Abwertungen von Männern als feministisches Gaslighting

„Gaslighting“ war schon mal Gegenstand eines Artikel. Ich hatte dort die folgende Definition zitiert:

Gas lighting ist eine Art psychologische Kriegsführung, die beabsichtigt ist, und sich mit der Zeit steigert. Menschen, die Gas lighting betreiben, beginnen mit subtiler psychologischer Kriegsführung, um das Selbstbewusstsein des Opfers zu vermindern, um dessen Sinn für die Realität durcheinander zu bringen, und um es an sich selbst zweifeln zu lassen. Sie wollen das Opfer erst klein machen, bevor sie die direkteren Attacken starten. So ist das Opfer geschwächt, weniger in der Lage zu erkennen, was vor sich geht, und kann sich deshalb nicht schützen.

Es kann zum Beispiel sein, dass du etwas erwähnst, was der Psychopath gesagt hat, und dieser streitet ab, es jemals gesagt zu haben. Oder du kannst dein Portemonnaie nicht finden, und der Psychopath hilft dir beim Suchen. Schlussendlich stellt sich heraus, dass es im Kühlschrank gelegen hat. Der Psychopath lacht und umarmt dich liebevoll. Dabei sagt er dir, dass du ziemlich gestresst sein musst. Dann, eine oder zwei Wochen später, suchst du deinen Autoschlüssel, und bist dir sicher, dass du ihn auf den Computertisch gelegt hast, weil du ihn immer dorthin legst. Nach schier unendlich langer Suche findest du ihn: Er steckte die ganze Zeit über im Zündschloss deines Autos. Der Psychopath ruft aus: „Meine Güte, jemand hätte den Wagen direkt von der Auffahrt stehlen können! Und alles nur wegen deiner Unvorsichtigkeit und Vergesslichkeit!“ Du kratzt dich am Kopf und denkstHhhmm, vielleicht werde ich vergesslich. Denn es muss ja an dir liegen, oder? Wer würde jemals jemanden, der einem seine Liebe bekräftigt, verdächtigen, einem diese Dinge mit Absicht anzutun? Psychopathen sind Meister des Gas lighting.

Ein interessanter Artikel legt nunmehr dar, dass „Wir haben nichts gegen Männer, aber Männer sind Mist“ eine Form des Gaslighting ist:

Kiri Rupiah’s article „Men are trash … end of discussion“ is a great example of this. She begins the article by saying „Let me begin by making a disclaimer for those of you I’d most like to read this: I and many other women don’t think that all men are inherently abusive or dangerous. Plenty of men aren’t trash.“ Yet she ends the article by saying

„Men Are Trash is not an indictment of men but rather of patriarchy. The phrase “not all men” invalidates women’s lived experiences (that’s if they even come out of these interactions alive) and makes men feel less uncomfortable about their role in advancing and maintaining the dangers women face. Intellectualising or witnessing women’s pain without making any tangible effort to destroy the status quo is a waste of time. You know you have to protect us from yourselves because you are trash.“

Denying that it is the case that „men are trash“ is presumably itself a form of gas lighting because it involves the lived experience of women that all men are tras (That’s funny, I know a lot of women who don’t feel that way). Of course „men“ refers to a plurality of individuals and „patriarchy“ refers to a singular entity. So to say that men are trash is an attack on (#all?) male individuals rather than on a „structure“ or „institution.“ Clearly, she attacks men in general only to immediately deny that she just did so…only to immediately do it again. Here’s my favorite part of the article:

„I understand that, as a man, your initial response to women talking about misogyny, rape culture and sexual violence is to yelp like something wet touched your face in the dark “Not all men! Not all men!” as a neon sign signalling that you are not an entitled, presumptive sack of **** who harms women. Stop doing that, it’s bull****; interjecting yourself in this unhelpful way just confirms you are a member of the faecal family.

In other words, „men, you are trash; and if you do not agree with me that you are trash, that is just further proof that you are trash.“ Major luminaries in the hermeneutics of suspicion loved this style of argumentation. Sigmund Freud argued that repudiating psychoanalytic theory is just evidence of unresolved Oedipal conflicts that actually vindicates his theoretical framework. Karl Marx believed that repudiating dialectical materialism is just proof of ideological mystification that proves your collusion with the bourgeoisie; feminists believe that disagreeing with them that you are trash only proves that you are a brainwashed plaything of „patriarchy,“ and that taking exception to the accusation that you are trash actually proves that you are trash.

Diese Figur hatte ich so ähnlich auch bereits in meinem Artikel besprochen. Hier wird es noch mal sehr passend dargelegt: Man beleidigt Männer, verschleiert das dann aber indem man es irgendwie auf Männlichkeit oder Männer als Gruppe abwälzt und Einwände direkt als etwas sieht, was einen selbst zu der Gruppe der schlechten gehören lässt.

