Bem Sex-Role-Inventory (BSRI)

Das BEM Sex Role Inventory ist eine Zusammenstellung bestimmter Eigenschaften, die als männlich oder weiblich angesehen werden. Es wird beispielsweise zur Begutachtung von Transsexuellen eingesetzt, aber auch sonst zur Bewertung von Männlichkeit und Weiblichkeit. Es baut darauf auf, dass bestimmte Eigenschaften eher männlich oder weiblich sind, aber auch darauf, dass die Mischung in einer Person ganz unterschiedlich ausfallen kann und beide Geschlechter bestimmte Eigenschaften verschieden ausgeprägt haben. Dabei wurden die dort behandelten Eigenschaften ermittelt, indem Personen befragt worden sind, was sie für Eigenschaften bei dem anderen Geschlecht als besonders erstrebenswert empfinden.

Getestet wird, indem sich Befragte  auf einer Skala von 1-7 einordnen:

  1. die Eigenschaft trifft nie zu
  2. die Eigenschaft trifft gewöhnlich nicht zu
  3. die Eigenschaft trifft manchmal aber selten zu
  4. die Eigenschaft trifft gelegentlich zu
  5. die Eigenschaft trifft oft zu
  6. die Eigenschaft trifft meistens zu
  7. die Eigenschaft trifft immer zu

Die Liste selbst würde wohl jede Genderfeministin zur Weißglut bringen:

Maskulinität

  • hat Führungseigenschaften
  • tritt bestimmt auf
  • ehrgeizig
  • respekteinflößend
  • kann andere kritisieren, ohne sich dabei unbehaglich zu fühlen
  • verteidigt die eigene Meinung
  • entschlossen
  • sachlich
  • nicht leicht beeinflußbar
  • unerschrocken
  • intelligent
  • hartnäckig
  • ist bereit, etwas zu riskieren
  • kraftvoll
  • furchtlos
  • scharfsinnig
  • wetteifernd
  • sicher
  • zeigt geschäftsmäßiges Verhalten
  • konsequent

Femininität

  • romantisch
  • abhängig
  • weichherzig
  • glücklich
  • bemüht sich, verletzte Gefühle zu besäftigen
  • feinfühlig
  • sinnlich
  • fröhlich
  • nachgiebig
  • bescheiden
  •  empfänglich für Schmeicheleien
  •  empfindsam
  • selbstaufopfernd
  •  benutzt keine barschen Worte
  •  verspielt
  •  verführerisch
  •  achtet auf die eigene äußere Erscheinung
  •  leidenschaftlich
  •  herzlich
  •  liebt Sicherheit

Soziale Erwünschtheit

  • gesellig
  • nervös
  • gesund
  • steif
  • gründlich
  • teilnahmslos
  •  vertrauenswürdig
  •  überspannt
  •   zuverlässig
  •  unpraktisch
  •  fleißig
  •  niedergeschlagen
  • geschickt
  •  eingebildet
  •  gesetzestreu
  •  stumpf
  •  gewissenhaft
  •  unhöflich
  •  aufmerksam
  •  vergeßlich

Die „Soziale Erwünschtheit“ gilt dabei als Geschlechtsneutral.

Eine  Studie (aus 1997) hat geprüft, inwieweit diese Eigenschaften nach wie vor für ein bestimmtes Geschlecht als erstrebenswert angesehen werden:

Für „Männlichkeit“

assessing-the-current-validity-of-the-bem-sex-role-inventory

Für Weiblichkeit

assessing-the-current-validity-of-the-bem-sex-role-inventory-frauen

Man sieht, dass die Geschlechtsunterschiede bei den Männern im wesentlichen nach wie vor vorhanden sind, wenn auch abgeschwächter,  bei den Frauen haben sie sich auch im wesentlichen gehalten, einige sind sogar etwas ausgeprägter.

Bei den Männern hat sich beispielsweise „Dominant“ erheblich verändert, wobei es von einem sehr hohen Unterschiedsniveau auf ein hohes gesunken ist. Bei den Frauen ist „childlike (im deutschen wohl verspielt?) stark abgestürzt.

Bei beiden Geschlechtern ist aber „Männlich“ und „Weiblich“ jeweils noch sehr stark als „erstrebenswert“ besetzt.

Auch diese Auflistung aus einer Studie aus dem Jahr 2001 finde ich interessant:

56cf1a7808ae059e37594932-pdf

Man sieht, dass viele Eigenschaften auch als neutral angesehen werden, aber gleichzeitig auch in vielen das Pendel dann durch die Stimmen, die es entweder als Männlich oder weiblich ansehen, doch wieder eher zu einer Seite ausschlägt. „competitive“ beispielsweise ordnet eine Person den Frauen zu, 133 den Männern und 235 sehen es als neutral.

