„Ich denke, dass jede intelligente Frau Männer hassen sollte“

Suzanne Moore muss sich leider im New Statesman mit ihrem Männerhass zurückhalten. (via Genderama) Heraus kommt dabei dieser Text:

Men. You can’t live with them. You can’t shoot them. Well, you can, but this is the New Statesman. And modern feminism spends most of its life not just bending over backwards, but in the doggy position, saying how much it likes men. “I’m a feminist but . . . I love men.” Obviously I’m being a bit binary here, and when I write “men”, I mean women, blokes, anyone fluid enough basically to be in charge.

Es ist immer wieder erstaunlich, wie radikale Feministinnen das Nichthassen von Männern bereits als Anbiederung an Männer sehen. Und damit dann auch noch in großen Zeitschriften Texte veröffentlichen können ohne das es den Leuten peinlich ist. Das ist so als würde man Texte aus dem Gelben Forum in eine große Tageszeitung einstellen und alle würden es irgendwie okay finden das zu machen. Ich finde das immer noch erstaunlich

I once adhered to this. I didn’t want to put anyone off. I used to call feminism “sexual politics”, because that sounded way more sexy. Hey, I’m no man-hater – on the contrary. Look at me. Men? Can’t get enough of them, the poor, damaged critters. It’s not their fault. They’re as screwed up by the patriarchy as ordinary women, probably even more so.

Sie scheint mir der RadFem-Ecke zuzugehören, die den intersektionalen Feminismus ablehnt, weil er nicht deutlich genug macht, dass Männer insgesamt der Feind sind. Weil er Männlichkeit und nicht Männer an sich für alles verantwortlich macht und Männern insofern die Möglichkeit gibt, sich zu exkulpieren.

All the special boys. What about the ones who were abused at public school and now run everything but can’t express their emotions properly? All the man victims, trapped by masculinity. Who could hate them? Their oppression is structural. You can’t hate them individually, can you?

„Die Unterdrückung der Männer folgt aus der Struktur“ klingt so als könnten Männer im intersektionalen Feminismus Opfer sein. Aber dabei wird unterschlagen, dass sie, um einer Schuld zu entkommen, erst einmal ihre Schuld in Form ihrer Verantwortung für die Unterdrückung auch ihrer selbst als Männer akzeptieren müssen. Sie müssen ihre Privilegien hinterfragen und letztendlich Männlichkeit bekämpfen

You know what? I can. Please don’t confuse that with bitterness. I am in touch with my emotions enough to know the difference between personal hurt and class hatred. As a class, I hate men. I’ve changed my mind. I am no longer reasonable.

Der Hinweis, dass man einen bestimmten Unterschied kennt und er deswegen auf einen selbst nicht zutreffen kann, wird gerne zur eigenen Entlastung verwendet, ist aber häufig falsch. Ob es bei ihr tatsächlich Verbitterung ist oder einfach das Gefallen daran, Verantwortung für bestimmte Umstände oder eigenes Scheitern auf eine andere Gruppe von Menschen als Sündenböcke zu verlagern

I want to see this class broken. There can’t be even basic equality for women without taking away the power of men – and by that I don’t mean feeling sorry for them because they have no friends or suggesting that they have small genitals. I mean the removal of their power.

„Den Männern ihre Macht wegnehmen“ ist ein altes Thema im Feminismus. Dabei ist es eigentlich recht einfach in einer Demokratie mit mehr weiblichen Wählern. Wahlweise muss man eben Familie und Freizeit eintauschen gegen Überstunden und die Partnerwahl von dem gutverdienenden Statusmann auf den Kindergärtner umstellen. Oder Beziehungen aufgeben und nur noch mit hübschen Männern schlafen ohne wirkliche Bindung, nach der Art der Bonobos. Männer hätten plötzlich zu viel damit zu tun ins Fitnessstudio zu laufen statt Karriere zu machen.

When I used to give men the benefit of the doubt, that doubt was suffused with my desire for sex, babies, the whole shebang. It wasn’t difficult to get any of this, although the way in which women are encouraged to do so is stultifying.

