RadFems vs intersektionale Feministen

Einige hier werden mitbekommen haben, dass an der Humbold Uni in Berlin ein Vortrag darüber gehalten werden sollte, dass es in der Biologie nur zwei Geschlechter gibt. Dieser wurde dann nach Protesten von intersektionalen Feministen abgesagt, was wieder zu Protesten führte, dazu auf heftigen Diskussionen auf Twitter.

Hier ein Bericht:

Viel Aufregung hatte es am Wochenende um die kurzfristige Absage eines Vortrags zum Thema Sex und Gender an der Berliner HU gegeben. Nun hat die Uni einen neuen Termin für die Veranstaltung angesetzt – allerdings in anderer Form.

Die Humboldt-Universität will einen abgesagten umstrittenen Vortrag nachholen. Der Sprecher der Universität, Boris Nitzsche, sagte dem rbb am Montag, der Vortrag solle nun am 14. Juli stattfinden. Ursprünglich war er als Teil der „Langen Nacht der Wissenschaften“ geplant.

Die Biologin und Doktorandin an der HU, Marie Vollbrecht, hatte den Vortrag mit dem Titel „Geschlecht ist nicht (Ge)schlecht, Sex, Gender und warum es in der Biologie zwei Geschlechter gibt“ halten wollen. Der „Arbeitskreis kritischer Jurist*innen an der Humboldt-Uni Berlin“ hatte im Vorfeld zu Protesten aufgerufen. In einer Mitteilung hieß es, die Biologin Marie-Luise Vollbrecht wolle in dem Vortrag queer- und genderfeindliche Thesen verbreiten.

Auch ein Gegenprotest war angemeldet worden. Daraufhin sagte die Uni den Vortrag am Samstag kurzfristig unter dem Hinweis auf Sicherheitsbedenken ab. Vollbrecht erklärte gegenüber dem rbb, es sei wissenschaftliches Grundwissen, dass es nur zwei biologische Geschlechter gebe. Biologische Tatsachen seien unabhängig von Genderfragen zu sehen.

Die Sprecherin der „kritischen Jurist*innen“ sagte dem rbb, die Biologin Vollbrecht wolle in diesem Vortrag eine These vermitteln, die in der Wissenschaft überholt sei und zudem Anfeindungen gegen transsexuelle Menschen einen seriösen Anstrich gebe. „Allerdings forscht sie gar nicht zu dem Thema und stellt eine Meinung als gegeben dar, die dem breiten wissenschaftlichen Konsens gerade widerspricht. Wir als kritische Jurist*innen haben dementsprechend Samstag auch für die wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse der letzten Jahrzehnte eingestanden“, so die Sprecherin.

Vollbrecht selber sagte der rbb24 Abendschau am Sonntag, ihr gehe es in dem Vortrag nicht um Politik, sondern nur um Biologie. Die Biologin war kürzlich als Co-Autorin eines umstrittenen Kommentars in der „Welt“ [Bezahlinhalt] aufgefallen. Darin wurde dem öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk unter anderem wegen eines Erklärvideos der „Sendung mit der Maus“ zum Thema Transgender [wdrmaus.de] die Indoktrination von Kindern und eine ideologische Betrachtungsweise vorgeworfen. Ein Beitrag, der vom Springer-Vorstandsvorsitzenden Matthias Döpfner als „intolerant, herablassend und ressentimentgeladen, wissenschaftlich bestenfalls grob einseitig“ bezeichnet wurde.

Die Humboldt-Universität erklärte, der Vortrag werde im Rahmen einer Diskussionsrunde nachgeholt. Dabei solle danach gefragt werden, wie man mit solchen aufgeladenen Situationen und polarisierenden Fragestellungen umgehen könne. Einerseits müsse die freie Rede der Wissenschaftler gesichert werden, andererseits sei aber auch legitimer Protest wichtig.

Der Präsident des Deutschen Hochschulverbands, Bernhard Kempen, hatte die Absage zuvor scharf kritisiert. Die Universität habe der Wissenschaftsfreiheit einen Bärendienst erwiesen, sagte Kempen am Montag der Deutschen Presse-Agentur. „Sie hätte stattdessen Rückgrat beweisen sollen und alles daran setzen müssen, dass der Vortrag stattfinden kann“, so Kempen. Universitäten seien Stätten geistiger Auseinandersetzung, so Kempen. „Hier muss jede Wissenschaftlerin und jeder Wissenschaftler ihre und seine Forschungsergebnisse, Thesen und Ansichten ohne Angst zur Diskussion stellen können.

Soweit es die Biologie betrifft würde ich wenig überraschend Frau Vollbrecht zustimmen. Interessanterweise ist sie allerdings ansonsten eine RadFem, eine radikale Feministin. 

Zwischen diesen und den intersektionalen Feministen wird gerade ein erbitterter Kampf geführt. Die unterschiedlichen Ansichten lassen sich nach meiner Ansicht wie folgt zusammen fassen:

Radfems:

• Es gibt Männer und Frauen, Frauen sind Opfer der Männer und Männer sind insbesondere im sexuelle Bereich eine Gefahr für Frauen. Es ist im wesentlichen ein klassischer sexfeindlicher Feminismus.
• Weiblichkeit ist etwas gutes und beschützenswertes, eine positive Identität, die dort gerne gelebt wird, insbesondere in der „befreiten“ kämpferischen  feministischen Version
• Das Patriarchat ist der Gegner, alle die irgendwie gegen ihre Ideen stehen sind deshalb Verräterinnen an das Patriarchat oder irgendwie das Patriarchat
• Aus dem Gedanken heraus sind Transsexuelle, gerade solche, die in „weibliche Schutzräume eindringen wollen“ ein Angriff auf die weibliche Identität und ein Versuch des Patriarchats Frauen die Schutzräume zu nehmen und sie damit sexualisierter Gewalt auszusetzen
• Lustigerweise werden in diesen Kreisen daher die Befürworter intersektionaler Theorien in Bezug auf Transsexuelle auch gerne als Männerrechtler bezeichnet, weil eben die Transsexuellen in dem Kontext als Männer wahrgenommen werden, die Frauen die Schutzräume nehmen wollen und damit Männerrechtle vertreten

intersekionale Feministin:

• Es gibt nur Identitäten, keine festen Geschlechter. Eine Begrenzung auf zwei Geschlechter würde den anderen Identitäten ihren Wert und ihre Berechtigungen absprechen
• Ein M->F Transsexueller ist kein Mann, sondern eine Frau. Demnach kann sie auch keine andere Gefahr darstellen als eine sonstige Frau. 
• Wer Transfrauen nicht akzeptiert ist ein TERF und damit Satan

Also ein erheblicher Grabenkampf innerhalb des Feminismus. Und keine der beiden Seiten ist letztendlich eine Seite, der man den Sieg wünscht. 

