten bringen sollen, eine männliche Dominanzkultur (Gangs, Gewalt etc.) geschaffen hat, die viel patriarchaler ist als die eigentliche rassistische/sexistische Brutstätte des Bösen; der Kernfamilie. Das darf natürlich nicht sein…

  5. Offenbar wurde sie vom Vater für nicht rollenkonformes Verhalten vermöbelt, und diese Kindheitserfahrung steuert immer noch ihre Wahrnehmung. Im Elternhaus meines Vaters gab es ebenfalls religiös motivierte Gewalt, ich kann gut nachvollziehen, wie stark ein Mensch davon geprägt sein kann.

    Psychologisch ist das für mich also verständlich. Aber sie verarbeitet das zu einer Universalerklärung, mit der sie auf Mission geht. Wer die ganze Welt heilen will, braucht halt ein Evangelium.

  6. „We need to highlight the role women play in perpetuating and sustaining patriarchal culture so that we will recognize patriarchy as a system women and men support equally, even if men receive more rewards from that system.“

    Aha. Das ist ja offensichtlicher Quatsch. Warum sollte ich ein System aufrecht erhalten, freiwillig, wenn meine Auszahlungen geringer sind als meine Einzahlungen.

    Wer hat so ein Kalkül? Der Trick dieses Arguments ist ganz einfach nicht zu sagen, was denn die „rewards“ sind, die Männer einheimsen. Denn dann würde nämlich sichtbar werden, was die spezifischen „rewards“ sind, die Frauen erhalten.

    Aber das schöne an diesem Argument: Frau ist so selbstlos, so anmütig und so sozial, sie hält ein System aufrecht, dass ihr mehr schadet als nützt. Da ist es wieder, women are beautiful….

  7. Bei Bell Hooks handelt es sich um eine 1952 geborene afro-amerikanische Feministin, die in einer Arbeiterfamilie geboren wurde und zu einer Zeit aufgewachsen ist als es noch Rassentrennung in Bussen und Schulen gab. Bezüglich schwarzer US-amerikanischer Feministinnen aus dieser Generation ist natürlich zu berücksichtigen, dass sie in einer Zeit aufgewachsen sind als starre traditionelle Geschlechterrollen und Rassismus tatsächlich wesentlich verbreiteter waren als dies heute in den USA der Fall ist. Eine schwarze Frau aus einer Arbeiterfamilie, die eine akademische Karriere machen will, hat zu der damaligen Zeit in den USA sicherlich Diskriminierungen erlebt, die für Anne Wizorek & Co gar nicht nachvollziehbar sind. Ein solcher biographischer Hintergrund disponiert dann u.U. für bestimmte feministische Sichtweisen, die schon für die damalige Zeit einseitig waren und bezüglich der heutigen Situation erst Recht falsch sind. Erfahrungen aus einer vergangenen Zeit und Deutungen und Interpretationen, die damals als hilfreich zur Bewältigung empfunden worden, wirken nach und prägen immer noch die Wahrnehmung.

    • Meine grösste Liebe hatte sich immer wieder darüber aufgeregt, dass ihre Eltern sie zu freiheitlich erzogen haben. Mein Fazit: Frauen sind nie zufrieden. Das ist m.E. Teil ihres evolutionären Erbes.

      Männer lernen sich einer Rangordnung unter zu ordnen. Für Frauen ist es vorteilhaft das nicht zu tun. Also entweder wird der Mann zum Alpha oder er läuft Gefahr, dass sie sich dem Alpha irgendwann hingibt. Und der Alpha muss immer oben bleiben, sonst wird er ausgetauscht.

      Naja, Tiere halt …. so wie wir Männer auch!

  8. Bell Hooks ist keine Feministin. Entweder nicht mehr oder nie gewesen.

    Dieser Aufsatz stellt das „Patriarchat“ als Konzept in Frage, sie will den Leser überreden davon abzurücken.

    Sie fängt lang und breit ganz klassisch feministisch an, setzt dann aber einen Kontrapunkt, der das Partiarchat als ein Irrsinn hinstellt, der niemandem was bringen würde, auch allen dem Patriarchat folgenden Männern nicht:
    „If patriarchy were truly rewarding to men, the violence and addiction in family life that is so all-pervasive would not exist.“

    Sie behauptet dann, dass Frauen dem wahnwitzigen Patriarchat genauso dienen würden wie Männer („patriarchy as a system women and men support equally“).