Dazu vielleicht kurz etwas aus ihrem Leben aus einem anderen Artikel:

Moore had her first child, Scarlet, when she was at university in her mid-20s; she had Bliss in her early 30s; 10 years later, she had another daughter, Angel. She has been a single mother pretty much throughout. Given her experience of having a child in three separate decades, she says she „probably“ agrees with Hilary Mantel’s recent comments that women might sometimes benefit from having children when they’re young. „When I had Scarlet, I had no money but a lot of energy, and as you get older, you have – well, luckily for me – more money, but less energy. I’ve known so many people who have left it, and left it, and then had problems. You just want everyone to be aware of the choices they have to make.“

She has always had a feminist outlook, she says, formed partly as a result of seeing her mother, who was „in lots of ways really strong, but trapped by her relationships with men. Financially dependent. I think I decided very young that I would never be financially dependent on a guy.“ It is a decision she has stuck to. But Moore didn’t always call herself a feminist; at first she was „loth to identify with it, because while I thought that, as a woman, I could do whatever I liked, I also thought, ‚Yeah, but I do like lipstick.'“ After realising the two interests were compatible, she became one of the most popular feminist writers in the country.

Sie scheint also Männer für Sex gefunden zu haben, auch welche, mit denen sie Kinder hatte, aber keine, die geblieben sind. Dazu noch eine etwas vorbelastete Familiengeschichte als abschreckendes Beispiel.

Marriage, monogamy – a prison where you build your own walls. Familiarity breeds contempt, but this is the aftermath of romance. If you want to fetishise proximity, domesticity, and storage solutions from Ikea, why not go all the way and be a lesbian? If you want to service someone, have a baby. And if you want to rescue someone, get a dog.

Sure, there can be equitable relationships between men and women, in which one turns into the other’s carer. This is the ­optimal compromise, the prospectus that no one really gets until it’s too late.

Warum eine lesbische Beziehung so viel anders sein soll legt sie nicht da. Und warum Beziehungen mit Männern gerade die Frau unterdrücken auch nicht wirklich. Aber es folgt wahrscheinlich schlicht daraus, dass Männer einfach die Macht haben.

Having tried to live with various mishaps, I realise that this is not for me and it never will be. But then, nor will the kind of reasonable feminism in which we make allowances for men. Because they are men. I have had it all my life: pro-choice marches in which men insist that they walk at the front. A left-wing party that cannot deal with a female leader. The continuing pushing back of women’s rights.

If you are interested in the liberation of women, you’ll find that the biggest barrier to this is men: men as a class. I used to think, “I don’t hate all men.” I had therapy and everything. Now, I think that any intelligent woman hates men. There are very few problems in the world that don’t have, at the root of them, male violence and woman-hating.

Wenn man alles nur so auslegt, dass es Frauenhass ist, statt etwa biologische Unterschiede oder intrasexuelle Konkurrenz unter Frauen, dann mag das so erscheinen.

The more I hate men (#YesAllMen), the more I don’t mind individual ones, actually, as it is clear that some can be entertaining for a while. Before you even bother whingeing that my hatred of the taskmasters of patriarchy is somehow equivalent to systematic misogyny, to the ongoing killing, rape and torture and erasure of women, know this: I once made exceptions. I was wrong.

„Bevor du rumheulst, dass meine Hass für die Projektleiter des Patriarchats irgendwie das Gegenstück zu systematischen Frauenhass, zu dem andauernden töten, vergewaltigen und Auslöschen von Frauen ist, wisse dies: Ich habe Ausnahmen gemacht. Das war falsch von Mir“

Und das ist eine der beliebtesten Feministinnen Großbritaniens, die in vielen großen Zeitschriften veröffentlicht und auf Twitter immerhin 57.000 Follower hat. Ich glaube es ist kein männliches Gegenstück dazu zu finden, der entsprechenden Hass verbreiten dürfte.