„Warum liberale weiße Frauen viel Geld bezahlen, um beim Abendessen zu lernen, dass sie rassistisch sind“

Ein interessanter Artikel zu einem kostspieligen Event:

A growing number of women are paying to confront their privilege – and racism – at dinners that cost $2,500

Freshly made pasta is drying on the wooden bannisters lining the hall of a beautiful home in Denver, Colorado. Fox-hunting photos decorate the walls in a room full of books. A fire is burning. And downstairs, a group of liberal white women have gathered around a long wooden table to admit how racist they are.

“Recently, I have been driving around, seeing a black person, and having an assumption that they are up to no good,” says Alison Gubser. “Immediately after I am like, that’s no good! This is a human, just doing their thing. Why do I think that?”

This is Race to Dinner. A white woman volunteers to host a dinner in her home for seven other white women – often strangers, perhaps acquaintances. (Each dinner costs $2,500, which can be covered by a generous host or divided among guests.)

Das wären also Kosten von 2500 : 8= 312,50 € pro Person, wenn man es aufteilt.

A frank discussion is led by co-founders Regina Jackson, who is black, and Saira Rao, who identifies as Indian American.

Das ist ja eine interessante Unterscheidung. Die eine ist schwarz, die andere „identifiziert sich als Indisch-amerikanisch“.  Saira Rao ist eine typische intersektionale Feministin, die auf Twitter so radikal auftritt, dass man meint, sie ist ein Satireaccount. Aber sie ist echt.

They started Race to Dinner to challenge liberal white women to accept their racism, however subconscious. “If you did this in a conference room, they’d leave,” Rao says. “But wealthy white women have been taught never to leave the dinner table.”

Rao and Jackson believe white, liberal women are the most receptive audience because they are open to changing their behavior. They don’t bother with the 53% of white women who voted for Trump. White men, they feel, are similarly a lost cause. “White men are never going to change anything. If they were, they would have done it by now,” Jackson says.

White women, on the other hand, are uniquely placed to challenge racism because of their proximity to power and wealth, Jackson says. “If they don’t hold these positions themselves, the white men in power are often their family, friends and partners.”

Sie haben es wahrscheinlich auch gestartet, weil es nach einer guten Möglichkeit klingt Geld zu verdienen. Wenn man sagen wir 500 € für Essen etc abzieht, dann bleiben immer noch 1.000 € für jede.

Aber in der ideologischen Begründung klingt es eben besser. Lustigerweise wird es so sein, dass viele der Frauen zum Bezahlen das Geld des Mannes verwenden.

It seems unlikely anyone would voluntarily go to a dinner party in which they’d be asked, one by one, “What was a racist thing you did recently?” by two women of color, before appetizers are served. But Jackson and Rao have hardly been able to take a break since they started these dinners in the spring of 2019. So far, 15 dinners have been held in big cities across the US.

Da wird die Frage angesprochen, was das für die die Frauen bringt. Der Artikel „Luxury Beliefs are Status Symbols“, den ich auch gern noch mal im Ganzen besprechen möchte, wenn ich dazu komme, stellt es ganz gut dar:

The chief purpose of luxury beliefs is to indicate evidence of the believer’s social class and education.

Members of the luxury belief class promote these ideas because it advances their social standing and because they know that the adoption of these policies or beliefs will cost them less than others.

Advocating for defunding the police or promoting the belief we are not responsible for our actions are good ways of advertising membership of the elite.

Why are affluent people more susceptible to luxury beliefs? They can afford it. And they care the most about status.

Jeder kann zu irgendeinem Talk gehen oder ein Buch über die Schlechtigkeit Weißer lesen. Aber damit seine Freundinnen zu einem 2.500 € Essen einzuladen, damit sie ihre Schuld als Weiße darstellen, kann man deutlich machen, dass man ein Mitglied der Oberschicht ist und deren Luxusmeinungen anhängt. Dazu noch ein paar Stunden darüber reden, was man alles an kleineren Rassismen gemacht hat, dann wieder wie nach einem Beichtgebet die Vergebung der Sünden erfahren, dass muss man sich eben leisten können.

 

If you did this in a conference room, they’d leave…But wealthy white women have been taught never to leave the dinner table.

The women who sign up for these dinners are not who most would see as racist. They are well-read and well-meaning. They are mostly Democrats. Some have adopted black children, many have partners who are people of color, some have been doing work towards inclusivity and diversity for decades. But they acknowledge they also have unchecked biases. They are there because they “know [they] are part of the problem, and want to be part of the solution,” as host Jess Campbell-Swanson says before dinner starts.

Denn einer Bewegung beizutreten, die die Gruppe angreift, der man selbst angehört, in dem Wissen, dass dieser Angriff für einen selbst ungefährlich ist, dass ist ein „Costly Signal“. Man muss es sich leisten können.

Campbell-Swanson comes across as an overly keen college student applying for a prestigious internship. She can go on for days about her work as a political consultant, but when it comes to talking about racism, she chokes.

“I want to hire people of color. Not because I want to be … a white savior. I have explored my need for validation … I’m working through that … Yeah. Um … I’m struggling,” she stutters, before finally giving up.

Also letzendlich die Entschuldigung, dass sie es nicht einfach so will, sondern nur um Virtue Signalling zu betreiben, bei einem 2500 Dollar essen, bei dem sie Virtue Signalling Punkte sammelt, indem sie darstellt, dass sie es noch nicht ganz raus hat, wirklich Leuten zu helfen, sondern virtue Signalling Punkte zu sammeln.

Across from Campbell-Swanson, Morgan Richards admits she recently did nothing when someone patronizingly commended her for adopting her two black children, as though she had saved them. “What I went through to be a mother, I didn’t care if they were black,” she says, opening a window for Rao to challenge her: “So, you admit it is stooping low to adopt a black child?” And Richards accepts that the undertone of her statement is racist.

Klingt nach einem netten Catch21. Hätte lieber sie weiße Kinder als schwarze Kinder adoptiert wäre sie natürlich ein Rassist gewesen. Dass sie schwarze Kinder adoptiert hat, sie aber auch rassistisch, denn so kann sie in dem Gefühl baden, dass sie schwarze Kinder gerettet hat.

As more confessions like this are revealed, Rao and Jackson seem to press those they think can take it, while empathizing with those who can’t. “Well done for recognizing that,” Jackson says, to soothe one woman. “We are all part of the problem. We have to get comfortable with that to become part of the solution.”

Carbonara is heaped on to plates, and a sense of self-righteousness seems to wash over the eight white women. They’ve shown up, admitted their wrongdoing and are willing to change. Don’t they deserve a little pat on the back?

Natürlich nicht. Nicht an einem solchen Essen teilzunehmen, kein Untaten einzugestehen und keinen Willen zum Wechseln zu haben ist rassistisch. Aber all dies zu tun ist natürlich auch rassistisch, weil man meint, dass man etwas gutes getan hat, aber immer noch ein Rassist ist.

A copy of the book White Fragility. The participants are required to read it before attending the dinner. Photograph: Rebecca Stumpf/The Guardian

Das Bringt einen wenigstens gleich in die richtige Stimmung und man muss die Basics nicht mehr erklären.

Erika Righter raises her tattooed forearm to her face, in despair of all of the racism she’s witnessed as a social worker, then laments how a white friend always ends phone calls with “Love you long time”.

