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.


Wie würde euer Patriarchat aussehen?

Werte Brüder!

Ich berufe eine außerordentliche Patriarchatsversammlung ein, da mir verschiedentlich zugetragen wurde, dass eine gewisse Unzufriedenheit besteht!

Es scheint, als wären einige Brüder mit den gegenwärtig für jedes unser Mitglieder erzielten Lohnzuschlag von 23%, mehr als wohl jede andere Gewerkschaft je für seine Mitglieder herausgeholt hat, unser sehr erfolgreichen Zwangsheterosexualisierungsquote von etwa 95%   die mühsam gegen die drohende  vollständige Totalverschwulung sämtlicher heterosexueller Männer abgekämpft wurde und unser Aufrechterhaltung absoluter Unterdrückung seit nunmehr über einen sonst nie erreichbaren Zeitraum von mehr als 200.000 Jahren gegenüber einer gesellschaftlichen Mehrheit der Gruppe Frau bei Vortäuschung eines freien Wahlrechts, nicht mehr zufrieden und wollten mehr. Das ist eine begründete männliche Einstellung, denn wir streben ja immer nach mehr Macht und neuem Unterdrückungspotential, gerade die WHMs unter uns!

Ein Bruder äußerte sogar:

Mein Patriarchat sähe anders aus, das kannste glauben

Solche Hinweise nehmen wir sehr ernst! Wir bitten daher um Visionen für ein neues, besseres Patriarchat! Wie würdet ihr die Unterdrückung der Frau verbessern und wie die Reichweite unser Organisation ausdehnen?

Da das Patriarchat absolute Möglichkeiten hat, Frauen zu formen und ihnen Geschlechterrollen vorzugeben: Wie sollen wir die Frauen umgestalten? Wie machen wir die (hegemoniale) Männlichkeit noch besser?

Ich bitte um eure Vorstellungen eures perfekten Patriarchats!

(weibliche Patriarchatsunterstützer, die eine effektivere Unterdrückung wünschen, dürfen sich ausnahmsweise nach Ankleben des Zeremonienbartes auch beteiligen, wenn die Küchenarbeit erledigt ist, eine Steinigung nach § 236 IV S. 5 PatriarGO bleibt wie üblich vorbehalten, jeder bitte nur einen Stein!)


Mario Götze und die Wichtigkeit der Gruppenzugehörigkeit im Sport

Fußball ist zu einem nicht geringen Teil intrasexuelle Konkurrenz und Gruppenbildung. Die Spieler auf dem Platz führen einen Stellvertreterwettkampf für ihre Gruppenmitglieder, also die Fans durch. Teil der Gruppe und dieser würdig ist man dann, wenn man diese Gruppe unterstützt, ihr Solidarisch ist, den Gegner nicht unterstützt.

Um so größer der Wert für die Gruppe, um so größer auch das Bedauern, wenn die Unterstützung endet.

Mario Götze

Mario Götze

Mario Götze wechselt nunmehr von Dortmund zu Bayern München und das Entsetzen ist groß:

Nur wenige Stunden vor dem Anpfiff des ersten Halbfinals wird bekannt, dass Mario Götze zum FC Bayern wechselt. Um Mitternacht bringt eine Boulevardzeitung die Nachricht als erste, offensichtlich lanciert aus dem Umfeld des FC Bayern. Der Zeitpunkt ist derart heikel, dass er Fragen aufwirft. Der BVB steht wie gelackmeiert da, muss einen Tag vor dem Spiel gegen Real Madrid erklären, weshalb Götze, 20, ausgerechnet zum großen Konkurrenten wechselt.

Und der FC Bayern? Demonstriert seine Macht mit Härte. Nach Startrainer Pep Guardiola haben die Münchner mal eben das größte Talent im deutschen Fußball losgeeist, offenbar einen erklärten Wunschspieler Guardiolas.

Es ist eben ein Stoß in das Selbstvertrauen der Gruppe: Den Star des anderen Teams abzuwerben bedeutet: Euer bester Mann hält euch nicht für gut genug, er will lieber Teil unserer Gruppe sein.

Theoretisch könnte man das einfach abhaken, die Millionen, die er dem Verein bringt neu investieren, ihn in den Spielen, die man jetzt noch mit ihm hat, so effektiv wie möglich einsetzen und unterstützen. Aber einfach darüber hinweg zu sehen, dass er die Gruppe verrät, dass ist eben nicht so einfach mit unserer Natur in Einklang zu bringen. Das Bedürfnis die eigene Gruppensolidarität zu zeigen, indem man zeigt, dass man ihn dafür verachtet und aus der Gruppe ausgrenzt ist groß.

Mal sehen, wie logisch die Fans sich in dem Spiel verhalten.

Roy Baumeister: Wozu sind Männer eigentlich überhaupt noch gut?

Roy Baumeisters Buch „Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men“ (deutsch: „Wozu sind Männer eigentlich überhaupt noch gut?: Wie Kulturen davon profitieren, Männer auszubeuten„) klingt nach einem Buch, welches für Leser dieses Blogs thematisch interessant sein könnte.

Baumeister zu seinem Buch in einem Vortrag:

My purpose in this talk is not to try to balance this out by praising men, though along the way I will have various positive things to say about both genders. The question of whether there’s anything good about men is only my point of departure. The tentative title of the book I’m writing is “How culture exploits men,” but even that for me is the lead-in to grand questions about how culture shapes action. In that context, what’s good about men means what men are good for, from the perspective of the system.

Es geht also nicht um „Männer sind besser“, sondern beide sind gut, werden aber verschieden „verwertet“.

