„Strukturelle und institutionalisierte Diskriminierung von Männer gibt es nicht“ vs „Die Strukturen des Patriarchats benachteiligen auch Männer“

Die Definition von Diskriminierung weicht im intersektionalen Feminismus bekanntlich von den ansonsten üblichen Theorien ab.

Wo ansonsten eine Benachteiligung aufgrund des Geschlechtes ausreichen würde, etwa in Art. 3 GG,  will der Feminismus üblicherweise eine „institutionelle bzw strukturelle Benachteiligung“.

Denn nur dann könne eine Gruppe benachteiligt werden, weil eben diese institutionellen und strukturellen Benachteiligungen die Beeinträchtigungen darstellen, die die Diskriminierung ausmachen.

Solche könnten aber beim Mann nicht bestehen, da die Gruppe Mann ja die Macht habe und damit keine institutionellen und strukturellen Nachteile für diese per Definition bestehen können.

Gleichzeitig führt man im Feminismus auch gerne aus, dass das Patriarchat auch Männern schadet. Seine Strukturen würden letztendlich nur bestimmten Männern zugute kommen und alle anderen Männern in für sie schädlichen Geschlechterrollen gefangen halten. Deswegen sei es auch im Interesse der Männer, dass Patriarchat zu stürzen.

Theoretisch belegen sie damit selbst die für Männer nachteiligten institutionellen und strukturellen Beeinträchtigungen. Diese werden dann eben – wenn man der Theorie folgt – von den „mächtigen Männern“ oder den „hauptsächlichen Nutznießern des Patriarchats“ errichtet und die allermeisten Männer wären diesen Strukturen ebenso ausgesetzt wie die allermeisten Frauen auch. Damit wären sie eben Opfer einer institutionellen und strukturellen Benachteiligung und damit diskrimiert.

Folge wäre, dass man ihnen alle „Opferrechte“ zugestehen müsste, ihnen zuhören müsste, aktiv daran arbeiten müsste, dass die Benachteiligungen verschwinden und seine eigenen Privilegien auf dem Gebiet hinterfragen müsste.
Was man im Feminismus niemals zugestehen würde, weil es die Regel durchbricht, dass bei jeder Kategorie, in der eine Diskriminierung stattfinden kann, eine Seite der Unterdrücker sein muss, weil er Macht hat und zwar in allen Bereichen, die diese Kategorie betreffen, und die andere Seite das Opfer sein muss, weil sie keine Macht haben, und zwar in keinem.

Mich würde dennoch interessieren, wie sie auf den Vorhalt, dass ja Männer und Frauen das Patriarchat stützen können und das die Strukturen bereitstellt, unter denen Männer diskriminiert sein können, reagieren werden.

Eine Möglichkeit wäre natürlich strikt darauf zu verweisen, dass es dabei bleibt, dass Frauen als Gruppe keine Macht haben und Männer erst ihre Macht abgeben müssen, damit sie Opfer sein können.

Worauf man dann erwidern könnte, dass dann ja ein perfekter feministischer Ally theoretisch als Mann diskriminiert sein könnte.

Die andere wäre etwas vager darauf abzustellen, dass es eben selbstverschuldete Probleme sind und die Männer darauf nicht abstellen können. Was den Gegeneinwand erlaubt, dass ja dann alle Männer tatsächlich nach ihrer Auffassung schuldig sein müssten, was schön noch mal deutlich macht, dass der Feminismus einseitig eine Gruppenschuld frei von jeder Individualität vertritt.

vgl auch:

„Verabschiedet sich die SPD nach 155 Jahren vom Patriarchat?“

Die Süddeutsche kommentierte im Vorfeld der Wahl zur SPD-Vorsitzenden:

Simone Lange oder Andrea Nahles: Aller Voraussicht nach wird heute zum ersten Mal eine Frau SPD-Vorsitzende. Aber noch immer traut die Partei Frauen höchstens Themen wie Kinder, Prozesshansel und Feldhamster zu. (…) Schon morgen leitet aller Voraussicht nach eine Parteichefin die SPD. Zum allerersten Mal. Seit vergangenem Jahr ist Andrea NahlesFraktionschefin – ebenfalls als erste Frau. Nahles tritt gegen die Flensburger Oberbürgermeisterin Simone Lange an. Über die Haarfarbe oder vermeintliche Zickigkeit der Kandidatinnen redet keiner. Verabschiedet sich die SPD nach 155 Jahren vom Patriarchat?