“And what is your racism, Erika?” Rao interrupts, refusing to let her off the hook. The mood becomes tense. Another woman adds: “I don’t know you, Erika. But you strike me as being really in your head.Everything I’m hearing is from the neck up.”

Righter, a single mother, retreats before defending herself: “I haven’t read all the books. I’m new to this.”

Oh, sie kennt die „Luxus Überzeugungen“ nicht. Sie beschuldigt andere, nicht sich selbst. Ein Fauxpax. Es geht darum eigene Schuld zu erkennen, weil man es sich leisten kann und es letztendlich für einen keine Konsequenzen hat. Am besten eine kleine Schuld, zu groß wäre auch nicht gut. Um so kleiner sie ist, um so eher kann man Punkte dafür bekommen, dass man senibel genug ist sie wahrzunehmen. „Ich bin ein Sünder, mea culpa, mea Culpa mea maxima Culpa *klatsch*“ ist ja ein durchaus ein altes Konzept. Aber auch die Mönche hatten ja nicht tatsächlich ein sündiges Leben geführt.

A lot of people hate Saira Rao.

“The American flag makes me sick,” read a recent tweet of hers. Another: “White folks – before telling me that your Indian husband or wife or friend or colleague doesn’t agree with anything I say about racism or thinks I’m crazy, please Google ‘token,’ ‘internalized oppression’ and ‘gaslighting’.”

She wasn’t always this confrontational, she says. Her “awakening” began recently.

After Rao’s mother died unexpectedly a few years ago, she moved to Denver from New York to be around her best friends – a group of mostly white women from college. She wasn’t new to being the only person of color, but she was surprised to notice how they would distance themselves whenever she’d talk frankly about race.

Then, fuelled by anger at Trump’s election after she’d campaigned tirelessly for Hillary Clinton, Rao ran for Congress in 2018 against a Democratic incumbent on ananti-racist manifesto,and criticized the “pink-pussy-hat-wearing” women of the Democratic party. It was during this campaign Rao met Jackson, who works in real estate. Jackson recalls her initial impressions of Rao as “honest, and willing to call a thing a thing”.

Sie hat sich benommen wie die Axt im Walde, allen Rassismus vorgehalten und sich dann gewundert, wenn ein Echo zurückkommt. Hier mal ein Tweet von ihr:

This country is a racist transphobic homophobic xenophobic ableist classist Islamophobic misogynistic dumpster fire.

As such, seeing the American flag makes me want to vomit.

— saira rao (@sairasameerarao) June 22, 2022

Short and long answer: YES.
Should I Give Up on White People? nyti.ms/2qCiRof—
saira rao (@sairasameerarao) July 05, 2018

 

 

 

It’s that brashness that led to Race for Dinner. Rao is done with affability. “I’d spent years trying to get through to white women with coffees and teas – massaging them, dealing with their tears, and I got nowhere. I thought, if nothing is going to work, let’s try to shake them awake.”

The genesis of Race to Dinner wasn’t straightforward. Months after a dinner discussion about race with a white friend of Jackson’s went south, Rao bumped into that friend, who had started reading Reni Eddo-Lodge’s Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race.

“She told me that the dinner had changed everything for her, and asked if we could do another,” says Rao. The friend invited other guests, Rao reluctantly agreed, then hated that second dinner, too. But then white women began flooding her inbox asking her to do it again.

In the beginning, Rao’s dinner-party tone was much more argumentative. But it left her looking less like a human and more like some kind of real-life trolling bot. Women at the dinners were always crying. Some of those dinners got out of hand – attendees have tried to place their hands on Jackson and Rao, and racial slurs have been thrown around.

Es hat sich also erst nach und nach herausgestellt, wie sie die Dinger kommerziell am besten vermarktet. Sie hat erst nicht verstanden, dass man für seine Luxury Beliefs nicht wirklich zum Weinen gebracht werden will, nicht wirklich Schuldig sein will oder sich schlecht fühlen will. Man will nur signalisieren, dass man sich diese Ideologie leisten kann und sich besser fühlen, weil man sich von Schuld befreit hat.

“My blood pressure went up. I’d work myself up into a frenzy at every dinner. I realized [that] if I walk away feeling I am going to have a stroke, we should try a different tactic,” Rao says.

I’d work myself into a frenzy. I realized: if I walk away feeling I’m going to have a stroke, we should try a different tactic

Susan Brown attended one of those earlier dinners. She says she felt like Rao and Jackson were angry at her the whole time, without ever learning why. She found Rao needlessly provocative and mean-spirited, unaware of her own class privilege, and divisive. She felt the dinner set her up to fail.

Another previous attendee, who did not want to be named, says she found Rao to be dogmatic, and presented a distorted depiction of history, leaving out facts that do not fit her narrative. At one point, she referred to Rao as “the Trump of the alt-left”.

Zu radikal ist eben das Problem. Sie glaubt ihre radikalen Theorien wirklich und hat noch nicht verstanden, dass es darum gar nicht geht. Sie verkauft Klassenzugehörigkeit und denkt, dass die Leute sich ändern wollen.

But even for those who complained, something has changed. Brown read White Fragility – a book released last year that posits every person partakes to some degree in racism and needs to confront that – and realized many of the things she was commending herself for needed to be re-evaluated. The book is now assigned reading for women before they can attend a dinner.

The woman who compared Rao to Trump went to a city council meeting to speak up about the death of a young black man in her area. She attributes that specifically to Jackson’s call for solidarity.

Erika Righter and host, Jessica Campbell-Swanson debrief at the end of the night. Photograph: Rebecca Stumpf/The Guardian

In recent months, Jackson and Rao changed the model. They didn’t want to just have women rely on them to shout at them for being racist and then go home.

“We began to expect more of them,” says Rao. That meant asking the women to speak up. To own their racism. It meant getting them to do the required reading, as well as follow-up discussions, where they decide how to do better anti-racist work.

Also eben mehr ein Wohlfühlelement statt Angriffe und Vorwürde.

In the conversation that followed the dinner, Campbell-Swanson, who couldn’t get her racist thoughts out, committed to writing a journal, jotting down daily decisions or thoughts that could be considered racist, and think about how to approach them differently.

Lisa Bond, who was hired because Rao and Jackson thought there would be instances when participants would feel more comfortable expressing their feelings to another white woman, says this will help her see how unmonitored thoughts can lead to systemic racism. “If our ability to spot these things increases, our ability to challenge it will increase,” says Bond.

„wie unkontrollierte Gedanken zu systemischem Rassismus führen können“. Big Brother is watching you.

Bond says about 65% of participants engage meaningfully in post-dinner conversations with her. But weren’t these women already doing the work? Don’t they want to speak to those women who have no intention of challenging themselves?

“There are so many people worse than us,” says Bond. “I have gotten to the point where I no longer try to pay attention to what someone else is doing. I don’t talk about the 53% [who voted for Trump] because I’m not one of them.”

Ah, die anderen sind Schlechter, ein Teil der Absolution ist schon da.