Dazu auch noch das Folgende:

Hence this is not about the “battle of the sexes,” and in fact I think one unfortunate legacy of feminism has been the idea that men and women are basically enemies. I shall suggest, instead, that most often men and women have been partners, supporting each other rather than exploiting or manipulating each other. Nor is this about trying to argue that men should be regarded as victims. I detest the whole idea of competing to be victims. And I’m certainly not denying that culture has exploited women. But rather than seeing culture as patriarchy, which is to say a conspiracy by men to exploit women, I think it’s more accurate to understand culture (e.g., a country, a religion) as an abstract system that competes against rival systems — and that uses both men and women, often in different ways, to advance its cause.

Also keine Opferolympiade, aber eben auch keine einseitige Betrachtung als Patriarchat, sondern ein Verstehen der Zusammenhänge aus denen heraus sich eine bestimmte Kultur durchgesetzt hat.

Zum Einsatz der Männer schreibt er:

Seeing all this, the feminists thought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. It must be great to be a man.

The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.

Ein Einwand, der in der Männerbewegung schon lange verwendet wird, beispielsweise von Warren Farrell. Es zeigt eben die andere Seite der Geschlechterverhältnisse, bei der deutlich wird, dass es nicht um eine einseitige, privilegierende Männerbevorzugung geht. Männer tragen eben auch viele der Lasten der Gesellschaft.

Baumeister zum Aufbau des Systems:

Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also don’t give them the big rewards.

Also erst einmal eine verschiedene Verteilung von Risiken, die auch zu anderen Nutzen führt. Letztendlich ein Tausch/Kompromiss. Zu diesem „Trade/off“ schreibt er weiter:

Tradeoff example: African-Americans suffer from sickle cell anemia more than white people. This appears to be due to a genetic vulnerability. That gene, however, promotes resistance to malaria. Black people evolved in regions where malaria was a major killer, so it was worth having this gene despite the increased risk of sickle cell anemia. White people evolved in colder regions, where there was less malaria, and so the tradeoff was resolved differently, more avoiding the gene that prevented malaria while risking sickle cell anemia.

The tradeoff approach yields a radical theory of gender equality. Men and women may be different, but each advantage may be linked to a disadvantage.

Hence whenever you hear a report that one gender is better at something, stop and consider why this is likely true — and what the opposite trait might be good for.

Da gibt es natürlich viele Beispiele: Männer haben mehr Kraftmuskeln, Frauen haben einen geringeren Energiebedarf, Frauen sind besser in Empathie, Männer weniger empfindlich etc

Ein weiterer Unterschied könnte eine verschiedene Motivation in bestimmten Bereichen sein:

Maybe women can do math and science perfectly well but they just don’t like to. After all, most men don’t like math either! Of the small minority of people who do like math, there are probably more men than women. Research by Eccles has repeatedly concluded that the shortage of females in math and science reflects motivation more than ability. And by the same logic, I suspect most men could learn to change diapers and vacuum under the sofa perfectly well too, and if men don’t do those things, it’s because they don’t want to or don’t like to, not because they are constitutionally unable (much as they may occasionally pretend otherwise!). Several recent works have questioned the whole idea of gender differences in abilities: Even when average differences are found, they tend to be extremely small. In contrast, when you look at what men and women want, what they like, there are genuine differences. Look at research on the sex drive: Men and women may have about equal “ability” in sex, whatever that means, but there are big differences as to motivation: which gender thinks about sex all the time, wants it more often, wants more different partners, risks more for sex, masturbates more, leaps at every opportunity, and so on. Our survey of published research found that pretty much every measure and every study showed higher sex drive in men. It’s official: men are hornier than women. This is a difference in motivation.

Das finde ich ein gutes Beispiel: Theoretisch, den Fähigkeiten nach, könnten Frauen sogar mehr Sex haben als Männer. Aber sie wollen es eben nicht, weil sie eine geringere „Motivation“ in Form eines geringen Sextriebs haben. Wir könnten vielleicht viele Arbeiten anders aufteilen, aber beide Geschlechter haben häufig eine andere Motivationslage, die die bisherige Aufteilung stützt.

Likewise, I mentioned the salary difference, but it may have less to do with ability than motivation. High salaries come from working super-long hours. Workaholics are mostly men. (There are some women, just not as many as men.) One study counted that over 80% of the people who work 50-hour weeks are men. That means that if we want to achieve our ideal of equal salaries for men and women, we may need to legislate the principle of equal pay for less work. Personally, I support that principle. But I recognize it’s a hard sell.

Der Lohnunterschied als reines Motivationsproblem bzw. als Problem verschiedener Interessen war hier auch schon häufiger Thema.

Einen Grund für diese Unterschiede sieht Baumeister in den unterschiedlichen Fortpflanzungsquoten bei Männern und Frauen:

Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women? (…) Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

Bereits dieser Unterschied bedingt nach Baumeister, dass Männer wesentlich mehr zu den Extremen gelangen:

For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway. We’re most descended from the type of men who made the risky voyage and managed to come back rich. In that case he would finally get a good chance to pass on his genes. We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky).

Männer sind also eher das Produkt von risikobereiten Vorfahren, während Frauen aufgrund ihrer hohen Fortpflanzungsquote weniger das „Ob“ als das „Wie“ im Auge behalten mussten und insoweit weit weniger auf Risikobereitschaft selektiert worden sind.

Bei den Unterscheiden stellt sich Baumeister dann die Frage, ob Frauen sozialer sind als Männer:

The gist of our view was that there are two different ways of being social. In social psychology we tend to emphasize close, intimate relationships, and yes, perhaps women specialize in those and are better at them than men. But one can also look at being social in terms of having larger networks of shallower relationships, and on these, perhaps, men are more social than women. It’s like the common question, what’s more important to you, having a few close friendships or having lots of people who know you? Most people say the former is more important. But the large network of shallow relationships might be important too. We shouldn’t automatically see men as second-class human beings simply because they specialize in the less important, less satisfying kind of relationship. Men are social too — just in a different way.