    Damit wird das Patriarchat von Hooks einfach synonym zur „Gesellschaft, wie sie gerade ist“ gemacht, jeglicher spezielle Fokus auf die Männer ging dabei verloren. Den Männern spricht sie dementsprechend am Ende sogar ein prinzipiell gutes Wesen zu („essential goodness of male being“). Spätestens an dieser Stelle wird jeder Feminismus durchbrochen.

    Ich denke Hooks hat gemerkt, dass ihre Agitation nicht zieht, was sie an zentraler Stelle ganz deutlich macht:

    „…. using the word “patriarchy” is regarded as passé. Often in my lectures when I use the phrase “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” to describe our nation’s political system, audiences laugh. …“

    und möchte zur klassischen linksextremistischen Linie zurückfinden, um das „imperialist white-supremacist capitalist *system*“ statt „patriarchy“ zu bekämpfen.

      • @chris

        „ihre Position ist insoweit mit intersektionalen Feminismus durchaus kompatibel“

        Natürlich, weil sie immer im Kontext des Überbaus der Sozialen Gerechtigkeit stand und nur eine Säule davon ist. Aber austauschbar und nicht unverzichtbar.

        Feminismus bringt halt nichts mehr, die anderen Sektionen laufen viel besser und man möchte sich neu ausrichten.
        Vor allem vergrätzt man mit diesem Feminismus ja nur die Männer, die dadurch nicht für die „gemeinsame Sache“ angespochen und mobilisiert werden können.

        Auch Butler kann man nur als einen Schritt sehen, die Männer heranzuführen, den extremen Feminismus zu beseitigen.

        Dass Hooks nach wie vor ganz unbetimmt von „Männlichkeit“ redet, ist nur dem Umstand zu verdanken, dass sie dem Feminismus keine klare Absage erteilen kann, so gehen der Bewegung doch Unterstützer verloren. Deshalb muss sie rhetorisch noch Tribut an die zollen.

        Eine ihrer zentralen Botschaften ist die Annahme einer „essential goodness of male being“, was von Feministen nur als anti-feministisch gesehen werden kann. Wahrscheinlich sagt aber keiner von denen, die wichtig sind, etwas dazu, genausowenig wenn es um „Rasse“ geht.

        Alles nur ein Beleg, dass Feminismus nur ein Vehikel im Kampf gegen die Gesellschaft sein soll und in seinen Inhalten gar nicht ernst genommen wird, dh von den Feministen selbst.

        • @Alex:

          »Bell Hooks ist keine Feministin. Entweder nicht mehr oder nie gewesen.«

          Ich denke auch, dass Du da falsch liegst.

          »Feminismus bringt halt nichts mehr, die anderen Sektionen laufen viel besser«

          Wieso bringt der nichts mehr? Der Feminismus ist doch bestens institutionalisiert, der alimentiert doch jede Menge Frauen, die in ernsthaften Berufen sonst keinen Fuß auf den Boden bekämen.

          »Auch Butler kann man nur als einen Schritt sehen, die Männer heranzuführen, den extremen Feminismus zu beseitigen.«

          Nach diesem Kriterium müsstest Du den ganzen postmodernen Feminismus als »unfeministisch« aussortieren. Natürlich gibt es eine Wandlung des Feminismus seit den 60er und 70er Jahren. Aber zu sagen, es sei darum keiner mehr, wäre wie zu behaupten, dass in Deutschland außer Alice Schwarzer niemand mehr feministisch ist.

          »Eine ihrer zentralen Botschaften ist die Annahme einer „essential goodness of male being“, was von Feministen nur als anti-feministisch gesehen werden kann.«

          Wie kommst Du darauf? Exakt das ist doch die Position der Mehrheit unser eigenen Feministinnen, inklusive Wizorek, Schrupp etc.: der Mann hat das Potenzial zum Guten, er muss sich nur von Feministinnen auf den rechten Weg führen lassen. Sobald er seine »traditionelle Männlichkeit« reformiert, wird er zum vollwertigen Menschen.

