Über Dog n Cat habe ich erfahren, dass Girlwriteswhat einen weiteren Kommentar auf ein klassisches Argument geschrieben hat, welchen ich auch ganz interessant finde:
You’re right. The stuff people are doing under the veil of feminism is disgusting. People are pushing female rights, true. But some are pushing way too far to usurp male rights, which is wrong. Like all the examples you’ve given.
They are not doing these things under the veil of feminism. Feminists are doing these things under the veil of „being about equality“.
In der Tat wird da gerne gesagt, dass da leider nur einige Leute unter dem Label des Feminismus radikale Ideen ausleben, tatsächlich ist das, was dort gesagt wird, aber fest in die gegenwärtig vorherrschende feministische Theorie, die intersektionalen Theorien, eingebettet.
This is something people sometimes find very difficult to understand. Feminism is not just its dictionary definition. I mean, not to go all Godwin, but in the 1930s, I bet the German dictionary definition of Nazi was: „a member of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. Planks in the party platform include discouraging smoking, universal state-funded health care, a strong economy and promoting civic responsibility.“
And no, I’m not saying feminists are equivalent to Nazis. I’m demonstrating how a dictionary definition can be incomplete, and what is left out of that definition can actually be the most important part of it.
Zum Rückzug auf die Wörterbuchdefinition habe ich hier auch schon mal etwas geschrieben. Ergänzend dazu: Eigentlich erstaunlich, dass gerade Leute, die Denken, dass Sprache und das Geschriebene auch Ausdruck gesellschaftlicher Macht sind und gleichzeitig Kampagnen organisieren, die von allen Tageszeitungen und sonstigen Medien aufgegriffen werden, bei nicht genehmen Definitionen direkt einen Shitstorm lostreten würden, und damit natürlich auch Macht haben, so etwas überhaupt unreflektiert in den Raum stellen. Aber in ihrer Vorstellung haben sie natürlich auch keine Macht, können sie ja nicht.
To understand feminism as a movement, you have to understand the theories. Perhaps in their minds, even the very bad ones are advocating equality, but this is based on a very skewed worldview. Feminism’s grand, unifying theory is „the patriarchy“, and they have spent a lot of time and effort describing what they think it is, how they think it operates and who they believe is ultimately harmed by it.
Patriarchy is basically just a bastardized marxist model where „bourgeoisie“ is replaced with „men“ and „proletariat“ is replaced with „women“. If you were to take the Declaration of Sentiments of 1848, arguably the first feminist political manifesto, and replace „bourgeoisie/proletariat“ with „men/women“, it would read like the simple „oppressor/oppressed“ model of class conflict on which marxism is based.
While I do think there is some value to the marxist model when it comes to things like class and even race (in terms of explaining how things work), the male/female gender system simply doesn’t work that way.
Ich will damit gar nicht die Diskussion von gestern wieder aufwärmen und verweise insofern nur darauf, dass sie anführt, dass sie es bastardisiertes Modell bezeichnet, und nicht als direkte Umsetzung der marxistischen Theorien.
Both men and women have more consistently positive feelings of affiliation for women than for men, for instance. This is not the case when it comes to race or class, is it?
Das wäre in der Tat schon ein ganz wesentlicher Unterschied, das Geschlechterverhältnis ist in vielen Bereichen kein Nullsummenspiel, sondern ein kooperatives Spiel, auch wenn sie gleichzeitig in vielen Bereichen aufgrund der unterschiedlichen Interessen in Probleme beraten.
Anyway, the body of feminist theories describe how the world works, at least in terms of the relationship between men and women within society. I can tell you right now, the theory is complete hooey. It’s based on incomplete information, emotional reasoning and all kinds of cognitive biases.
For instance, feminists claim that violence against women is a global epidemic. Why? Because 1 in 3 women, at some point in their lives, will be physically or sexually assaulted. The numbers for men are higher. I expect that at least 2 in 3 men have been punched in the face at some point before they die. Feminists claim that for women it’s different. As the oppressed group, women are singled out for violence because they are women, and because „patriarchy“ condones and normalizes violence against women.
zu häuslicher Gewalt hatten wir hier schon verschiedenste Artikel:
But then, you ask, why when a village is being attacked are the men expected to die defending the women? Why do we even have a Violence Against Women Act, if we live in a patriarchy that condones and normalizes violence against women? Why is it that, no matter whether the perpetrator is male or female, violence is more likely to be perpetrated against a male, all the way back to toddlerhood when mothers start hitting their sons 2 to 3 times as often as their daughters? If patriarchy normalizes violence against women, and we live in a patriarchy, how do you explain the entire canon of western literature, where the villain can be instantly identified by his willingness to hurt women, and the hero by his willingness to avenge them?
In der Tat interessante Fragen. Ich vermute mal Feministinnen würden sie mit einer Mischung aus „Das Patriarchat schadet eben auch Männern“ und „internalisierter Sexismus“ beantworten.
Why, within English Common Law centuries prior to Blackstone’s Commentaries, were married women ensured the „security of the peace“ against their husbands, enforceable through courts of equity? Why are there hundreds of years’s worth of cases of abused women seeking redress from the courts, and hundreds of years‘ worth of court decisions sentencing batterers to public flogging and other punishments? Didn’t you feminists tell us all in the 1960s that up until you guys came along, wife-battering was not only legal, but perfectly acceptable?