Auch hier geht es also wieder um Unterschiede, nicht ein besser oder schlechter. Männer haben insofern einfach eine andere Art ein entsprechendes Freundesnetzwerk aufzubauen als Frauen.

Er erläutert die Unterschiede auch an dem Beispiel der Fairness:

Fairness is another example. Research by Major and others back in the 1970s used procedures like this. A group of subjects would perform a task, and the experimenter would then say that the group had earned a certain amount of money, and it was up to one member to divide it up however he or she wanted. The person could keep all the money, but that wasn’t usually what happened. Women would divide the money equally, with an equal share for everybody. Men, in contrast, would divide it unequally, giving the biggest share of reward to whoever had done the most work. Which is better? Neither. Both equality and equity are valid versions of fairness. But they show the different social sphere orientation. Equality is better for close relationships, when people take care of each other and reciprocate things and divide resources and opportunities equally. In contrast, equity — giving bigger rewards for bigger contributions — is more effective in large groups. I haven’t actually checked, but I’m willing to bet that if you surveyed the Fortune 500 large and successful corporations in America, you wouldn’t find a single one out of 500 that pays every employee the same salary. The more valuable workers who contribute more generally get paid more. It simply is a more effective system in large groups. The male pattern is suited for the large groups, the female pattern is best suited to intimate pairs.

Dazu, warum gerade Männer auf das Leben in der großen Gruppe ausgelegt sind, habe ich schon hier was geschrieben.

Aus diesem Gruppengefüge soll dann auch die Kultur entstanden sein. Baumeister zu der feministischen Begründung dazu:

Gender inequality seems to have increased with early civilization, including agriculture. Why? The feminist explanation has been that the men banded together to create patriarchy. This is essentially a conspiracy theory, and there is little or no evidence that it is true. Some argue that the men erased it from the history books in order to safeguard their newly won power. Still, the lack of evidence should be worrisome, especially since this same kind of conspiracy would have had to happen over and over, in group after group, all over the world.

In der Tat: Die Patriarchatstheorien sind Verschwörungstheorien, für die es keine Beweise gibt und gegen die sehr viel spricht. Eine Erklärung, wie sich trotz der Gleichheit immer wieder die  Männer durchsetzen konnten, kenne ich nicht.

Baumeisters eigene Erklärung sieht Kultur als direkte Folge der männlichen Gruppentheorien:

Let me offer a different explanation. It’s not that the men pushed the women down. Rather, it’s just that the women’s sphere remained about where it was, while the men’s sphere, with its big and shallow social networks, slowly benefited from the progress of culture. By accumulating knowledge and improving the gains from division of labor, the men’s sphere gradually made progress. Hence religion, literature, art, science, technology, military action, trade and economic marketplaces, political organization, medicine — these all mainly emerged from the men’s sphere. The women’s sphere did not produce such things, though it did other valuable things, like take care of the next generation so the species would continue to exist. Why? It has nothing to do with men having better abilities or talents or anything like that. It comes mainly from the different kinds of social relationships. The women’s sphere consisted of women and therefore was organized on the basis of the kind of close, intimate, supportive one-on-one relationships that women favor. These are vital, satisfying relationships that contribute vitally to health and survival. Meanwhile the men favored the larger networks of shallower relationships. These are less satisfying and nurturing and so forth, but they do form a more fertile basis for the emergence of culture.

Eine Entwicklung der Kultur und der größeren Gemeinschaften aus dem lockeren Verbund der Männer erscheint mir durchaus logisch und würde auch erklären, warum Matriarchate eher kleine Volksstämme sind und selten große Reiche.

Baumeister führt dazu weiter aus:

Thus, the reason for the emergence of gender inequality may have little to do with men pushing women down in some dubious patriarchal conspiracy. Rather, it came from the fact that wealth, knowledge, and power were created in the men’s sphere. This is what pushed the men’s sphere ahead. Not oppression.

Da könnte man natürlich einwenden, dass sie zwar dort kreiert worden sein mögen, sie nun mehr aber gleich zu verteilen sind. Allerdings hat dies eben auch biologische Folgen, wenn ein Umstand über einen evolutionär interessanten Zeitraum einem bestimmten Geschlecht zugeordnet ist, was eben wieder zu den verschiedenen Fähigkeiten und Motivation passt.

Baumeister führt dann an, wozu Männer in Kulturen gut sind:

  • First, culture relies on men to create the large social structures that comprise it. Our society is made up of institutions such as universities, governments, corporations. Most of these were founded and built up by men. Again, this probably had less to do with women being oppressed or whatever and more to do with men being motivated to form large networks of shallow relationships. Men are much more interested than women in forming large groups and working in them and rising to the top in them.
  • The second thing that makes men useful to culture is what I call male expendability. This goes back to what I said at the outset, that cultures tend to use men for the high-risk, high-payoff undertakings, where a significant portion of those will suffer bad outcomes ranging from having their time wasted, all the way to being killed. (…) Thus, men create the kind of social networks where individuals are replaceable and expendable. Women favor the kind of relationships in which each person is precious and cannot truly be replaced.
  • The phrase “Be a man” is not as common as it once was, but there is still some sense that manhood must be earned. Every adult female is a woman and is entitled to respect as such, but many cultures withhold respect from the males until and unless the lads prove themselves. This is of course tremendously useful for the culture, because it can set the terms by which males earn respect as men, and in that way it can motivate the men to do things that the culture finds productive

Klinkt etwas nach „Das Patriarchat ist an allem schuld“ aber anders als dort ist die Kultur nicht der Hauptwiderspruch, dessen wegfallen das irdische Paradies ausbrechen lassen würde, sonder ohne diese Form der Ausbeutung des Mannes wären die anderen Vorteile, die dieses System mit sich bringt, nicht mehr nutzbar.