Geht es eigentlich noch billiger? Es scheint als wäre jede Partei, die keine Frau an der Spitze hat, in diesem Fall ein Patriarchat.

Und alles unter dem Stichwort Gleichstellung.

Die Begründung:

Die Besetzung der Spitzenposten in der Partei lässt sich bisher durchaus als patriarchalisch bezeichnen: Männer genießen eine bevorzugte Stellung. Zwar gab sich die SPD 1988 eine Geschlechterquote in Vorständen und Delegationen. Angeführt wurden diese jedoch weiterhin von Männern. Vor und nach Einführung der Quote waren die meisten Bundesgeschäftsführer und Generalsekretäre männlich. Selbst die linken Jusos wählen selten Frauen an die Spitze. Dass ausgerechnet eine linke Partei und Fraktion so lange nur von Männern geleitet wurde, wirkt absurd im Vergleich mit der konservativen CDU, die schon so lange von einer Frau geführt wird, dass sich junge Deutsche im wahlberechtigten Alter an nichts anderes erinnern können. Bis heute hat keine Sozialdemokratin auch nur für die Kanzlerschaft kandidiert.

Dennoch sind ihre politischen Ziele wesentlich mehr auf Frauenförderung ausgerichtet. Aber mit Männer ist es eben trotzdem Patriarchat

Jetzt will dieses schreckliche Patriarchat auch noch den Mars unterdrücken, dabei sind da noch nicht mal Frauen

Das Patriarchat hat längst alles unterdrückt, was man auf Erden unterdrücken kann, aber das reicht ihm natürlich nicht. Das hat messerscharf eine feministische Journalistin erkannt und schreibt dementsprechend:

These men, particularly Musk, are not only heavily invested in who can get their rocket into space first, but in colonizing Mars. The desire to colonize — to have unquestioned, unchallenged and automatic access to something, to any type of body, and to use it at will — is a patriarchal one. Indeed, there is no ethical consideration among these billionaires about whether this should be done; rather, the conversation is when it will be done. Because, in the eyes of these intrepid explorers, this is the only way to save humanity.

It is the same instinctual and cultural force that teaches men that everything — and everyone — in their line of vision is theirs for the taking. You know, just like walking up to a woman and grabbing her by the pussy.

It’s there, so just grab it because you can

Das ist so herrlich doof, wie es eben im modernen Feminismus zu erwarten ist: Man kann alles abwerten, indem man es einfach irgendwie in die Nähe von Vergewaltigungen und Raumeinnahme rückt.
Sie führt weiter aus:

In this way, colonizing Mars is a “collective life insurance policy.” Although considering the last 500 years of colonization on this planet alone, one could wonder whose lives, according to Musk and other rich white men like himself, are worth being insured.

But again, this impulse to enter the “space race” isn’t simply the embodiment of the American spirit of invention or forward-thinking entrepreneurship. Neither is it driven by the kind of nationalist Cold War fervor that inspired the creation of America’s space program in the 1950s.

Rather, the impulse to colonize — to colonize lands, to colonize peoples, and, now that we may soon be technologically capable of doing so, colonizing space — has its origins in gendered power structures. Entitlement to power, control, domination and ownership. The presumed right to use and abuse something and then walk away to conquer and colonize something new.

Sie scheint sich wirklich Sorgen um den armen Mars zu machen. Er wird kolonisiert und die armen Marsmenschen werden dann erleben müssen, wie ihre Kultur für neue Faschingskostüme missbraucht werden. Schlimm so etwas. Insbesondere weil auf dem Mars niemand ist. Nichts. Es ist ein unbewohnter Planet, bei dem man niemanden was wegnehmen kann und keine Eingeborenen unterdrücken kann.

Mars ist der rote Planet, und damit ein PoC (Planet of Color)

Mars ist der rote Planet, und damit ein PoC (Planet of Color)

 

Aber ihr  Männerhass muss noch deutlicher ausgeführt werden:

This 21st century form of imperialism is the direct result of men giving up on the planet they have all but destroyed.

As if history hasn’t proven that men go from one land to the next, drunk on megalomania and the privilege of indifference.

The raping and pillaging of the Earth, and the environmental chaos that doing so has unleashed, are integral to the process of colonization. And the connection of the treatment of Mother Earth to women is more than symbolic: Study after study has shown that climate change globally affects women more than men.