Finde ich für eine Betrachtung der Geschlechterunterschiede jedenfalls interessant. Kennt jemand weitere Studien, die da die Unterschiede und Veränderungen betreffen?

Was ist toll, was einem der Feminismus verbietet?

Im Jetzt Magazin der Süddeutschen gibt es eine Rubrik „Jungs fragen Mädchen“ und umgekehrt. Verkürzt wurde dort die folgende Frage eingestellt:

Gibt es ein paar Dinge, die ihr (manchmal) total gerne machen würdet, dann aber sagt: Nope, kann ich mir vor den Sistas nicht erlauben!

Gemeint ist damit, welches Verhalten sie gerne mögen, dabei aber wissen, dass es feministisch nicht korrekt ist.
Die Antwort eines Mädchens lautet wie folgt:

Alte Männer, beziehungsweise Männer mit Gentleman-Club-Attitüde! Oh holy shit, hab ich ein Faible für Gigolos, die nach alter Schule Tür aufhalten, wissend zwinkern, mit rauher Stimme Dinge so sagen, als wären sie wahnsinnig weise und erfahren und einen herrlich begehrlich hofieren. Ich meine keine Malle-Proll-Männlichkeit, die dauernd nur Titten, Ficken, Arsch, Saufen, Fußball und Grillen brüllt. Die ist mir zuwider. Und ich meine auch keine Hugh-Hefner-Männlichkeit, die Girlys in Häschenoutfits braucht. Ich meine kluge, gestandende Gentleman-Männlichkeit, ein bisschen Stenz, ein bisschen weiser Vater, diese Art von smarter Männlichkeit, die einen ernstnimmt und dennoch keine Gelegenheit zur Charmanz auslässt. Darauf steh ich. Aber wenn man das mal offen sagt, dann mahnt es einem abschätzig entgegen: Das redest du dir doch nur ein, dass das Niveau hat, das ist doch immer dieselbe armselige Flachwichserei, eine ekelhafte 50er-Jahre-Selbstüberschätzung. Für die bist du nur ein süßes, junges Dingchen mit Knackarsch, Hirn egal. Mag sein, mag nicht sein. Irgendwie steh ich drauf. Ich fühl mich nicht automatisch degradiert, nur weil jemand charmant mit mir ist. Gibt ja immer solche und solche. Ich weiß ja, wer ich bin und was ich will. Und das Spiel mag ich trotzdem. Wenn alles angepasst und glatt geschliffen und verboten ist und jede spitze, provokante, anzügliche Irritation verschwindet – wie fucking langweilig ist denn dann bitte? Das ist doch dann schlimmer als jedes Diktator-Regime! Ich amüsier mich gern, fertig. Hand- und Heimwerkerei: Oh, ich bin in meinem tiefsten Inneren so faul. Ich interessiere mich nicht dafür, wie Steckdosen in die Wand zu montieren sind, wie Stromkreisläufe funktionieren. Kreissägen sind mir viel zu laut, mir ist ja schon ein Staubsauger zu laut oder die Klospülung. Oder Kabel! Herrgott, lass mich doch mit Kabeln und Media Markt und Technikscheiße in Ruhe. Soll mein Freund für mich machen. Irgendein Typ, der auf so was steht, oder sich antrainiert hat, auf so was zu stehen, weil man das als Typ so machen muss. Genauso wie Auto reparieren, Fahrrad reparieren und alles andere, das dreckig ist und schmierig und man sich den Finger bei einklemmen kann. Aber das einfach mal so zu sagen? Unemanzipiert und prinzessinnenhaft! Geht nicht.  Spinnen, Ungeziefer, Getier, merkwürdiger Dreck, Ekelkram: Wäh, bäh, igitt, kreisch, jammer, schluchz. Mach das jemand anders für mich weg. Darf man aber ja nicht mehr sagen, so. Muss man ja jetzt cool mit sein. Die Spinne hat mehr Angst vor mir als ich vor ihr. Amen. Stimmt ja einfach nicht, okay? Ich hab Angst, reale Angst, okay? Darf man aber niemandem erzählen. Weich sein. Traurigsein. Erschöpft. PMS haben (Scheißwort!). Zu betrunken sein und nur noch in Babysprache reden können. Getragen werden müssen, zugedeckt, Frühstück ins Bett, Blumen nach Hause.  „Ich kann das nicht“-Sagen. Egal ob beim Job oder beim letzten Schnaps, der eh schon drei zuviel ist. Immer alles gleich weibisch, unemanzipiert. Macht aber Spaß. Verantwortung abgeben macht auch Spaß. Gefangen werden von starken Armen, beflüstert von tiefen Stimmen, die sagen: Hey Kleine, hey Baby, ich mach das, ich hab das im Griff – oh, das ist doch herrlich! Aber: Verboten! Welch Schande!