Die Evolution des Sports: Warum Männer sich mehr für Sport interessieren als Frauen

Ein interessanter Artikel stellt Theorien zur evolutionären Entwicklung von Sport dar:

Sports have received little attention from evolutionary biologists. I argue that sport began as a way for men to develop the skills needed in primitive hunting and warfare, then developed to act primarily as a lek where athletes display and male spectators evaluate the qualities of potential allies and rivals. This hypothesis predicts that (1) the most popular modern male sports require the skills needed for success in male-male physical competition and primitive hunting and warfare; (2) champion male athletes obtain high status and thereby reproductive opportunities in ways that parallel those gained by successful primitive hunters and warriors; (3) men pay closer attention than do women to male sports so they can evaluate potential allies and rivals; and (4) male sports became culturally more important when opportunities to evaluate potential allies and rivals declined as both the survival importance of hunting and the proportion of men who experience combat decreased. The characteristics of primitive and modern sports are more consistent with these predictions than those generated by intersexual sexual selection theories of sport.

Quelle: On the evolution of sport (Volltext, PDF)

Hier ein Auszug dazu, warum eher mehr Männer als Frauen am Sport interessiert sind:

Sports originally provided males with important, but relatively low-cost, opportunities to (1) develop the physical skills (e.g., agility, endurance, eye-hand co-ordination, speed, strength) and behaviors (e.g., context appropriate aggressiveness, competitiveness, and cooperativeness) required for success during male-male competition and as hunters and warriors, and (2) evaluate the physical abilities and behavioral tendencies of potential allies and rivals so as to adaptively interact with them during future encounters.

Men have historically encouraged boys to play sports as a way to teach them the physical skills necessary for primitive hunting and warfare and inculcate in them the behaviors needed for group success (e.g., Ashe, 1988; Carroll, 2000; Cartledge, 2003; Guttmann, 2004a, 2004b). These traits would also benefit them during physical contests over resources and mates. Athletic success also likely provided ancestral men with increased reproductive success through increased status in ways that parallel the increased status frequently obtained by “champion” hunters and warriors among modern hunter-gatherers and athletes throughout recorded history. Both intrasexual and intersexual sexual selection act synergistically, affecting the evolution of sport. Traits that lead to athletic success can become preferred by women during mate choice because they are honest indicators of mate quality (Zahavi, 1975; Puts, 2010). However, male traits associated with competing at and watching sports appear to be better designed for success at male-male competition than for attracting mates (cf. Puts, 2010).

I hypothesize that sport evolved to function like a non-human mating display lek (e.g., sage grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus), but with an important difference. In typical mating display leks, males congregate in areas that do not contain resources used by breeding females and perform courtship displays observed by females that either directly choose with whom they will mate, or copy the mate choice of others (Höglund and Alatalo, 1995). I hypothesize that athletic contests function as “leks” where male physical prowess and the behaviors important in conflict and cooperation are displayed by athletes and evaluated primarily by male, not female, spectators. Male spectators can inexpensively learn the qualities of potential allies and rivals without having to pay the costs of direct competition. Moreover, athletic contests are like mating display leks that evolved via female preference. Females in lekking species prefer leks with large groups of males allowing them to quickly, relatively safely, and at low cost simultaneously evaluate the qualities of many potential mates (Höglund and Alatalo, 1995). In a similar way, the preferences of male spectators have driven the evolution of sport. Male preferences have determined contest rules, the scheduling of contests, and the physical and mental attributes showcased by different sports (e.g., Guttmann, 2004b; Miller, 2000) so that male spectators can quickly, relatively safely, and at low cost evaluate the qualities of potential allies and rivals. According to the male spectator lek hypothesis, the primary force in the evolution of sport was intrasexual selection driven by the (1) demands of male-male physical competition and (2) need for men to be able to evaluate the quality of potential allies and rivals.

Es klingt für mich nach einer brauchbaren These. Danach wäre Sport etwas, was Männern Informationen über deren Fähigkeiten gibt. Sport wäre demnach hauptsächlich als Wettbewerb unter Männern entstanden, mit dem sie dessen Eigenschaften innerhalb der intrasexuellen Konkurrenz einschätzen konnten. Dabei mag der Wettbewerb auch dazu gedient haben bei einem Aufeinandertreffen von Gruppen durch den Wettbewerb einiger Ausschluss über die Gruppe zu bekommen. Dies wäre dann, weil die Männer eher die Kämpfe untereinander ausgetragen haben, für die Männer interessant, während es für Frauen eher nur auf Partnerwahlkriterien ankam, die anders ausgestaltet sein können und bei denen Status eine höhere Bedeutung haben konnte als eine Betrachtung des gesamten Wettbewerbs.

Noch kurz zu den Vermutungen der These:

This hypothesis predicts that

(1) the most popular modern male sports require the skills needed for success in male-male physical competition and primitive hunting and warfare

Fußball erfordert eine hohe Fitness und insbesondere räumliches Denken und die Einschätzung von Flugbahnen. Was bei einem Kampf mit Wurfgeschossen, die man gezielt einsetzen und denen man ausweichen ist, wichtig ist.

Basketball verlangt ebenfalls ein hohes räumliches Denken. Bei American Football wird der Kampfaspekt auch sehr deutlich.

Insgesamt wird das räumliche Denken bei allen Ballsportarten abgefragt, meist zusätzlich zu einer Ausdauer und direkter Kraft in dem jeweiligen Bereich

(2) champion male athletes obtain high status and thereby reproductive opportunities in ways that parallel those gained by successful primitive hunters and warriors

Das Sportstars hohen Status haben und für viele Frauen attraktiv sind, ist recht offensichtlich.