Radikaler Feminismus: Radfem

Gerade ist eine überaus radikale feministische Gruppe wieder im Gespräch, zB bei Genderama in zwei Artikeln, die Gruppe Radfem.

Aus der Rational Wiki:

Radfem: If Valerie Solanas and Mary Daly had collaborated on an internet blog together, it might have looked something like this. It’s basically where individuals of the radfem clogosphere collectively congregate to fantasize about killing men, transwomen, non-radical feminists („funfems“), and female practioners of Abrahamic religions; fantasize about the impending extinction of the Y chromosome, development of parthenogenesis and instigation of a lesbian utopia; and just generally live-up to every negative stereotype the American right and its pundits harbor about feminism, all whilst claiming that their ideology somehow [A] is biophilic and [B] has nothing to do with men.

Wie man sieht handelt es sich um eine sehr extreme Gruppe, die Männer, Transsexuelle und Frauen, die ihnen nicht zustimmen nicht mögen und sich in Gewaltphantasien suhlen.

Auf der Seite sind auch noch einige Zitate:

We have moved beyond palliation (negotiation, mediation, reform, compromise, engagement with the System) to exploring effective means of extirpating male pathology, including being open to biological explanations and treatment of such psychopathy. We are concerned with the overall structure of male oppression. We are open to going wherever the evidence and experience lead us.

In recent years, studies of male hormones and aggression, the development of the science of social dominance theory, primate studies, and genetics have begun in my opinion to take us very close to the etiology of the underlying sickness. This emphasis on looking at the pathology of male hormonal mechanisms is a new kind of “essentialism” that offers hope, because treatments can be developed to mitigate the death-drive of men, their hierarchical psychology, their insensitivity to the pain of living creatures, their pleasure in violence and intimidation, their acquisitiveness, their rape and phallic obsessions. It’s an exciting development, though the science involved it goes hand in hand with new dangers to women which must be resisted.


My own personal vision is that women will cure the sickness that ails men and that men will stay around, hunkered in their man-caves playing the ukelele, leaving us in peace at last. As to what that cure may be, my best bet is that what’s wrong with men is that their androgens need genetic modification.

I’m serious about this. If we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy.

Also eine Dämonisierung des Männlichen aus der Biologie heraus. Es wird der Mann als krank angesehen, durch Testosteron verseucht, von dem man ihn befreien sollte.

For me, it is very clear. Women have our own culture, which has been nearly erased by patriarchy, men, (and yes, with the collusion of some women, who, as Sonia Johnson says have “terror-bonded” with their oppressor) as has been said here. We are our own sovereign biophilic beings. Our essence has nothing to do with men/maleness, which is on the decline–from 1000 genes on the y chromosome to somewhere near 45. Since we have experienced near erasure in too many ways to count for at least the last 5000 years, I see it is imperative and absolutely necessary to have as much truly women-only space as possible to re-memeber, to re-claim, to re-joice, to re-juvenate so that we may re-trieve and be re-stored–like re-storing a battery with its charge. “Transwomen” still carry that depleted y chromosome. They are not women. Anywhere they take up space–and it seems to me the nature of the y, as it has become, is to take–they want to own. The essence of woman is entirely different. I just completed a retreat in Ashland OR on “Uncovering the Biophilic Autonomy of Women” for women only. At one point in the retreat, a huge V appeared in the sky directly over us–chem trails, perhaps, but it was still a synchronous validation of our work in women only space and phenomenal to see.

Also wohl ein Differenzfeminismus, der Männer und Frauen essentialistisch betrachtet und Männer als schlecht ansieht, weswegen auch Transsexuelle verdorben sind.

Die Verteufelung des Mannes ist dabei recht umfassend:




Weitere Texte gibt es beispielsweise auch hier und hier

Es ist eine erschreckende Gruppe, weitaus radikaler als Femen und man kann nur hoffen, dass sie eine kleine Gruppe bleiben. Die Verbindung zu Dworkins und Daly scheint mir auch recht deutlich.