So, das wär’s fürs Erste. Das Thema Mode hab ich erstmal ausgelassen, da könnte man auch noch mal eine Abhandlung drüber verfassen. Hohe Schuhe, Kurze Röcke, Ausschnitte, Rückenzeigen, … oder Frisuren! Make-up! Alles Minenfelder. Die Katze der Emanzipation beißt sich überall in den Schwanz. Verwechselt viel zu oft Lust und Lebensfreude mit Souveränität. Es ist wirklich eine ganz schön verlogene Scheiße in vielerlei Hinsicht.

Irgendwie taucht in diesen Listen üblicherweise die Lust nach dem statushohen männlichen Mann auf, nach Fallenlassen können, nach den klassischeren Geschlechterrollen. Attraction is eben not a choice.

Die allermeisten Frauen sind lieber Frauen als Männer

Eine interessante Umfrage dazu, wie wohl sich Frauen in ihrer Rolle fühlen:

Almost nine out of 10 women would rather be a woman than a man today, compared with just over half in 1947, a Radio 4 Woman’s Hour poll suggests.

The poll to mark the programme’s 70th anniversary also suggests women in 2016 are more positive about marriage.

Just over two in five (42%) said that men and women gave up equal amounts of freedom in marriage.

Only a quarter of men and women who had taken part in a 1951 survey had felt that way.

Pollsters, who spoke to 1,004 women of all ages, looked at their lives and changing attitudes, covering marriage, money, sex, family, work and appearance. Here are the results:

Erstaunlich, dass sie ihre eigene Unterdrückung gar nicht wahrnehmen. Schließlich sind Männer das privilegierte Geschlecht und Frauen das diskriminierte.

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.

 

Meinungsbild zu Geschlechterrollen und Politik

Immer wieder werden hier auch durchaus konservativere Geschlechterrollen angeführt und auch die „Förderung der klassischen Familie“ kommt in verschiedenen Ansätzen häufiger mal vor.

Deswegen hier mal eine kleine Umfrage zu dem Thema:

 

Bitte die Position auswählen, die eurer am nächsten kommt, es muss sie nicht genau treffen. Gründe oder Anmerkungen gerne in den Kommentaren.

Geschlechterunterschiede in den Partnerwahlkriterien

Eine interessante Studie hat noch einmal Partnerwahlkriterien überprüft:

Evolutionary psychologists have argued for evolved sex differences in human mate preferences (e.g., (Buss and Barnes Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50,559–570, 1986; Buss American Scientist 73,47–51, 1985, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12, 1–49, 1989, 1994). Specifically, they have suggested that men and women place different values on physical appearance, fertility, and economic stability when they choose a long-term partner (e.g., Miller 2000; Buss and Schmitt Psychological Review 100, 204–232, 1993; Fisman et al. 2006; Sprecher et al. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66, 1074–1080, 1994). In this short report, we replicated a seminal study that investigated preferences for potential marriage partners (Sprecher et al. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66, 1074–1080, 1994) to assess if sex differences in mate preferences may have converged over time due to social change via a crowd-sourced sample (n = 522). The replication was largely successful and, thus, suggests stable sex differences in long-term mate preferences in line with an evolutionary framework. However, we also found evidence for narrowed sex differences for preferences with regard to ethnicity and education. Interestingly, while the original study found no sex difference in the preference for marrying the previously married, the current study showed that women were slightly more inclined than men to prefer a previously married partner. Therefore, these findings also suggest that social change and societal norms could make long-term mate preferences flexible and influence how they develop over time.

Quelle: Sex Differences in Mate Preferences: a Replication Study, 20 Years Later

Hier die Werte:

Werte Partnerpräferenzen Männer Frauen

Werte Partnerpräferenzen Männer Frauen

Und als Text:

Women reported being more willing than men to marry someone older by five or more years (F = 43.95, p = 0.001, d = 0.58), who already had children (F (1, 520) = 19.64, p = 0.001, d = 0.40), who would earn much more than themselves (F = 22.20, p = 0.001, d = 0.40), who was not “good-looking” (F (1,520) = 24.59, p = 0.001, d = 0.43), who had been married before (F (1,520) = 5.85, p < 0.05, d = 0.22), and who had more education (F (1,520) = 11.79, p = 0.001, d = 0.30).