What is in her power, she says, is forcing herself to talk to her sister, who did vote for Trump, even when it gets difficult. She emphasizes this work has to continue, no matter who is president.

“If Trump were impeached tomorrow and we got a new president, a lot of white liberal people will go back to living their lives just as before, and that’s what we have to prevent,” she says. “All that’s happened is we can see racism now, while before we could cover it up.That’s why we need these dinners. So when we get a new person in and racism is not as obvious, we won’t just crawl back to being comfortable.”

Wir brauchen diese Dinner, damit wir bei einer neuen Person – nicht bei uns, wir sind ja gut – erkennen, was rassistisch ist, damit er uns nicht ansteckt bzw nicht einfach denkt, dass er vom gleichen Stand ist. Wir als Antirassisten sind durch unsere Einsichten weiter aufgestiegen.
Luxus Überzeugungen zum Statusgewinn eben.

Schau dieses Video, wenn du nicht 🏳️‍🌈 bist | AUF KLO

„Woher nehmen sich die angeblich Unterdrückten und Marginalisierten eigentlich das Recht, allen anderen Vorschriften zu machen? Normalerweise steht dieses Recht nur den Privilegierten zu.“

Adrian schreibt auf Twitter:

Der @allesevolution sollte einen Artikel daraus machen ☝️

— 🐧Schwulemiker🐧 (@Schwulemiker) June 3, 2022

Also die Frage nochmal:

Woher nehmen sich die angeblich Unterdrückten und Marginalisierten eigentlich das Recht, allen anderen Vorschriften zu machen? Normalerweise steht dieses Recht nur den Privilegierten zu.

Die intersektionale Antwort wäre vermutlich:

Wir haben das Recht Änderungen zu fordern, weil wir für Gerechtigkeit sind und eine bessere Welt. Nur mit unseren Änderungen wird die Welt für alle besser, das Patriarchat etc schadet eben auch Männern etc.  Erst wenn die ungerechten Privilegien beseitigt worden sind wird die Welt gut. Das unsere Vorschläge gerecht sind und die Welt besser machen ist im übrigen nicht verhandelbar und wer es bestreitet ist ein Rassist/Sexist/sonstwasist

Ich nehme aber an, dass Adrian vielleicht eher darauf hinaus will, dass es mit einer Position der Unterdrückung gerade nicht zu vereinbaren ist, dass die intersektionalen Theorien so stark auftreten und in der Gesellschaft so viel Einfluss haben.

Das ist aus meiner Sicht gerade deswegen interessant, weil die Möglichkeit zu diskriminieren zB in den „Prejudice and Power“ Theorien an Macht festgemacht wird. Die Linke an sich sah sich schon immer gerne als Underdog, der für die Schwachen und Rechtlosen kämpft. Das ist immer dann problematisch, wenn man durch eine gewonnene Wahl in die Regierung kommt und dann plötzlich derjenige ist, der die Macht hat.

Das hat Beispielsweise bei der Schröder-Regierung zur Abspaltung der Linken geführt und auch bei den Grünen Grabenkämpfe zwischen Fundis und Realos ausgelöst. Neulich hat „Friday for Future“ der Regierung bestehend aus der SPD, den Grünen und der FDP mitgeteilt, dass nicht etwa Grüne Politiker auf der Demo mitlaufen sollten, sondern vielmehr diejenigen seien, gegen die sich die Proteste richten, weil sie eben jetzt an der Regierung sind und entscheiden können.

Der Wechsel in die Macht bringt daher einiges an Problemen mit sich, weil man plötzlich nicht mehr wilde Forderungen aufstellen kann, sondern tatsächlich Farbe bekennen muss was umsetzbar ist oder nicht.

Man könnte beispielsweise in den USA argumentieren, dass mit einem linken Präsidenten wie Biden und großen Unternehmen wie Google, Apple, Netflix und Disney auf ihrer Seite die intersektionalen Theorien Macht haben und könnte damit dann auch rechtfertigen, dass dann auch Leute diskriminiert werden können, die eine Hautfarbe haben, die innerhalb dieser Theorien als Zeichen für „Schlecht“ angesehen wird (also weiße).

Dagegen würde man wohl anführen, dass das keine Macht ist und relevant nur ist, ob eine bestimmte Gruppe Macht hat, die nach intersektionalen Theorien zu bestimmen ist, also etwa Schwarze und Transpersonen. Die wären aber nach wie vor nicht in der notwendigen Anzahl in Machtpositionen, da wären eben weiße alte Männer.

Der Einwand, dass weiße Personen, die intersektionalen Theorien anhängen, dann aber dennoch einen Machtfaktor darstellen können (zusammen mit den Anhängern, die nicht privilegiert sind nach diesen Theorien) und es nicht auf die Gruppe der Unterdrückten ankommt, würde dort vermutlich nicht akzeptiert werden. Weiße sollen Rassismus gegen Weiße ermöglichen? Das passt nicht in den Kampf der Hautfarben, der dort aufgebaut wird.

 

„Die Kluft zwischen Verfechtern sozialer Gerechtigkeit und der linken „Anti-Woke“-Gemeinschaft verstehen“

Ein Artikel stellt aus meiner Sicht ganz passend die „Woken“-Ansichten gemäßigten Ansichten gegenüber:

1. On offending others

Commonly Occurring Social Justice Advocate Views

• Offensive language – including discriminatory remarks, threats of violence, and jokes that play on reductive stereotypes – often harm others, can traumatize people, and can normalize prejudice against discriminated groups.

• When people make offensive remarks or act offensively without intending to, the lack of intent doesn’t necessarily reduce the harm they cause. Systematic exposure to offensive remarks and „microaggressions“ can further marginalize members of groups that are discriminated against, and cause serious negative effects over time.

• We should strive to reduce instances of offensive language by calling attention to it, educating ourselves on how our remarks and behavior can hurt others, boycotting individuals and institutions that endorse offensive language and, in some cases, banning, punishing or ostracizing those who are severely and/or routinely offensive.

Commonly Occurring Left-leaning Anti-Woke Views

• If someone is offended by a remark or a joke, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the speaker did something wrong (the problem might actually lie with the person who feels offended and their emotional responses). Lots of humor can be offensive to someone and we should not take such humor to mean that people are seriously advocating for a position that harms others.

• Interpreting interactions in terms of microaggressions has negative practical consequences, because it primes people to look for offensive language and behavior, rather than trusting that most people have good intentions. The resulting focus can produce more harm than good.

• „Canceling“ those that offend others may have substantial negative effects, including damaging a culture of open communication and debate, reducing exposure to diverse perspectives about the world, and preventing us from learning how to calmly engage with and refute the arguments of people we disagree with.

2. On who has the authority to speak about certain issues

Commonly Occurring Social Justice Advocate Views

• When it comes to speaking about the experiences of a particular marginalized group and how that group can be supported, the people within that group are the ones who have by far the most authority to do so; they have unique access to knowledge about the needs and issues of that group as a result of their group membership.

• People from outside a marginalized group cannot truly understand the lived experience of those within the group and should not be the ones deciding what is best for that group. Attempts by outsiders to explain what they think is best for that group are often naive, inaccurate, or reductive. When outsiders have had decision-making authority over marginalized groups historically, it has often lead to substantial harm.