Nur zur Untermalung mal ein paar „Spielerfrauen“ der aktuellen EM:

Lena Gercke (Sam Khedira)

Lena Gercke (Sam Khedira)

Irina Shayk (Christiano Ronaldo)

Irina Shayk (Christiano Ronaldo)

Silvia Meichel (Mario Gomez)

Silvia Meichel (Mario Gomez)

Anderer sehr hübsche Sportlerfrauen oder Freundinnen oder Groupies lassen sich in rauen Mengen finden. Dass viele Männer Sportlern ebenfalls einen hohen Status zuweisen braucht auch eigentlich keine weitere Erläuterung.

(3) men pay closer attention than do women to male sports so they can evaluate potential allies and rivals

Das Männer im Schnitt, von Großereignissen wie der EM oder der WM, mehr an Sport interessiert sind, erscheint mir auch eine leicht zu machende Feststellung zu sein.

Das sie dabei Verbündete und Rivalen begutachten wäre dann eine andere Frage. Männer stellen ja meist keinen Vergleich zwischen sich und den Sportlern an, sondern ordnen sich eher einer Gruppe zu. Innerhalb dieser werden die Stärken des eigenen Teams und die Stärken der Rivalen aber aufmerksam beobachtet und genau begutachtet. Zudem wird durch Fankleidung etc. Gruppenzugehörigkeit ausgedrückt. Die Zugehörigkeit zu einer Gruppe ist ja innerhalb sozialer, intelligenter Wesen überaus wichtig, da die Gruppe dem Einzelwesen immer überlegen sein kann (zur Gruppenbildung bei Männern). Ähnliches hatte ich auch schon mal bei einer Betrachtung zu Sport und Konkurrenzkampf ausgeführt.

(4) male sports became culturally more important when opportunities to evaluate potential allies and rivals declined as both the survival importance of hunting and the proportion of men who experience combat decreased.

Auch das erscheint mir durchaus stimmig. Wenn die Möglichkeiten zu einer direkten Auseinandersetzung innerhalb der intrasexuellen Konkurrenz sinken, dann werden Ersatzformen attraktiver und dann kulturell deutlicher ausgestaltet.

Kooperation und Wettbewerb

Eine interessante Studie zu Kooperation und Wettbewerb und den dabei vorhandenen Geschlechterunterschieden:

Men’s but not women’s investment in a public goods game varied dynamically with the presence or absence of a perceived out-group. Three hundred fifty-four (167 male) young adults participated in multiple iterations of a public goods game under intergroup and individual competition conditions. Participants received feedback about whether their investments in the group were sufficient to earn a bonus to be shared among all in-group members. Results for the first trial confirm previous research in which men’s but not women’s investments were higher when there was a competing out-group. We extended these findings by showing that men’s investment in the in-group varied dynamically by condition depending on the outcome of the previous trial: In the group condition, men, but not women, decreased spending following a win (i.e., earning an in-group bonus). In the individual condition, men, but not women, increased spending following a win. We hypothesize that these patterns reflect a male bias to calibrate their level of in-group investment such that they sacrifice only what is necessary for their group to successfully compete against a rival group

Quelle: Sex Differences in In-Group Cooperation Vary Dynamically with Competitive Conditions and Outcomes (PDF)

Männer investieren also mehr in eine Gruppe, wenn Konkurrenz in Form einer anderen Gruppe vorhanden ist. Das Kooperation und Wettbewerb Hand in Hand gehen können wird gerne übersehen. Es ist richtig, dass wir eine kooperative Spezies sind, aber daraus folgt nicht, dass wir nicht auch eine am Wettbewerb interessierte Spezies sind. Wir kooperieren, um uns im Wettbewerb besser behaupten zu können. Kooperation kann gerade dazu dienen, sich leichter im Wettbewerb zu behaupten.

Die Studie spricht dafür, dass Männer eher bereit sind diesbezüglich Investitionen durchzuführen. Wenn man davon ausgeht, dass die evolutionäre Vergangenheit von Männern eher von Konkurrenz geprägt war und Gruppenbildung für sie für die Jagd und für intrasexuelle Konflikte besonders wichtig war, dann wäre das Ergebnis  der Studie gut zu erklären.

Unterschiede in der Reaktion auf Kritik und das Impostersyndrom

Susan Greenfield greift in einem Interview zwei interessante Punkte auf:

My credo is that I would love to see a world where the person trumps the gender. Certainly, as regards working with both sexes, there is good and bad. If you have to discipline a male member of your staff, if you say something like, „I don’t think you are working very hard“, they will take that on the chin and say „I think this or that“, and you will talk it through and then that is the end of it. A woman might burst into tears, get sulky, generalise the very specific complaint. The strong thing about women is that they are very sensitive to relationships, but there is a bad side to that – in that sort of situation, they think you don’t like them any more. Men compartmentalises their professional lives and their personal lives more easily than women do. Also, I think men are far more competitive than women. What I try and do with the women I have supervised is to actually get them to fight their corner and to stand up for what they believe in.

Das ist ebenfalls eine Erfahrung, die ich gemacht habe. Mit Männern kann man eher Streitigkeiten in einer Sache haben, die sich aber dann nicht auf das persönliche auswirken. Frauen im Schnitt hingegen sehen viele Streitigkeiten auf sich selbst bezogen und demnach auch als Angriff auf sich selbst.

Es passt zu den Darstellungen von Geary zur Gruppenbildung bei Männern, die ich in dem Artikel „Männerfreundschaften und Koalitionsbildung“ dargelegt habe, insbesondere zu dem Punkt „Eine Toleranz für interpersonalen Konflikt um Dominanz-Wettbewerbe zuzulassen und gleichzeitig die Gruppenverbindung aufrechtzuerhalten“. Ebenso passt es zu der Unterscheidung „systematisches vs. empathisches Gehirn

LF: Do you think that women in leadership roles tend to be more collaborative?