          Ungewöhnlich an Bell Hooks ist doch nur, dass sie den alten radikalen Patriarchatsbegriff auf eine postmoderne Grundhaltung bezieht. Hooks schickt halt einen Begriff an die Frontlinie, den die meisten ihrer Schwestern nur noch Garnisonsdienst leisten lassen. Das ist eigenwillig, aber nicht unfeministisch.

        • @djad

          „Der Feminismus ist doch bestens institutionalisiert“

          Und das ist schon der Grund, dass diese Denkrichtung auch weiterlhin dominant muss? Auf dem Femi-Ticket sind zwar viele reingerutztscht, aber das sind alles prinzipiell Menschen, die ihre Ansichten ändern können. Vielleicht lassen sie sich ja schon von Brooks inspirieren, wer weiss? Siehs mal so: wer an den Feminismus glaubte, der wird auch an alles andere glauben…

          Der Feminismus „bringt nichts mehr“ war in Hinsicht auf den Zuwachs an Anhängerschaft gemeint, nicht in Hinsicht auf eine Lukrativität „feministischer“ Themen und wie man die noch ausschlachten kann, im Rahmen des Sozialstaats oder der Popkultur zB.

          „Nach diesem Kriterium müsstest Du den ganzen postmodernen Feminismus als »unfeministisch« aussortieren.“

          Dafür fehlt mir ein echtes Argument, wie es hier Hooks lieferte. Die „echtesten“ postmodernen Feministen sind für mich ohnehin die aus der spirituellen Ecke, deren männliches Aquivalent du bei „Geschlechterallerlei“ derzeit so faszinierend vorstellst. Man darf sich wirklich fragen, inweit Feminismus nur politisches Vehikel war, was deren „rationalere“ (nun ja) Ausprägungen, die sich als links verstanden, angeht.

          „Aber zu sagen, es sei darum keiner mehr, wäre wie zu behaupten, dass in Deutschland außer Alice Schwarzer niemand mehr feministisch ist.“

          Ja, sie positioniert sich konsequent. Insofern ist das was dran, was ihr ja auch zugute kommt. Ist immer gut alternativlos dazustehen.

          „Exakt das ist doch die Position der Mehrheit unser eigenen Feministinnen ….“

          Ich habe noch nie eine Bemerkung von all denen und drüber hinaus bemerkt, dass der Mann ja *an sich* gut sei. Die schleichen alle darum wie die Katze um den heissen Brei und glauben entweder an die essientielle Dichotomie Gut=Frau und Schlecht=Mann oder respektieren das wenigstens. Die Rhetorik mit dem „patriarchy hurts men, too“ bleibt immer sehr flach und stellt die Frage gar nicht erst, ob der Mann denn nun eigentlich gut sei. Nur bei völliger Selbstverleugnung über alle Masse hinaus, so scheint die Messlatte zu sein — dann kann er sich immerhin halbwegs bewähren und „gut“ verhalten, obwohl er ein Mann *ist* — so mein Eindruck.

          „der Mann hat das Potenzial zum Guten, er muss sich nur von Feministinnen auf den rechten Weg führen lassen …“

          … und trotzdem ist und bleibt das ein Mann.

          Die gleiche Heuchelei ist bei der ganzen Diskussion um „Transphobie“ und änliches auszumachen.

          Man hat den Eindruck, dass hier einfach ein Burgfrieden mit den „anderen Geschlechtern“, die jetzt erwünscht sein sollen, geschlossen wurde. Nur nichts direkt gegen die neue Linie sagen, dann darf man auch weiterhin Feministin sein.

          „den alten radikalen Patriarchatsbegriff auf eine postmoderne Grundhaltung“

          Was meinst du damit? Ich meine, Hooks löst den Begriff einfach auf und will ihn einfach ganz generell als „die Gesellschaft“ etwa begriffen wissen. Deshalb sind auch Männer und Frauen „equally“ dran beteiligt und keine Seite habe einen Vorteil davon, ganz im Gegenteil.

  9. Der Friedensforscher Werner Ruf hat auf den Nachdenkseiten über die Struktur des IS ein Interview gegeben, nur am Rande streift er das Thema Patriarchat, aber es wird deutlich, das die Situation der Frau in klassischen patriarchalischen Strukturen so schlecht nicht ist:

    „Und was hat der sogenannte „Sexuelle Djihad“ mit all dem zu tun?