“Women in developing countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change because they are highly dependent on local natural resources for their livelihood,” a 2013 United Nations report noted. “Women charged with securing water, food and fuel for cooking and heating face the greatest challenges. Women experience unequal access to resources and decision-making processes, with limited mobility in rural areas.”

This means that while men compete with each other over whose rocket is the biggest, fastest, and best, and send playthings off to become flashy space junk, women around the world are fighting to stay alive against violent assaults on their personhood — and their planet. As reported by Marc Bain for Quartz, in seven separate studies “researchers found evidence that people perceive consumers who behave in eco-friendly ways as ‘more feminine,’ and that those consumers “‘perceive themselves as more feminine.’

Wunderbar. „Männer“ kolonisieren den Mars und sind damit nicht mehr von der Verschmutzung der Erde betroffen. Wie groß war das Raumschiff, welches Musk bauen wollte? Ich meine es war ausgerichtet auf 3,5 Millarden und Musk hatte nur Männertoiletten vorgesehen, weil man zu einer Kolonisierung ja nur Männer mitnimmt.

Der Text ist wirklich selten doof, mit der üblichen feministischen Scheinlösung. Aber anzuführen, dass Männer mit der Kolonisation des Marses der von ihnen allein verursachten Umweltverschmutzung entkommen wollen, ist wirklich unredlich.

Frauen leben auf dem selben technologischen Standard wie Männer und fordern gleichzeitig auch männliches Verhalten von Männern ein. Der Besitzer eines Kleinwagens erscheint vielen Frauen in vielen Fällen immer noch weniger interessant als der eines teuren Sportwagens, ungeachtet des Verbrauchs.

Not only, according to researchers, do women generally have a greater environmental conscience when it comes to the planet we currently live on, but the same researchers have found a connection between men’s insecurity about their masculinity and their lack of environmental conscience. Apparently, caring for the planet is perceived to be a “feminine” quality and concern; the psychology of toxic masculinity spills over into the unethical disregard for the environment.

This masculine insecurity is everywhere in American culture and, increasingly, American politics. Trump himself has spoken about making sure our nuclear bomb is “bigger and more powerful and can often be found “bragging about building a “beautiful,” “great, great wall.”

Trump wurde auch mit einer Mehrheit der Stimmen weißer Frauen gewählt (66%). Und natürlich mögen auch Frauen ihre in China in Indien hergestellte Mode, nutzen Klimaanlagen, heizen gerne und lieben auch sonst jeden Luxus, den diese Gesellschaft zu bieten hat. Sie fliegen ebenso gerne in den Urlaub, sie leben, wenn sie können, lieber in großen Häusern und sie wässern im Sommer ihren Garten, damit er schön grün aussieht. So zu tun als sei alles schwarz und weiß, Frauen die reine Unschuld, die kein Kohlendioxidchen in die Atmosphere entlassen würden und Männer allesamt persönlich an der Abholzung des Regenwaldes beteiligt ist billig und falsch.

Right now, there is a robot dummy propped up in the driver’s seat of a red Tesla convertible, flying through space, away from the manmade garbage fires devouring Earth.

Houston, we have a problem.

And it’s the patriarchy.

Hurr, hurrr, wir haben es mal wieder geschafft. Das Patriarchat zeigt erneut seine Großartigkeit.  Per aspera ad astra. Und das Raue sind eben nun einmal wir selbst.

Mit der Erde sind wir durch. Und es gibt ja auch noch genügend andere Planeten, wenn wir den Mars trotz aller Bemühungen der Frauen auch verwüstet haben.

Das Patriarchat als Beleg für die Großartigkeit der Männer

Als frauenhassender Maskulismusblog muss ich natürlich die Herrlichkeit der Männer besingen, und das ist einfach, denn Dank unserer umfassenden Gehirnwäsche machen das bereits die Feministen für uns.