Why, when a man is hit by a woman, do people mostly ignore it, but the moment he defends himself, all of a sudden everyone’s concerned enough to intervene? Why are men called upon to be the protectors of women, when writing laws, when enforcing them, and even when acting as bystanders? How, in my grandfather’s time, could a man find himself punched in the face by male bystanders for using vulgarity in front of a woman, let alone laying his hands on one?
In der Tat ist weitaus eher Gewalt gegen Männer sanktionslos. Zum einen sicherlich auch aus dem Gedanken, dass sie da weniger bedrohlich ist und er sich ja wehren könnte.
You have to realize, all of their views about violence against women (that it’s condoned and normalized) are filtered through that oppressor/oppressed model.
Diese ganz klare Rollenverteilung ist in der Tat interessant für eine Theorie, die sich gleichzeitig darauf beruft, dass sie Rollen aufbrechen will.
To them, a man hitting his wife is someone powerful hitting someone with no power. A woman hitting her husband is the violence of the oppressed, and therefore justified as a form of self-defence (even if he has never laid a finger on her). As such, it isn’t really violence. It’s as contextually different as a slave flogged by his master for failing to pick enough cotton is from a master beaten up by his slave during an escape attempt. The former is an atrocity, and the latter is justice, and feminists vehemently believe that women are historically the equivalent of slaves and men the equivalent of masters. (Which is beyond absurd, considering that even the slave codes of England and France had provisions written into them protecting female slaves, but not male ones, from the most extreme forms of violent punishment and abuse.)
Auch ein interessanter Vergleich. Aber aus diesem Gedanken kommt letztendlich auch der Grundsatz, dass Männer nicht diskriminiert werden können, sie haben ja die Macht.
This is why despite the fact that women are the least likely demographic in society to be victims of violence (and that includes children), and even though have their own special laws protecting them from violence (in most countries, not just the west), feminists are consumed by the false notion that violence against women is normalized and condoned by society.
Ja, so gut wie alles kann in eine Unterdrückung der Frau umgewandelt werden, selbst Vorteile, die dann eben auch nur Nachteile sind, weil Frauen dadurch in ihrer Rolle bleiben.
And this is why they have consistently suppressed any and all data regarding spousal and sexual violence against males, especially when perpetrated by women. Since 1971, when the first data was publicized that women were as likely to be violent in their relationships as men were. Since 1979, when the first major peer-reviewed study was done on intimate partner violence that asked the same questions of men and women, and resulted in gender symmetry. Since later studies that definitively demonstrated that domestic violence almost never has anything to do with „patriarchal notions of masculine dominance and the subjugation of women,“ and is more often a function of generational violence, substance abuse, poor coping skills, mental illness and inadequate conflict resolution skills on the part of both men and women who are violent with their partners. Since other studies found that lesbian relationships have the highest incidence of partner violence (including sexual violence), and gay male partnerships the least.
Ja, die Faktenresistenz im Feminismus ist schon erstaunlich. Man muss dort entweder in einer Filterblase leben oder alle Gegenargumente von vorneherein abtun, damit man die Meinung nicht gefährdet
That information cannot be assimilated into the theories they’ve constructed. Many of them are true believers in „patriarchy theory“. Others are too deeply invested in it to entertain contrary data–if you’d spent your life devoted to a theory of society, earned power, status, respect and a cushy position at a university based on it, would you be willing to admit you were wrong, even if deep down you knew you were? Would you be willing to not only give that up, but face the public scorn of having essentially been exposed as a crackpot?
Das ist das Problem des „Berufsfeminismus“ und des Umstandes, dass jede Abweichung damit auch gleichzeitig bedeutet, dass man ausgestoßen wird und damit in der Szene erhebliche Nachteile hat. Wer kritisiert ist der Feind, wie bei vielen radikalen Glaubensgemeinschaften.
More than this, would you be willing to admit you had caused so much harm? Wouldn’t it be easier psychologically, on some level, to keep on believing? When you see a study that says when men call police for help when their wives are attacking them, they’re more likely to be arrested than assisted, and you were partly responsible for making that happen, wouldn’t it be easier to say, „he was actually the abuser, he got what he deserved“ than, „holy shit, what if I was wrong and hundreds or even thousands of abuse victims have been arrested instead of helped“?
Die versunkenen Kosten sind sehr hoch., aber eben auch die Folgekosten eines Sinneswandels. Es bleibt häufig gar nichts anderes übrig als stur dabei zu bleiben und Gegenargumente abzutun. Gerne wird man an diesem Punkt der Erkenntnis in einer Diskussion auch geblockt.
And I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but feminism has never been a noble movement for equality. As I said, from the Declaration of Sentiments onward, it’s been tainted with a false model of how the world works.
I have no doubt that even many of the most radical feminists honestly believe they’re advocating for equality. But in the objective sense, this is simply not true. They’ve misdiagnosed the problem, ignored half the symptoms, and are applying a cure that is worse than the disease.
Fasst es ganz gut zusammen.