    Dies ist ein besonders abartiger Aspekt dieses insgesamt abscheulichen Themas. Junge Frauen gehen freiwillig nach Syrien,

    um dort mit sexuellen Dienstleistungen die Moral der Kämpfer zu stärken. Dass es sich bei diesem »sexuellen Djihad« nicht

    um ein Einzelphänomen handelt, zeigen die Zahlen, die der Verfassungsschutz für 2015 erhoben hat.

    Danach waren 21 Prozent der aus Deutschland in den Djihad Ausgereisten Frauen, meist junge Mädchen. Dass den jungen Frauen,

    romantische Eheschließungen vorgegaukelt werden, ist oft Teil dieses Geschäfts. Frauen, die nach der selektiven Auslegung

    der Schriften durch die Djihadisten verheiratet werden, haben keinerlei sozialen und materiellen Schutz, der ihnen in den

    meisten islamischen Ländern, in denen eine Zivilehe existiert, zusteht. Mit einem dreimaligen »ich verstoße Dich« ist der

    Ehemann seine Frau los. Diese kann dann unter extrem schlechten und erniedrigenden Bedingungen versuchen, sich wieder zu

    verheiraten, da sie anders ihren Lebensunterhalt nicht sichern kann. Danach bleibt nur noch die Prostitution.

    Für die Frauen, die freiwillig in den »Djihad« ziehen, gelten auch nicht mehr die Mindestsicherungen, die es im

    traditionellen islamischen Milieu und Gewohnheitsrecht gab: Die Einwilligung der Eltern und die vorherige öffentliche

    Bekanntgabe der beabsichtigten Eheschließung. Diese Frauen verlieren genau den relativen Schutz, den sie in traditionellen

    Gesellschaften genießen wie beispielsweise, dass eine »verstoßene« Frau wieder in ihre Herkunftsfamilie zurückkehren kann,

    dass ihre Mitgift wie etwa Schmuck als eine Art Lebensversicherung ihr Privateigentum bleibt.“

    Er geht nicht auf die Beweggründe der Mädchen ein, ist ja auch nicht sein Thema gewesen. Ich vermute das auch sexuelle Abenteuerlust eine Rolle spielt, die mit den zivilisierten europäisch sozialisierten braven Jungs nicht immer zu befriedigen ist.

    • und wieder sind die Frauen Opfer und die jungen Männer die Täter, obschon beim IS junge Frauen andere junge Frauen anwerben, die dann einen Moslem heiraten….

      was wohl zuerst da war? die Henne oder das Ei?

      Die Henne ist ja Teil dieser Verschwörung?! Bei der Beschneidung junger Mädchen sind es die Hennen, die sich am meisten gegen Reformen wehren. Vielleicht hat auch die Henne den kleinen Adolph damals …….

      .,… nicht dass ich jetzt die Männer zu Marionetten degradieren will …. aber die Rolle der Frau bei dem Heranziehen von Oberalphas wird m.E. flagrant unterschätzt ….

    • nur zur Veranschaulichung:

      Stell dir vor es ist Krieg und keiner geht hin

      Die Geschichte der Menscheit ist eine endlose Abfolge von Kriegen, Gemetzel, Intoleranz, Folter ….. und in weniger als 10 jahren werden alle Männer (fast alle) zu Softies … mann kann sich doch mal fragen warum???

  10. Besonders gut gefällt mir die Stelle, wo sich die Gute beklagt, viele Männer wüßten nicht, was „Patriarchat“ bedeutet. Vielleicht findet sich mal jemand, der ihr erklärt, daß es mit „Herrschaft der Väter“ zu übersetzen ist, sodaß per definitionem kein kinderloser Mann daran Anteil haben kann. Da sie sich ja anscheinend bildungsmäßig den tumben Männern überlegen fühlt, sollte sie als erste für eine sachlich korrekte Bezeichnung, etwa Androkratie, eintreten.

  11. Pingback: Interview mit Anne Nühm zu Feminismuskritik als Frau – Rote Pille Blog – von Frauen und Männern im Westen

  12. Pingback: Bell Hooks | Alles Evolution

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.