Unsere Großartige Leistung bei der Unterdrückung von Frauen wird zu wenig gewürdigt und ist wirklich erstaunlich:

  • Wir haben uns ALLE Privilegien erobert, die Frauen haben KEINE
  • Wir besetzen den größten Teil aller wichtigen Positionen und kassieren 23% mehr Lohn für die exakt gleiche Arbeit.
  • Wir sind so genial, dass wir Frauen sogar freie, geheime Wahlen zugestehen, und trotzdem weiterhin alle Privilegien absahnen
  • Wir haben Frauen eine Gehirnwäsche verpasst, die sie dazu bringt, sich selbst zu hassen und Männer für etwas besseres zu halten.
  • Diese Gehirnwäsche klappt, obwohl Kinder im wesentlichen durch Frauen als Mütter, Kinderbetreuer, Lehrer erzogen werden.
  • Wir haben eine Rape Culture errichtet, die es uns erlaubt 1/3 aller Frauen zu vergewaltigen ohne jemals verurteilt zu werden und die meisten Frauen wissen noch nicht einmal, dass es eine Rape Culture gibt
  • Wir haben Frauen zwangsheterosexualisiert, die allermeisten wollen, obwohl sie gar nicht heterosexuell sind, Sex mit Männern. Gut, das System ist noch nicht perfekt, da kann man noch etwas nachbessern, aber wir haben es geschafft, dass Frauen sogar darauf warten, dass wir sie endlich fragen, ob wir diese Zwangsheterosexualisierung noch zu einem „ewigen Bund“ ausbauen können und ihr größter Traum ist eine Hochzeit zu einem besonders qualifizierten Ausbeuter, der ihnen an Körperkraft überlegen und Dominant ist.
  • Wir sind so effektiv, dass wir unseren Töchtern studieren lassen, sie die gleiche Schulbildung erhalten wie die Söhne und die meisten Frauen trotzdem nicht merken, dass sie in einer absoluten Unterdrückung leben, in der sie mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit aufgrund eines von uns sorgsam installierten Systems vergewaltigt werden

Welche andere großartigen Leistungen hat der Feminismus uns patriarchalen Männern zuerkannt?

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.

 

Feministische Theoriewoche: Patriarchat/hegemoniale Männlichkeit (Tag 2)

Dieser Beitrag ist Teil der feministischen Theoriewoche.

Das heutige Thema ist

„Das Patriarchat“ 

und

„Die hegemoniale Männlichkeit“

als zentrale Elemente der feministischen Theorie. Mir ist bewußt, dass beides nicht das gleiche ist, es wird aber denke ich sehr ähnlich eingesetzt: Eine Vorherrschaft des Mannes.

1. Was besagen die Theorien zu Patriarchat und hegemonialer Männlichkeit?
2. Was leitet der Feminismus daraus her/wie setzt er diese Theorien ein?
3. Welche Argumente/Studien sprechen für/gegen diese Theorien?

„Der Feminismus ist die fünfte Kolonne des Patriarchats“

Auf Geschlechterallerlei greift Aranxo ein Thema auf, welches ich hier auch schon ein paar Mal hatte:

Wie der Feminismus den Frauen schadet.

Da versuchen Millionen von Elternpaaren, auch die Väter, ihre Töchter zu selbstbewussten, starken Frauen zu erziehen und dann geraten diese Mädchen in der Pubertät und im Studium in die Fänge der Feministinnen, die ihnen einreden, dass sie das unterdrückte Geschlecht sind, dass hinter jedem Baum ein Vergewaltiger lauert, dass sie ihren Lovern nicht trauen dürfen, weil diese sie bestimmt bei nächster Gelegenheit verprügeln oder vergewaltigen werden, dass jede dritte Frau in ihrem Leben eine Gewalterfahrung durch Männer macht (wozu auch Anschubsen und Widerworte geben zählen). Mit anderen Worten, Statistiken werden maßlos übertrieben oder einseitig in Richtung einer allgegenwärtigen männlichen Bedrohung ausgelegt.

Genau mit dieser Paranoia-Propaganda schaffen sie erst das Klima der Angst bei den jungen Frauen, das das Patriarchat so dringend als Unterdrückungsstrategie braucht, damit die jungen Frauen vor lauter Übervorsicht sich kaum noch etwas trauen. Mit anderen Worten, der Feminismus ist die fünfte Kolonne des Patriarchats.

In der Tat: Niemand lässt die Lage für Frauen hoffnungsloser dastehen als der Feminismus, niemand schürt mehr Angst vor Vergewaltigung und schürt damit die „Rape Culture“. Niemand läßt es sinnloser erscheinen, von den allmächtigen Geschlechterrollen abzuweichen. Das Patriarchat ist eh allmächtig, überall wollen Männer unterdrücken und ausbeuten. In besten Zeiten war die Lage aus Sicht des Feminismus nie düsterer.