Men reported being more willing than women to marry someone younger by five or more years (F = 51.56, p = 0.001, d = 0.65), not likely to hold a steady job (F (1,520) = 42.43, p = 0.001, d = 0.57), and who would earn much less (F = 7.46, p = 0.01, d = 0.24). No statistically significant sex differences were observed in preferences for a different religion, different race, and someone with less education (all p values >0.22).

These results thus largely correspond to the results of Sprecher et al. (1994) except for “having been married before,” “was of a different race,” and “had less education than you.” An analysis of variance also revealed a sex difference (men; M = 5.02, SD = 1.58, women; M = 5.47, SD = 1.44) for perceived importance of marriage for a long-term relationship (F (1,520) = 11.27, p = 0.01, d = 0.29), with women valuing marriage more than men did. This variable, the perception of importance, also moderated the sex difference on the willingness to marry someone older by five or more years (B = −0.24, p = 0.01, η p 2  = 0.01). For women, importance of marriage was positively related to a greater willingness to marry a man who was older by five years or more (F (1,260) = 12.23, p = 0.001, η 2  = 0.045), whereas for men, importance of marriage was not significantly related to a greater willingness to marry someone who was five years or older (F (1,257) = 0.24, p = 0.62). Importance of marriage did not significantly moderate any of the other reported sex differences (all of the p values >0.09).

Andere Studien dazu:

„Wir sollten alle Feministen sein“

(das ist der Tedx-Talk, auf dem das Buch beruht, welches in Schweden an alle Schüler verteilt werden soll)

Aus der ersten Buchbesprechung bei Amazon:

In We Should All Be Feminists beschreibt Adichie zunächst Geschichten aus ihrem Leben, die sie u.A. dazu gebracht haben Feministin zu sein. Sie spricht über die Schere zwischen Frauen und Männern in Machtpositionen und wie wir anfangen müssen unsere Kinder anders zu erziehen – ohne ihnen Geschlechterrollen aufzuzwingen.

Obwohl Adichie hier ihren Fokus auf eigene Erfahrungen und Nigeria legt, weil es das ist was sie kennt, kann man alles was sie sagt auch auf jede Gesellschaft in jedem anderen Land beziehen.

So z.B. spricht sie davon, dass Geschlechterrollen unseren Kindern mehr schaden und das wir aufhören müssen auf ihnen zu beharren. In dem wir meinen, Männer müssten stärker und härter sein, nehmen wir ihnen ihre Menschlichkeit. Unsere Definition von Maskulinität ist sehr eng. Wir lehren ihnen Angst vor Ängsten und Schwächen, Verletzlichkeit zu haben. Dies führt dazu das Männer oft mit mehr mentalen Gesundheitsproblemen zu kämpfen haben, weil wir ihnen beibringen, dass Sensibilität eine Schwäche sei – sei dies auch nur mit einem kleinen Satz wie „Große Jungs weinen nicht!“. Weil wir Jungs diese Idee von Maskulinität aufzwingen, enden die meisten mit sehr zerbrechlichen, zarten Egos.

Dann erziehen wir unsere Mädchen so, dass wir ihnen beibringen, sich um diese zerbrechlichen Egos zu sorgen. Wir machen sie klein.
Wir bringen Mädchen bei nie „zu viel“ von etwas zu sein. Mädchen können Ehrgeiz haben, aber sie sollten nicht zu viel davon haben. Mädchen können erfolgreich sein, aber sie sollten nicht zu erfolgreich sein. Wir müssen eine Rolle spielen, sodass wir Männer nicht „entmannen“.

Sie schreibt, dass wir uns von dieser Prämisse verabschieden sollten. Das der Erfolg einer Frau keine Gefahr für den Mann sein muss.
Wenn wir einfach nur anfangen unsere Kinder anders zu erziehen, könnte sich die Ungleichheit von Geschlechtern binnen 10 Jahren in Luft auflösen – hoffentlich.

Ich glaube, ich erzähle ziemlich viel nach, obwohl da natürlich noch viel mehr ist, dass Adichie anschneidet! Aber ich fand es beeindruckend Adichies Gedanken zu Feminismus zu lesen und ich war begeistert davon wie sehr ich ihr zustimme. Adichie bringt mit diesem Text einen dazu nachzudenken und Geschlechterrollen anzuzweifeln, wenn man das denn nicht schon bereits tut. Ich denke, We Should All Be Feminists sollte jeder lesen und den Titel beim Namen nehmen.