• Society has consistently platformed white cisgender men at the expense of other people. In contrast, people of color have had their voices ignored for far too long in the U.S.; it is time to finally listen to them.

Commonly Occurring Left-leaning Anti-Woke Views

• We should be careful not to overestimate the degree to which people from a marginalized group have similar experiences or opinions on how society should change in order to accommodate them. Someone being a member of a marginalized group doesn’t automatically mean that person has good suggestions or ideas from improving the discrimination faced by that group. People from the same group often disagree with each other and we can’t think of one member of a group as speaking on behalf of that group.

• When it comes to speaking about the experiences of a particular marginalized group and how this community can be supported, anyone in society who has relevant expertise or information should be able to make suggestions, even if they are not themselves part of that group.

3. On group labels

Commonly Occurring Social Justice Advocate Views

• It is important to recognize the group status of individuals as this helps us better understand the social experiences and explain any discrimination that, for example, people-of-color, women, or trans people might face. Identifying group membership is useful in our efforts to protect these groups from discrimination.

Commonly Occurring Left-leaning Anti-Woke Views

• Too much focus on grouping people by shared social experience (or another feature of their identity) creates artificial distinctions that might actually increase the likelihood of some groups facing discrimination. While it can occasionally be useful to talk about group membership, what matters is that all individuals are able to flourish regardless of their group status, and this should be our focus (rather than focusing on improving society for certain groups).

4. On diversity

Commonly Occurring Social Justice Advocate Views

• Having people from diverse sets of backgrounds (including gender, race, ethnicity, class, and sexuality) makes institutions more likely to function fairly, takes the needs of everyone into account, helps rectify historical injustice, and helps groups come up with more creative solutions to problems.

Commonly Occurring Left-leaning Anti-Woke Views

• While racial, ethic, and gender diversity is helpful to correctly represent everyone’s views, diversity of thought is just as important. Additionally, diversity of thought and ideas is not necessarily correlated with having a diverse set of backgrounds; focusing on the latter is less likely to result in institutions that have genuinely diverse problem-solving approaches, maximal creativity, and fair outcomes. An overemphasis on a social justice oriented philosophy tends to produce a narrow range of views, rather than diversity of thought.

5. On differences in outcome

Commonly Occurring Social Justice Advocate Views

• The fact that some groups have different outcomes in society (for example, earning less money or having less higher education) is a strong indication that systemic discrimination and societal or institutionalized prejudice has prevented members of these groups from having better outcomes in life.

• To improve outcomes for marginalized groups, we should use affirmative action to correct for the prejudice in systems that have typically favored people from privileged groups or required qualifications that are only accessible to those with privileged backgrounds. Abandoning standardized tests may also help reduce outcome inequality. Changes like these are a starting point to help make up for past discrimination that has held some groups back.

Commonly Occurring Left-leaning Anti-Woke Views

• The fact that some groups have different outcomes in society is not always explained by systemic discrimination and societal prejudice. For instance, a difference in outcomes might sometimes be explained by different interests, attributes, or culture. While prejudice is real and still produces many negative consequences, we need to remember to look for additional explanations.

• There are many valid forms of success, and we shouldn’t assume that one person’s version of success will match another person’s version, and that’s okay (e.g., if a particular woman makes less than a particular man because of her true, uncoerced preference is to stay at home and raise children, there is nothing wrong with that).

• Using affirmative action can backfire by leading some to believe that people who have been admitted to a particular institution are only there based on their group identity (as opposed to their merits). It is good for institutions to take into account the hardship that people face when considering their applications, but hardship doesn’t always follow from, for example, having membership to a particular racial group.

6. On cultural appropriation

Commonly Occurring Social Justice Advocate Views

• Appropriating clothing, behaviors or customs of a marginalized group can be harmful for several reasons, including: (1) it allows already privileged groups to benefit financially and socially off of the labor, culture and ideas of the originators of those ideas (without benefiting those creators), and (2) it fails to take into account the significance that some outfits or practices have in their original cultures, trivializing their original meaning. Cultural appropriation causes harm to marginalized groups.

Commonly Occurring Left-leaning Anti-Woke Views

• Most instances of people dressing or acting in a way that has been associated with a marginalized group is just people appreciating that particular culture, and we should not see that as inherently negative. We are all better off if we adopt those practices and customs that we find beneficial.

• In many instances, people from marginalized groups aren’t offended by those who incorporate aspects of their culture and, in some instances, even encourage others to adopt aspects of their culture.

7. On complicity in discrimination

Commonly Occurring Social Justice Advocate Views

• Members of privileged groups (i.e., those who have more power in society based on their gender, race, or class) benefit from discrimination against other groups even when they themselves are not explicitly engaging in discrimination. Additionally, many members of privileged groups will have had ancestors that did explicitly engage in discriminatory practices.

• As a result of this complicity, members of privileged groups have an obligation to help rectify the wrongs done to the living members of marginalized groups, which includes helping to dismantle oppressive institutions and social systems. It is appropriate for people who do not act on this obligation to feel guilty.

• White supremacist culture is a prevalent and significant problem in U.S. society today, causing a great deal of harm to people of color.

Commonly Occurring Left-leaning Anti-Woke Views

• Most members of privileged groups are not responsible for the discrimination that is still present in our current societal structure, as they did not cause it. Nor are privileged individuals responsible for harmful actions their ancestors might have committed, since they were not alive at the time.

• While it is admirable and important for people to work to improve society for, and reduce discrimination against, marginalized groups, people do not have an obligation to work towards this, nor should they feel guilty merely because of belonging to a „powerful“ group.

8. On power structures in society

Commonly Occurring Social Justice Advocate Views

• Society is organized in a way that benefits particular identity groups at the expense of other identity groups; many of the laws, policies, and social norms we live with were set up and are maintained in order to serve those in power. Powerful people are deliberately trying to perpetuate systems of inequality within the U.S.

• Claims of „objectivity,“ „rationality,“ and „reason“ are sometimes used to argue in favor of what benefits those who are already in power, and to undermine or silence the voices of marginalized people who are not served by the way society currently operates.

• One helpful way to combat these systems of power and the people that maintain them is to disrupt the norms, knowledge systems, and processes that they use. This might sometimes include protesting and extreme activism.

Commonly Occurring Left-leaning Anti-Woke Views

• Given that the world is incredibly complex, people’s actions can often have unintended consequences and interact in unexpected ways. The best way to figure out what to do to improve society is to engage in rigorous debate about policies, with all reasonable perspectives being heard, and arguments and counterarguments being made.

9. On group generalizations

Commonly Occurring Social Justice Advocate Views

• The power dynamics of groups in society must be taken into account when considering whether a generalization is an instance of racism. If a person from a historically oppressed group believes that all white people are racist that is not itself necessarily a form of racism – the history between the two groups, and the asymmetry in power between them, must be taken into account.