SG: Yes, and there’s also something called the imposter syndrome. Many successful women I have spoken to often feel they are there by a fluke. They feel that they will be seen through in a way that I don’t think men do.

Susan Pinker räumt in ihrem Buch diesem Syndrom bei Frauen ebenfalls einen hohen Wert zu.

Satoshi Kanazawa hat ebenfalls einen Artikel dazu. Er zitiert Susan Pinker wie folgt:

er ability, conviction, and good judgment saved countless lives. But Dr. Chan discounted her native smarts – and the opportunity to promote herself – attributing it all to luck. Another public health expert physician, an acquaintance of mine, once told me that her expertise in tuberculosis is “a fluke.” She travels the world to give lectures. She talks to the media and helps draft policy. Yet the diminutive, sharply dressed doctor has wondered aloud why people treat her with deference. “There are an awful lot of people out there who think I’m an expert. How do these people believe all this about me? I’m so much aware of all the things I don’t know.”

Natürlich wird es wiederum eine Sache sein, die nur im Schnitt zutrifft und es wird dementsprechend auch Männer geben, die genauso denken. Wer eine Studie zu den Verteilungen über die Geschlechter hat, kann sie gerne in den Kommentaren verlinken.

Als Erklärung kommen soziale Umstände in Betracht, aber natürlich auch biologische. Beispielsweise die Auswirkungen von Testosteron auf das Selbstvertrauen.

Männerfreundschaften und Koalitionsbildung

David Geary fasst in seinem Buch „Male, Female“ die sozialen Dynamiken und unterstützenden Mechanismen des sozialen Verhaltens und Jungen und Männern zusammen (S. 325):

Dabei soll bei der Gruppenbildung insbesondere das Folgende zu berücksichtigen sein

Geary geht davon aus, dass die Männer im Wege der sexuellen Selektion für einen harten intrasexuellen Wettbewerb optimiert worden sind, in dem es um Fortpflanzung und Ressourcen geht (die wiederum die Fortpflanzungsmöglichkeiten verbessern). Die Männer konkurrieren also untereinander sowohl um die Frauen als auch um weiter Ressourcen für Nachwuchs und Verwandschaft.
Da der Mensch in der Lage ist zu kooperieren und zwei Männer einem Mann überlegen sind, muss er die Fähigkeit entwickeln Gruppen zu gründen und innerhalb dieser gewisse Bindungen herzustellen, um dann innerhalb dieser Gruppe eine Kooperation zu ermöglichen. Das Gruppenbildung den Fortpflanzungserfolg erheblich beeinflussen kann, zeigen auch heutige Forschungen an Affen. Da es diese „Kampfgruppen“ bei den Frauen nicht gab, haben Männer eine andere Form der Gruppenbildung entwickelt als Frauen. Bei diesen Gruppen spielte Größe aufgrund des Vorteils beim Kampf eine Rolle, es mussten aber auch andere Gruppendynamiken berücksichtigt werden

Der Selektionsdruck, der die Gruppenbildung bei Männern geformt hat ist insbesondere der Wettbewerb zwischen Männern (male-male-competition) um

  • Die Kontrolle der örtlichen Ökologie und der darin enthaltenen Ressourcen
  • die Kontrolle der Reprodukutionsmöglichkeiten
Wer die Örtlichkeiten und dessen Ressourcen kontrollierte und dazu noch die Frauen in dieser Gegend, der konnte sich am besten fortpflanzen und diesen Nachwuchs dann auch versorgen.
Daraus ergeben sich dann die folgenden Gruppendynamiken
  • Koalitionsformung
    • Krieg um die Kontrolle der Ökologie (insbesondere Land) und Fortpflanzungsmöglichkeiten (zB durch Raubzüge)
    • Jagd für das individuelle Überleben und die Versorgung der Verwandschaft und der Familie und für die Ausweitung des kulturellen Erfolges und hierdurch: Verbesserung der Fortpflanzungsmöglichkeiten
    • Schutz der Verwandten und Familie vor anderen Männerkoalitionen
Dies sind sozusagen die Wege, auf dem sich die oben genannten Ziele erreichen lassen. Um diese Ziele zu erreichen waren bestimmte Gruppendynamiken hilfreich
  • Dynamiken in der Gruppe
    • Errichtung einer Dominanz-Hierarchie um koordinierte Aktivitäten zu ermöglichen
    • Eine geringe Schwelle für die Errichtung emotionaler und sozialer Bindungen mit Gruppenmitgliedern um eine hohe Gruppengröße zu erreichen
    • Spezialisierung und Differenzierung in den Rollen
    • Gemeinsame Ziele und ein ein Fokus sowohl bezüglich der Aufmerksamkeit als auch des Verhaltens auf Probleme aus der Umgebung (zB eine Befestigung errichten) oder den Wettbewerb mit anderen Gruppen
Eine Hierarchie ist eben nicht zwangsläufig etwas schlechtes. Sie verhindert unnötige Kämpfe innerhalb der Gruppe und macht diese handlungsfähiger. Wären die Menschen dabei zu wählerisch gewesen, dann bestünde die Gefahr, dass sie von Gruppen, die sich schneller geformt haben, besiegt zu werden, weil diese den Vorteil der Größe gehabt haben. Die Spezialisierung und Differenzierung der einzelnen Männer erlaubt diesen ein höheres Fachwissen in einem speziellen Gebiet und macht sie auch wichtiger innerhalb der Gruppe, da sie mit diesen Fähigkeiten innerhalb der Gruppe eine bessere Position erreichen. Da die Gruppen insbesondere einen hohen Kampf- und Dominanzwert hatten und in diesen Bereichen ihr höchster Nutzen lag, sollte auch genau dieser Bereich über die Konzentration auf den Wettbewerb mit anderen Gruppen wichtig sein. Ein Überbleibsel wäre dann heute der klassische Sportfan.
Hieraus ergeben sich für die Dynamiken unter den einzelnen Männern das Folgende:
Untereinander wirkt ein selektiver Druck nach Dominanz und Einfluss in der Gruppe. Dieser wirkt sich wie folgt aus:
  • Besondere Beachtung von Dominanzindikatoren
    • Physisch: Größe, Muskulatur, Fähigkeiten
    • Sozial und geistig: Anführerschaft und anderer Fähigkeiten, die die Gruppeneigenschaften bestimmen
    • Emotional: Agressivität, Fehlen von Angst
  • Individuelle Beziehungen
    • werden schnell errichtet  bei gemeinsam ausgeübten Tätigkeiten, insbesondere solchen, die Kooperation erfordern
    • werden stärker bei solchen Individuen mit gleichem Status geformt (um ein gerechtes Geben und Nehmen im Sinne einer Reziproxität zu ermöglichen)
    • Wettbewerbe um Dominanz sind begrenzt
    • Eine Toleranz für interpersonalen Konflikt um Dominanz-Wettbewerbe zuzulassen und gleichzeitig die Gruppenverbindung aufrechtzuerhalten