Was ich zuvor nicht wusste ist, dass dieser Text ein Transkript der Rede ist, die Adichie bei Tedx gehalten hat und ich habe mir gleich nach dem Lesen auch gleich das Video auf Youtube angeschaut und ich kann nur sagen: Was für eine Frau!

Adichies Worte sind weise. Sie ist intelligent und stark, harsch aber wahr und sie hat unglaublich viel Charme und Witz. Die Art von Feminismus von der Adichie redet ist keine, die leicht zu verdauen ist, denn sie rüttelt an vielen Denkweisen, die tief in jede Gesellschafft verzeigt sind, aber wenn man ihr wirklich zuhört, sei dies in dem man We Should All Be Feminists liest oder es auf Youtube anschaut, merkt man wie viel Wahrheit dahinter steckt.

Ich denke, Adichie ist eine Frau, der man viel mehr Aufmerksamkeit schenken sollte und sie ist ein großartiges Vorbild für jedes junge Mädchen da draußen. Deshalb finde ich es auch klasse, das Weltstars wie Beyoncé, dessen Musik von vielen jungen Menschen gehört wird, auch Adichie an die breite Masse bringt, denn die Frau die man ‚Flawless‘ sprechen hört ist sie!

Ich bin absolut begeistert von Adichie und We Should All Be Feminists und kann es nur an jeden weiterempfehlen!

Zu der Aktion gibt es einen interessanten Text, der meint, man müsse Jungs schon das Recht geben, Nein zum Feminismus zu sagen und ihren eigenen Weg zu wählen:

As a lapsed male feminist myself, I feel I should start with aconfessional.

Firstly, I think Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is an extraordinary human being. I defy anyone with an open mind and an open heart to watch her speak and not be impressed by her intelligence, humour, courage, creativity, compassion, self awareness and beauty.

When she proudly declares: “I have chosen to no longer be apologetic for my femaleness and for my femininity and I want to respected in all of my femaleness because I deserve to be”, there’s a part of me that wishes I was a strong, black woman so I could whoop along with the Sisterhood.

However, as a straight, white male from working-class roots living a fairly middle-class lifestyle (a demographic one of my mates describes as “half-classed”), I’m left wondering if there is a stage anywhere in the world where a young man could be applauded for saying:

“I have chosen to no longer be apologetic for my maleness and for my masculinity and I want to be respected in all of my maleness because I deserve to be!”

It may sound comical but in a truly egalitarian world we would welcome such declarations of male and female empowerment with parity. And yet my personal experience of the feminist worldview that dominates gender politics, is that rather than encourage the empowerment of men, it expects us to apologise for our maleness, our masculinity and our manhood.

So the day I gave up apologising for being my own man – both to socially-conservative traditionalists and to progressive, liberal feminists – was the day I became an unapologetic, card-carrying non-feminist.

Ja, warum eigentlich nicht? Im Feminismus wäre die Antwort klar: Weil dort Männlichkeit absolut negativ besetzt ist und vergleichbar ist mit der Erklärung, dass man stolz auf seine Ausbeuterei und Unterdrückung anderer Menschen ist. Dabei gibt es natürlich viele positive Aspekte von Männlichkeit, die man ebenso hervorheben könnte und als Mann leben zu wollen ist nicht schlimmer als als Frau leben zu wollen.

Der Text behandelt dieses Problem nicht und stellt dafür auf die freie Wahl in den Vordergrund und den Umstand, dass man nicht einen „Käfig“ durch einen anderen ersetzen sollte.

I believe every child, everywhere in the world, deserves the right to be taught to think for themselves and then use those skills to decided what they want to believe or not believe.

Adichie, for example, has some really interesting beliefs about boysthat are worth considering. She says: “We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.”

And yet her response to this rigid masculine conditioning is to place boys inside a narrow thought cage called “We Should All Be Feminists”.

Es folgt ein weiteres schönes Plädoyer für freie Wahl in Abgrenzung zum Feminismus:

Adiche claims we do a disservice to boys by making them feel “they have to be hard”, leaving them with a “very fragile ego” in the process. This process, she argues, does “a much greater disservice to girls, because we raise them to cater to the fragile egos of males”.

There may be some truth in that. It’s also my experience that feminism – with it’s trigger warnings and its fundamentalist belief that “we should all be feminists” – is the embodiment of a fragile female ego that is incapable of accepting that anyone else (especially men and boys) should be entitled to the privileged position of being considered vulnerable, sensitive and worthy of protection.

Adiche says she wouldn’t be interested in any man who would feel intimidated by her and rightly so. So why does she expect boys to be interested in a fundamentalist approach to gender politics that is so intimidated by reasoned criticism?

Finde ich einen Text mit sehr viel guten Stellen.