Commonly Occurring Left-leaning Anti-Woke Views

• There is no difference between making generalizations about marginalized groups and generalizations about privileged groups when it comes to evaluating what is or is not racist; negative generalizations about entire groups are not helpful and should be avoided.

10. On national pride

Commonly Occurring Social Justice Advocate Views

• The United States was founded on a bedrock of prejudice and oppression, with mistreatment of women, Black people, and native communities baked in from the very beginning. U.S. citizens should not be proud of their roots.

Commonly Occurring Left-leaning Anti-Woke Views

• The United States played an incredibly unique and important role in history and has helped to improve the state of the world. America is far from perfect, and has participated in numerous injustices. Despite these terrible events, we should be proud of the many positive contributions made by the U.S., including it being the world’s longest standing modern representative democracy.

11. On historical figures

Commonly Occurring Social Justice Advocate Views

• Given that many people we celebrate today – for example, teaching young children about them or maintaining monuments in their honor – did terrible things, the appropriate response is to stop commemorating these individuals (for example, by removing their statues and renaming buildings). Continuing to make these individuals visible in society – even if we are not explicitly celebrating all of their actions – is harmful to those people whose ancestors were hurt by their actions.

Commonly Occurring Left-leaning Anti-Woke Views

• It is not fair to judge historical figures by our own moral standards; their behavior, while we may know it to be highly immoral, may have been entirely ordinary for their society at the time. We should teach both the good and the bad about historical figures that had an important role in society. We should commend them for their great achievements while not minimizing or ignoring their many flaws, which might mean continuing to maintain monuments erected in their honor.

12. On the meaning of gender

Commonly Occurring Social Justice Advocate Views

• Gender is a social construction that is separate from whether someone is biologically male or female (and even biological sex is not as binary as it is often assumed to be). Biological sex should not determine the social reality of individuals, like how they should dress, what pronouns they are able to use, or how they are treated in professional and non-professional settings.

Commonly Occurring Left-leaning Anti-Woke Views

• We should respect people’s gender identities, but it is harmful to pretend that there are no biological differences between males and females when we plainly can see such differences across most animal species, including humans. There are some important situations where we need to treat males and females differently (such as in medical environments: the probability and management of different diseases differs across the sexes ). Males and females are, of course, deserving of equal respect and treatment, but that is not the same as saying they are identical.

13. On the harm of cancel culture

Commonly Occurring Social Justice Advocate Views

• So-called „cancel culture“ – where members of the public attempt to ostracize a person in response to harmful or prejudiced behavior they have engaged in – occurs a lot less than is sometimes claimed in the media. And when it does occur, it is usually justified. Individuals that say they are „cancelled“ are often people that still possess a lot of power; they can find good jobs and live a fulfilling life, even if they have been criticized publicly or lost one particular job. It is right for people to stand up against those who act in harmful, prejudiced and offensive ways.

Commonly Occurring Left-leaning Anti-Woke Views

• Cancel culture often harms people unfairly. Justice is not best served by mobs harassing a person or trying to get them fired. When this is seen as an acceptable way to settle disputes, people become afraid to express reasonable opinions (fearing they will be misinterpreted and harassed). The best way to handle statements that you think are offensive or harmful is to make arguments against them, not to try to get the person that said them fired or ostracized. We need to make it safe for people to debate with each other, and we can’t trust anyone to be the arbiter of what ideas are „off limits“ – if we do that then eventually some of our own ideas will end up being off limits according to whoever happens to be in power at that moment.

Eine aus meine Sicht ganz gute Zusammenfassung und für mich klingen die „gemäßigten“ Theorien ganz überwiegend so viel logischer.

Warum man mit „woken“ nicht diskutieren kann

Eine eventuelle Antwort darauf, warum mit Anhängern intersektionaler Theorien so selten wirklich eine Diskussion entsteht:

Why the Woke are so difficult to discuss with: a theory.

The Woke are not predominantly in pursuit of truth. Nor are they predominantly in pursuit of improving society.

They are predominantly in pursuit of goodness. Of virtue.

//1

— The Woke Temple (@WokeTemple) November 26, 2021

 

 

That’s why The Woke often speak about what the government or "society" should do.

They rarely speak about what THEY are actually doing.

Why? Because by passionately holding these opinions, they can have goodness without any sacrifice. Virtue with no skin in the game.

//3

— The Woke Temple (@WokeTemple) November 26, 2021

Nochmal als Text:

Why the Woke are so difficult to discuss with: a theory. The Woke are not predominantly in pursuit of truth. Nor are they predominantly in pursuit of improving society. They are predominantly in pursuit of goodness. Of virtue.

Therefore, any challenge to their ideas is not simply a challenge to their ideas. It is a challenge to their goodness. And so they retaliate with a vengeance. It’s a theory, based on observations. Any thoughts?

That’s why The Woke often speak about what the government or „society“ should do. They rarely speak about what THEY are actually doing. Why? Because by passionately holding these opinions, they can have goodness without any sacrifice. Virtue with no skin in the game.

Here’s a meme I created to illustrate this point. By out jockeying each other about just how racist other people are (or society, “systemically”), they achieve goodness and virtue – with absolutely no sacrifice.

The old status systems were constructed around: Wealth – difficult to achieve Education & Ivy-league degrees – difficult to achieve Class – hard enough in the US, damn near impossible in the UK Accent – same again on the other hand…… Wokeness – available to anybody

In his new book “Woke Racism”,

@JohnHMcWhorter

discusses this. Wokeness simply means being aware of racism – both personal & systemic – and just how pervasive it is. No giving money to poor Blacks No volunteering at the homeless shelter No sending your kids to Black schools

Simply professing (preferably loudly) just how aware you are of racism and all its manifestations (personal, hidden, unconscious, systemic, institutional, etc.) That’s it. Nothing more required. Simply profess. And you’ve now achieved goodness. Virtue.

That means supporting AntiRacism. It matters little what “AntiRacism” actually entails. What matters is that you’re on the side of “AntiRacism”.

The same with Black Lives Matter. It matters little what BLM is actually doing to help Black people. What matters is your profession of faith: “Black Lives Matter!” BLM may actually be hurting Black people. That matters not. It’s the prefession of Goodness. „B L M !“

Evangelical Christians have something similar: One does not receive salvation through good works or good deeds, but by professing his or her acceptance of Jesus. We all that woman in the community who begins every sentence with, “Well, I’m a Christian, and I think . . .”

Professing her Christianity was enough to put her on the right side. Anything after that is simply a bonus. But not really all that necessary. „I am a Christian.“ Done. Enough said. With the new Woke religion, professing oneself to be an AntiRacist is enough.

In der Tat muss man in vielen woken Bereichen mit dem richtigen „Benachteiligungsgrad“ nichts machen. Man gibt Verantwortung ab, etwa an den „alten weißen Mann“. Schon ist eine Frau weitgehend raus, ein junger Mann zwar nicht ganz so weit, aber immerhin.

Im praktischen muss absolut nichts passieren, das Signaling reicht vollkommen aus. Man könnte daher sagen, dass es ein nicht sehr ehrliches Signal ist bzw leicht zu fälschen. Was es um so attraktiver macht.