Es lohnte sich also in der Beziehung von Männern untereinander auf eine gewisse Gleichwertigkeit zu achten und nicht zu sensibel zu sein, sondern Wettbewerb innerhalb der Gruppe auf einem leichten Niveau zuzulassen. Dies dürfte auch der Grund sein, warum Männer sich wesentlich häufiger Sprüche drücken und kleine, gutgemeinte Gemeinheiten untereinander austeilen. Man kann dies eben gerade in einer befreundeten Gruppe, weil hier eine gewisse Toleranz vorhanden ist und durch diese Sprüche die Toleranz für solches Verhalten letztendlich noch gefördert wird (während eine Frau ein gleiches Verhalten vielleicht eher als feindselig ansehen würde).

Kooperatives Verhalten und Gruppenbildung

In dem Buch „The Origins of virtue“ stellt Matt Ridley dar, wie die Tugend entstanden sind. Genauer geht es darum, wie ein selbstloses Verhalten biologisch erklärbar ist.

Das Grundproblem ist dabei, dass erste Modele immer dargelegt haben, dass es günstiger ist, nicht tugendhaft, sondern nur auf seinen eigenen Vorteil hin ausgerichtet zu sein. Fortschritte ergaben sich dann aus modernen Überlegungen zur Spieletheorie, nach der kooperatives Verhalten dann erfolgreich sein kann, wenn die Spieler das Spiel wiederholt spielen können und dabei insbesondere unkooperatives Verhalten bestrafen können. Ein Spieler, der solange kooperativ ist, wie auch der andere Kooperativ ist und evtl. sogar den ein oder anderen Fehler (also unkooperatives Verhalten) verzeiht, kann die Vorteile eines kooperativen Verhaltens nutzen, ohne sich zu sehr der Gefahr auszusetzen, dass er ausgenutzt wird.

Weitere Mechanismen, die der Herstellung eines kooperativen Verhaltens zugänglich sind, wären Entrüstung über unkooperatives Verhalten, das Schämen für solches Verhalten, die Bestrafung des unkooperativen Verhaltens bis hin zum Ausschluss aus der Gesellschaft etc. So könnte also ein „Gerechtigkeitsgefühl“ entstanden sein, dass eine Leistung auf ihren Wert hin überprüft und insbesondere auch nachhält, ob die Gegenseite Leistungen erwidert und faire Gegenleistungen bringt.

Unter diesem Gesichtspunkt wäre eine Strategie, bei der man stets kooperativ ist, auch wenn man die andere Person nie wieder sieht, eine Werbemaßnahme, die sagt, dass man so kooperativ ist, dass man selbst ohne Aufsicht entsprechendes Verhalten zeigt. Dies wäre dann eine Werbemaßnahme gegenüber anderen Personen, die dann mit einem eher selbst kooperativ sind.

Einen interessanten Ausflug macht Ridley dann in das Feld der Kooperation innerhalb der Gruppe. Bei den meisten Tieren nutzen insbesondere die Männchen Kooperation innerhalb der Gruppe aus, um in der Hierarchie aufzusteigen (etwa indem das Alphamännchen durch zwei andere Männchen gemeinsam vom Thron gestoßen wird) oder Fortpflanzung zu ermöglichen.

Bei Delphinen beispielsweise indem sie zu dritt ein Weibchen in die Enge treiben und dann im Prinzip in Geiselhaft nehmen um sie zu vergewaltigen oder bei Affen indem ein ranghöheres Männchen von einem Weibchen zu zweit weggejagd wird um sie dann zu begatten oder als große Männchengruppe für Revierkämpfe, in denen ein regelrechter Krieg gegen benachbarte Affen geführt wird, zB um deren Weibchen ins eigene Revier zu bekommen oder das Revier auszuweiten.

Zusammenarbeit auf der Gruppenebene wird also im Tierreich immer wieder beobachtet, erfordert aber nach den dortigen Beobachtungen immer wieder eine Abgrenzung der Gruppe nach einem gemeinsamen Kriterium. Ameisen mögen höchst soziale Tiere bei einer Betrachtung des eigenen Ameisenhaufens sein, aber sie arbeiten nicht mit anderen Ameisenhaufen zusammen, sondern bekriegen sie.