Alle Gegeneinwände werden abgetan, indem man anführt, dass da gar kein Hass vorhanden ist, dass alles nur eine Einbildung ist und man ja nur etwas gegen böse Männer habe. Sehe man etwa die ganzen bösen Männer nicht? Wenn man dann darauf hinweist, dass es auch Ungerechtigkeiten für Männer gibt und Männer insofern nicht die bösen sind, dass es vielmehr ungerechtfertigte Beschuldigungen sind, dann wird das als Angriff gedeutet und so davon abgelenkt, dass der Feminismus in der Hinsicht tatsächlich Männer zum Feindbild gemacht haben

What is particularly interesting about this is that the radical feminist will insist that you are the one who is actively „interjecting yourself“ and derailing the conversation rather than desiring to take exception to the accusation that you are trash. As we have seen, this is virtually gas-lighting 101. The individual lashes out at you and when you take exception to being attacked, they act like you are the actual aggressor. As with much gas-lighting, projection forms an integral part of the act. I like to call this the „PG-13“ effect. PG stands for „projection-gas lighting“ and „13“ serves to remind us that the individual who engages in this behavior has the mental maturity of about a 13 year old. We all remember girls on the playground pestering and bothering boys until the boys chase them, and the girls shriek and run away, playing the role of passive victim. This is that, except much more disturbing and pathological.

(…) It is psychologically important for feminists to create mythological „structures“ that cause otherwise benign men to rape because it means that we are able to look away from what characterizes the kinds of individuals who perpetuate these crimes, and blame men in general for the crimes of a pathological minority.

Den Blick auf den Einzeltäter verstellen und immer die Gruppe der Männer für alle verantwortlich machen ist in der Tat eine Form der Verhüllung, der Täuschung über den eigentlichen Täter und die Unschuld der übrigen.

To say „Men are trash“ while failing to specify the linguistic extension of the element in question is fundamentally disingenuous. It leaves room for the feminist to deny doing what she knows she just intended to do. Because women (and men) who engage in gas-lighting frequently experience overwhelming feelings of worthlessness and powerlessness, they seek to feel empowered by abusing others. They also have guilty taking responsibility for their own actions and tend to project their own faults onto others. Thus, they are able to feel empowered by psychologically abusing men by referring to them as trash while denying that they just did so; this is classic gas-lighting. 

In predicate logic and set theory, we speak of a „universe of discourse.“ This universe of discourse specifies the „elements“ of a set. „Elements“ are simply those items being specified (pigs, blankets, chairs, men) and a „set“ is a group of these elements. Sometimes a universe is left merely implicit. In this case, our „universe of discourse“ is men, and lack of the universal quantifier „all“ implies an unlimited extension because „some“ is otherwise used to limit the extension in ordinary speech.

The feminist knows this. True, she has technically not used the expression x P(x), which in predicate logic denotes the universal quantification of the atomic formula P(x), which, rendered into colloquial English language, means For all x, P(x) holds“, “ for each x, P(x) holds“ or “ for every x, P(x) holds“. She has not technically used a universal quantifier and has technically not said „P(x) is true for every object x in the universe [of course].“ But she knows that her phraseology must be ordinarily interpreted this way when used colloquially.

Indeed, she knows full well that if someone were to say „women are trash,“ that the individual is a misogynist who intends to indicate that literally all women are trash, and that it would be disingenuous at best, abusive at worst, for such a person to deny having done so.

Thus, she accuses you personally of being trash and becomes upset, even indignant, when you insist that you are not, denying that she ever said such a thing. The term „gas-lighting“ itself comes from the 1944 Alfred Hitchcock movie Gas Light, in which one of the characters tries to drive his wife insane in order to distract her from his criminal behavior. Gregory (the man engaging in the abuse) manipulates a gas light while at the same time insisting that the changes in the light are simply figments of her imagination. Likewise, Kiri Rupiah accuses males individually of being trash while denying that she has done so in the same breath, and derails the male’s indignation at being disingenuously treated by herself derailing the issue., and she derails this issue precisely with pre-emptive accusations of derailing.

Das ist in der Tat eine sehr klassische Vorgehensweise im Feminismus. Wer sich wehrt, der „verteidigt toxische Männlichkeit“ und arbeitet ihr damit zu. Wer sich nicht wehrt, der gesteht ein, dass Männer toxisch sind.

Es wird dann in dem im ganzen lesenswerten Text weiter an dem Text erläutert. Das Fazit:

Next time, a feminist tells you that „men are trash,“ insist on piercing to the root of the issue at hand by opening up a DSM-V reading the symptoms of borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. Explain to them that, statistically, it is overwhelmingly such psychologically abnormal males who engage in the most hideous violence against women, rather than „patriarchy“ which socializes men into such behavior. Indeed, it is not because of socialization into a rape culture that men rape, but because the minority of men who are rapists are constitutionally defective in such a way that makes adequate socialization problematic. Next, discuss frankly with them the possibility that they themselves exhibit such tendencies. I guarantee that this will make the conversation much more interesting. Moral of the story: Women who say „men are trash,“ are trash.

Es dürfte die Unterhaltung üblicherweise auch sehr kurz machen, da sie blocken oder das Gespräch anderweitig beenden wird.