 

 

Kyle Rittenhouse freigesprochen – wird es erneut Proteste geben und die Gräben vertiefen

Aus dem Spiegel:

Der Teenager Kyle Rittenhouse, 18, der bei Anti-Rassismus-Protesten in der US-Stadt Kenosha zwei Menschen mit seinem halbautomatischen Gewehr erschossen, und einen weiteren verletzt hatte, ist in allen Punkten freigesprochen worden.

Rittenhouse war unter anderem wegen Mordes, Totschlags, und versuchten Mordes angeklagt gewesen. Ein Geschworenengericht entschied nun, dass Rittenhouse unschuldig ist. Sie folgten damit seinem Argument, er habe sich selbst verteidigt.

Ich vermute einfach mal, dass das in den USA noch zu einigen Folgen führen wird, weil die Anhänger intersektionaler Theorien das als Angriff auf ihre Positionen vertreten werden.

Dies könnte sie, wenn es wieder zu Plünderungen etc kommt, Zustimmung kosten aber auch für Meinung vertiefen, dass „ein weißer Mann mit allem durchkommt“.

Vielleicht spaltet es auch einfach die Bevölkerung weiter.

Da solche Diskussionen und die Folgen des Urteils aus meiner Sicht auch in den deutschen Diskurs schwappen werden eröffne ich hier mal einen Beitrag dazu

Die Critical Race Theory und ihr Einfluss auf die Wahl in Virgina

Die Republikaner haben die Wahl in Virgina gewonnen, einem Bundesstaat, der wohl immer als recht fest in der Hand der Demokraten angesehen wurde.

Und was es für uns interessant macht: Der Widerstand gegen Critical Race Theory scheint eine große Rolle dabei gespielt haben.

Ein interessanter Artikel beleuchtet die Hintergründe:

The race looked predictable, and McAuliffe was likely to win by a safe margin.

Then Youngkin started to home in on a new theme: education. Responding to widespread anger among parents across the commonwealth, he lambasted public schools for failing to reopen for in-person classes for most of the pandemic. Then, capitalizing on growing unease about curricular content—which parents who were home with their kids could eavesdrop on via Zoom—he warned that teachers were trying to indoctrinate students with radical political ideas, collectively referring to them as “critical race theory.”

Es erscheint wenig überraschend, dass diese Theorien oder darauf basierende Ansichten ihren Weg in die Schulen in den USA finden. Denn inzwischen sind diese Theorien ja schon über 10 Jahre alt, genug Zeit als das genug Lehrer in ihrer Ausbildung an Universitäten entsprechende Kurse besucht haben oder sonst in anderer Form damit in Verbindung gekommen sind.

Und weil es nun einmal eine höchst ideologische Sekte ist, die predigen möchte und der es gerade wichtig ist, das den jungen Kindern zu vermitteln wird natürlich jemand entsprechende Inhalte einbringen, um so mehr wenn an den amerikanischen Schulen eh Sachen wie „Black History Month“ üblich sind, in denen Raum für solche Punkte wäre.

Allerdings ist es eben immer noch eine Eliten-Ideologie, die in großen Teilen der Bevölkerung nicht angekommen ist und die diese eher ablehnt. Sie wollen sie erst recht nicht an ihre Kinder ranlassen.

Das wiederum kollidiert natürlich mit dem „Bildungsauftrag“ der entsprechend ideologisierten.

The pivot worked. Voters usually consider education to be one of many important issues and tend to trust Democrats to handle it better than Republicans. This was the case in Virginia as late as September, when voters who prioritized education favored McAuliffe by 33 points. But, especially after McAuliffe said, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach,” the wind turned.

Gerade in den freiheitlichen USA mit seinen sehr starken lokalen Mitspracherechten und einer sehr gespaltenen Gesellschaft nicht die schlauste Antwort, insbesondere bei einem Thema, bei dem sie die negative Einstellung dazu anscheinend stark unterschätzt haben.

A week before the election, a Washington Post poll found that a plurality of voters in Virginia ranked education as the election’s most important topic. Among those who did, Youngkin was now up by nine points.

Other polls taken in the run-up to the election provide further evidence that Youngkin owes his victory to his focus on education. According to one poll taken in the week before the election, for example, Youngkin led McAuliffe by three percentage points among all likely voters. But among K–12 parents, the Republican led the Democrat by 15 points.

Also hat der republikanische Kandidat anscheinend ein Thema gefunden, was gerade für Wechselwähler von starker Bedeutung ist und viele motiviert doch die Republikaner zu wählen.

If you listen to Democratic politicians or read the mainstream news, the answer to that question seems to be that most voters were duped. The New York Times, for example, largely missed the degree to which the debate over education was fueling Youngkin’s rise. And when the newspaper of record did finally send a reporter to write an extended piece about how Youngkin had become a “culture warrior,” it implied—as a matter of fact, not opinion—that parental concerns over curricular content were based in confusion.

Critical race theory, the article stated, is “an academic body of thought about the effects of systemic racism that has galvanized conservatives around the country. It is generally not introduced until college and is not part of classroom teaching in Virginia.” In other words, the main topic around which Youngkin built his campaign does not exist.

Das ist so typisch für Anhänger diese Theorien:

Man betreibt ein Spiel mit Burg und Festung (Motte und Bailey) in dem man sich darauf zurückzieht, dass formell gesehen nicht die Critical Race Theorien selbst unterrichtet worden sind. Man hat sich eben nicht mit den Theorien selbst auseinandergesetzt.

Dass das den meisten relativ egal ist, wenn man die Produkte dieser Theorien dann dennoch anwendet ist eigentlich offensichtlich. Es sind dann eben Critical Race Theories im weiteren Sinne, aber immer noch Critical Race Theory.

Aber natürlich werden Anhänger dieser Theorien eh nicht verstehen, wie man etwas dagegen haben kann, dass weiße Kinder lernen wie rassistisch und privilegiert sind etc. Es ist ja die reine Wahrheit und insoweit keine Theorie. Man könnte aus dieser Sicht erklären, dass die Praxis eben die reine Wahrheit ist und man diese immer unterrichten kann, die Critical Race Theories wären dann nur Hintergrund zu dieser Wahrheit. Quasi „Okay, Okay, wir unterrichten keine Gravitationstheorie mehr mit allen Formeln etc, aber der Ball fällt nun einmal weiterhin nach unten“

That has also been a widely held view within the Democratic echo chamber over the past 24 hours. According to one viral tweet, “It is incredible the GOP successfully made Virginia governor’s race about teaching critical race theory in public schools, something that is not taught in any public school anywhere in America.” Or as another quipped, “White and suburban kids in Virginia are now saved from CRT and Sharia and Bigfoot and Unicorns.”

In this analysis, the opposition to critical race theory is nothing more than a racist dog whistle. Supposed concerns about it aren’t just lies; they are an exercise in “race-baiting.” The real goal of Republicans like Youngkin is, simply, to prevent any discussion of the history of slavery or even to perpetuate “white supremacy.”