Ridley meint nun, dass dieser Gruppeneffekt auch bei Menschen besteht. Auch wir brauchen eine Gruppe, der wir uns zugehörig fühlen und eine Gruppe, die im Gegenzug „die Anderen“ sind, damit eine Zusammenarbeit möglich ist. Ohne dieses verbindende Element der Gruppenzugehörigkeit würde Altruismus innerhalb einer Gruppe dem einzelnen keine Vorteile mehr bringen, da sie beliebig wird (das mag aufgrund der heutigen Gruppengröße zB bei einer Nationalität zwar auch ein sehr subjektiver Abgrenzungsgrund sein, aber dennoch wird die Einschätzung eines Gruppenvorteils aufgrund unserer Denkweise nach wie vor benötigt. Deswegen – so Ridley – gäbe es in allen menschlichen Gruppen Elemente um einen Gleichklang, eine Gleichheit, ein verbindendes Element herzustellen.

Ein Beispiel wäre Musik, bei der sich alle im Takt dieser bewegen, Uniformen, Märsche, alles bei der eine Synchronisation erreicht wird. Auch Religion könne diese Funktion erfüllen, indem sie eine Abgrenzung herbeiführt, etwa in Gläubige und Heiden (in einem kurzem Ausflug legt er dabei dar, dass die Regeln der meisten Religionen innere Regeln sind, die der Glaubensgemeinschaft dienen und dort Kooperation stärken sollen und nicht zwingend gegenüber „den anderen“ anzuwenden sind – etwa das christliche Gebot, dass man nicht töten soll, dass ansonsten in einem Widerspruch zu den sehr kkriegerischen Handlungen des alten Testaments und den unzähligen Tötungen dort im Namen Gottes stehen würde).

Weitere moderne Anwendungen wären die Fußballfans eines Vereins, die sich eben auch einer gewissen Gruppe zugehörig fühlen und sich so zu Fans anderer Vereine abgrenzen. Ridley stellt dar, dass jede Gruppe eine Gegengruppe braucht um sich selbst definieren zu können. Weil solche Gruppenbildung im Tierreich insbesondere bei Männern beobachtet wird, die so die Kooperation nutzen um in Hierarchien aufzusteigen oder ihre Fortpfanzungschancen zu erhöhen wäre demnach auch verständlich, warum gerade Männer solche Gruppenzugehörigkeiten benötigen. Fußballfans wären demnach nichts anderes als der Wunsch der jeweiligen Fans halt in einer Gruppe zu finden um sich nicht alleine mit anderen Gruppen messen zu müssen.

Sieht man dabei Sport als ritualisierten Wettkampf an, macht es noch viel mehr Sinn, dass überall auf der Welt Männer ein höheres Interesse daran haben sich einer der Männergruppen zuzuordnen, die diese ritualisierten Wettkämpfe austragen. Kurzum, es erklärt, warum Männerfußball ein Millionengeschäft ist während Frauenfußball im vergleich vor sich hindümpelt. Frauengruppen benötigen ihre Gruppen weniger für eine Behauptung im Konkurrenzkampf, sondern sie können von vorneherein eher auf weniger Wettbewerb ausgerichtet sein, weil sie üblicherweise keine Revierkämpfe führen müssen und auch keine Männer für die Fortpflanzung in Zusammenarbeit monopolisieren konnten (vgl. auch Sport und Konkurrenzkampf: Unterschiede zwischen Mann und Frau)

Natürlich bedeutet das nicht, dass Frauen kein biologisches Interesse an Gruppenbildung und Ausgrenzung anderer haben. Sie haben dies durchaus schon deswegen,weil ein Fremder außerhalb der Gruppe eben auch immer eine Gefahr darstellt, da Fremde weniger kooperatives Verhalten gegenüber Mitgliedern anderer Gruppen zeigen müssen.


Frauen als unterdrückte Gruppe in Abgrenzung zu anderen unterdrückten Gruppen

In der Diskussion um Feminismus und Männer als Feindbild ging es auch um die Unterdrückung der Gruppe Frau durch die Gruppe Mann und der Nachteile, die die Frau im Patriarchat hat.

Ein gängiges Gegenargument ist das dort von Adrian wiedergegebene, das darstellt, dass es Frauen dafür, dass sie unterdrückt werden, erstaunlich gut geht in Vergleich zu anderen Gruppen und auch im Verhältnis zu den unterdrückenden Männern:

„Die einzig unterdrückte Gruppe, die länger lebt, eine höhere Bildung, sowei ein höheres reales Einkommen als der Unterdrücker hat und bei ders gesellschaftlich akzeptabel ist, den Unterdrücker für sich arbeiten zu lassen.“

Ich hätte noch das Folgende, was ebenfalls häufig genannt wird:

  • Frauen treffen einen Großteil der Konsumentscheidungen für ihre Unterdrücker
  • Frauen erhalten bei einer Trennung überwiegend die Kinder der Unterdrücker, selbst wenn diese sie behalten wollen

Ich würde dieses Argument gerne näher untersuchen / weiter ausbauen.

Welche Belege gibt es also für die obigen Angaben, inwiefern gibt es dies bei anderen unterdrückten Gruppen nicht, Welche andere Vorteile, die unterdrückte Gruppen üblicherweise nicht haben, haben Frauen?

Und natürlich würden mich auch feministische Erwiderungen hierzu interessieren.

ich vermute einmal sie gehen in die Richtung von:

„Frauen haben zwar gewisse Vorteile, aber sie werden trotzdem in Rollen gezwängt, die sie nicht wollen, sie sind trotzdem abhängig von dem Einkommen ihres Mannes, sie sind trotzdem eingeschränkt bei der Wahl der Möglichkeiten und ihren Aufstiegschancen.“

Wobei dann erst einmal diese Behinderungen darzulegen wären und dann die Verursachung dieser durch „das Patriarchat“ oder die Männer (vgl zu Karriere auch die Beiträge unter „Frauen in hohen Positionen„)