The idea that critical race theory is an academic concept that is taught only at colleges or law schools might be technically accurate, but the reality on the ground is a good deal more complicated. Few middle or high schoolers are poring over academic articles written by Richard Delgado or Kimberlé Crenshaw. But across the nation, many teachers have, over the past years, begun to adopt a pedagogical program that owes its inspiration to ideas that are very fashionable on the academic left, and that go well beyond telling students about America’s copious historical sins.

Eben, und so zu tun als wäre da kein Zusammenhang mit Critical Race Theory ist schon fast absurd.

Es wäre erklärbar, wenn man sich entweder bewußt ist, dass diese Theorien da nicht hingehören und das nicht zugeben will oder aber einem Streit ausweichen will, aber inhaltlich macht es nicht wirklich Sinn.

In some elementary and middle schools, students are now being asked to place themselveson a scale of privilege based on such attributes as their skin color. History lessons in some high schools teach that racism is not just a persistent reality but the defining feature of America. And some school systems have even embraced ideas that spread pernicious prejudices about nonwhite people, as when a presentation to principals of New York City public schools denounced virtues such as “perfectionism” or the “worship of the written word” as elements of “white-supremacy culture.”

Effective opponents of these developments, such as Youngkin, explicitly acknowledge the importance of teaching students about the history of slavery and even the injustices that many minority groups continue to face today. They do not pretend that grade schoolers are reading academic articles. Instead, they focus the ire of many parents on curricular content that can fairly be described as popularized, less sophisticated cousins of critical race theory.

Es ist verständlich, dass sich dagegen Widerstand bildet, denn es stellt gleichzeitig die Kinder gegen die Eltern und die Schüler gegeneinander. Die Kinder gegen die Eltern weil diese als ältere Weiße eben mehr schuld sind bzw ihren Kindern etwas erklären müssen, was den Kindern gegenüber als selbstverständlich und richtig dargestellt worden ist, aber die Eltern so nicht akzeptieren, was automatisch zu einem Konflikt führt, wer recht hat.

Viele Eltern haben damit genau verstanden, was dort passiert und das der republikanische Vertreter auf ihrer Seite ist, der demokratische aber eher das ihnen nicht gefallende System stützen will.

That leaves Democrats with two principal options.

They could defend the need to teach students ideas that are rooted in critical race theory, arguing that an unrelentingly bleak view of American history or a depiction of contemporary America as still defined by omnipresent forms of structural racism are accurate reflections of reality. Personally, I have substantive disagreements with this view as well as deep concerns about how popular such a message is likely to prove. But an open defense of the need to make radical changes to the way students are taught about the history and the nature of their country would at least stand a chance of persuading some voters and have the virtue of treating them like adults.

In der Tat ein nicht ungefährlicher Weg. Ehrlich, aber gefährlich. Ich vermute auch, dass er von den meisten Eltern nicht wirklich belohnt werden würde. Dazu haben die Theorien ein zu großes Verärgerungspotential. Man könnte natürlich erneut versuchen die Leute zu beschämen und sie als Rassisten beschimpfen, aber das große Problem bei einer solchen Wahl ist, dass die Wahl geheim ist.

Und dazu sind Kinder eben auch etwas anderes als ein CRT-Training bei einem Arbeitgeber, was man über sich ergehen lassen kann. Viele sind weitaus eher bereit bei einer ideologisierten Beeinflussung seiner Kinder in dieser Art Widerstand zu zeigen.

Alternatively, Democrats could become more willing to disavow curricular content that is incendiary or misguided. Exercises that ask elementary-school students to rate themselves on a scale of privilege or presentations that imply that Black people are somehow less interested in the written word may be relatively rare. But voters who worry about them are much more likely to be reassured by politicians who are willing to condemn them than by those who pretend they don’t exist. Doing so is both right and expedient.

Das wäre eine andere Strategie. Aber sie hat ebenfalls sehr große Gefahren, insbesondere weil eben innerhalb der Demokratischen Partei viele genau diese Theorien vertreten und eine Abkehr davon als Hochverrat ansehen würden. Es würde dann möglicherweise ein interner Shitstorm losbrechen, man würde als Rassist dargestellt werden und das könnte noch mehr schlechte Presse bringen als ein paar vermeintlich wenige Eltern, die sich aufregen.

Regardless of the choice Democrats make, they should, at the same time, denounce Republican plans to prohibit teachers from discussing ideas that might make their students uncomfortable as illiberal assaults on free speech that will lead to unacceptable forms of overreach. In the coming years, the introduction of such laws—which Youngkin favors—is likely to lead to a significant number of teachers who are unfairly punished for doing their job. If Democrats manage to decry such injustices while simultaneously distancing themselves from the most unpopular content now being taught at schools, public opinion will probably be on their side.

Das wäre mal interessant, der Aufruf zur Meinungsfreiheit von Leuten, die die CRT-Theorien schützen wollen. Nachteil ist natürlich, dass damit zwangsläufig auch andere Theorien davon umfasst sind und man sie ebenfalls zulassen muss. Und in der Hinsicht waren Anhänger der CRT noch nie wirklich sehr großzügig. Sie würden wohl darauf abstellen, dass man hier „Nazis freien Raum lässt“ und damit ein Rassist ist.
Insofern auch ein doppelt gefährlicher weg.

Ich vermute mal, dass das Verbot so ähnlich aussehen würde wie diese Regeln hier, die man ja durchaus gut verkaufen kann. Sie wären nicht einfach nur gegen CRT gerichtet, sondern beruhen auf Regeln, die man als ethisch ansehen kann.

But the one option that is both intellectually dishonest and electorally disastrous is to insist on a verbal trick unworthy of a middle-school debate team: to keep claiming that widespread concern over these ideas is misguided because the term by which they have publicly come to be known technically applies to an academic research program rather than the lessons that real children are being taught in real schools. And yet, this is precisely what McAuliffe and so many others attempted to do—with disastrous results—over the closing months of his campaign.

For anybody who cares about making sure that Donald Trump does not become the 47th president of the United States, it is crucial that Democrats avoid repeating the mistakes that just put a Republican in Virginia’s governor’s mansion. It is impossible to win elections by telling voters that their concerns are imaginary. If Democrats keep doing so, they will keep losing.

Man darf also gespannt sein, wie sich das alles noch entwickelt. Wenn die Republikaner nunmehr die intersektionalen Theorien etwas radikaler angreifen und damit den damit unzufriedenen eine Plattform geben, die man nicht so einfach abwerten kann, dann könnte es interessant werden.

Es scheint jedenfalls als wäre das Thema ergiebig für Politiker:

Amazing pic.twitter.com/kboqpwIWdP

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) November 3, 2021

Unpacking The Attacks on Critical Race Theory: Brittney Cooper (author, professor and activist)

Die Zusammenfassung der schlimmsten Aussagen:

One of the core principles of Wokism is racism. In particular, hatred of people with white skin. You cannot be true follower of the Woke religion without being an open and committed racist.

Doesn’t matter how you dress it up, sweetheart.
pic.twitter.com/ghCC0dEwr8

— Laurence Fox ⚪️ (@LozzaFox) October 28, 2021