Julie Bindel ist eine radikale Feministin der alten Dworkin-Schule, die aber trotzdem Artikel in normalen Zeitschriften platzieren kann. Auch dort wird bereits deutlich, dass sie mit dem RadFem-Flügel einem der radikalsten Flügel des Feminismus angehört, die schlichten Männerhass predigen.
Es verwundert wenig, wenn diese Radikalität noch deutlicher wird, wenn sie dann von einer Radfem-Seite interviewt wird: (via sehr vielen, unter anderem auch schon bei Arne)
Sie hängt der Idee des „politischen Lesbentums“ (Lesbianismus?) an, der insoweit logisch ist, weil er Männer aus dem System raus nimmt und Frauen unter sich sein lässt:
Political lesbians are really crucial, because we were the ones that first said that women should be able to determine their own sexuality. We were the ones that said that all women can be lesbians and that heterosexuality is compulsory under a system of male supremacy. We were the ones that said that until women had a free choice, that we had to speak about heterosexuality as imposed upon us, rather freely chosen. This is completely unlike the mantra from the so called “pro-sex” third wave feminists, who claim that we are anti sex and prudish. Political lesbians were the ones that said to women: “you can be lesbians, you can be non monogamous, you can have loads of sex, with loads of women, you can enjoy sex and it doesn’t have to be something that is imposed upon you, by the type of men that think foreplay is unpacking the shopping.”
So I think political lesbianism has a crucial role, because it tells women that sexuality is political under a system of male supremacy. It tells us that sexual acts are all political and that none of them are without meaning. And it also clearly defines the fact that equality and meaningful sexual pleasure can be achieved far easier with women than it can be with men under this system.
Das findet sich so auch durchaus bei Adrienne Rich wieder, die in der (Zwangshetero-)Sexualität auch einen der Stützpfeiler des Patriarchats sah. Und es übernimmt auch die Grundhaltung von Dworkins.
Hilfreich ist es da aus ihrer Sicht die Geschlechterrollen komplett zu zerstören:
how do we dismantle gender?
We have to get rid of it. There is no point looking at reforming it. It would be like saying we could reform the Tory party. We just need to abolish and obliterate it.
We need to stop talking about it like it’s a thing. We need to start laughing at those that pretend that it has somehow replaced biological sex, and stop being afraid of pointing out that the two are completely different and that one actually doesn’t exist outside of male dominance and women’s subordination. Because all gender is, is an imposition of subordination on women, and the opposite of that of course is the dominance of men, who get privilege by being born male, and we get the opposite. So I think we have to just start laughing at it, and not by wearing a tutu and workmen’s boots. But by actually by saying, this thing is actually not real.
It is a bit like the Flat Earth theory. We will hopefully in years to come be laughing at the notion that we actually believed it was a tangible thing.
Ich hätte da einige Studien, die eher das Gegenteil darlegen, aber die passen eben nicht so gut in das Unterdrückungsnarrativ.
Der Teil, indem sie dann besonders deutlich macht, wie sehr sie Männer hasst, wäre dann der Folgende:
will heterosexuality survive women’s liberation?
It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s shit.
And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being shit.
I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”
Wow! Männer in Lager stecken, in denen man sie „wie Bücher ausleihen kann“, bis sie gelernt haben Menschen zu sein. Und der Hinweis, dass alle Männer schuldig sind, ohne Ausnahme.
Deutlicher kann man einen Gruppenhass eigentlich nicht benennen.
Eine gute Besprechung zu dem Artikel mit weiteren Beispielen für Männerhass im radikalen Feminismus findet sich auch hier:
So lets examine Bindlel’s views and proposals. Firstly she wants the power to be taken from men. While a small number of men hold considerable power in the business world, Bindel’s statement is farcical when it comes to the overwhelming majority of the population. Higher education is now completely female dominated, young women earn significantly more than young men, and this supposedly powerful gender absolutely dominates when it comes to low life expectancy, homelessness, workplace death and injury, imprisonment, suffering violence and committing suicide.
Next, Bindel proposes camps for men, not just the men who might be breaking the law (we already have that of course) but all men, just simply for daring to be born male. As with similar concentration camp schemes Bindel tries to briefly distract from her gender hatred and true agenda by adding in some fun activities and therefore perhaps implying they’d be holiday-type destinations. However, it’s made very clear exactly what sort of camps these are as Bindel proposes camp guards (or wardens as she calls them). In true Goebbels style, Bindel disguises the real purpose of these guards by pretending their job is to stop the men fighting amongst themselves, glossing over their main activity which is of course to control, punish and imprison the entire male population against their will and to make them entirely powerless objects to be owned/borrowed by women! Bindel adds in the final missing piece of the Feminazi jigsaw by adding in more than bit of de-humanisation of the men for good measure, likening them to library books that are property for women to borrow. She rounds off her proposals by making it explicitly clear that she doesn’t even consider men to be human beings at present. Taken as a whole, her proposals not onyl meet but massively exceed any definition of a concentration camp.
Ich halte Bindel auch für schlau genug, dass sie sich bewußt ist, dass man Sätze wie „Gruppe X in Lager stecken“ nicht sagt, ohne das man etwas über Konzentrationslager hören wird. Aus ihrer Sicht ist es aber eben wohl eine gerechtfertige Maßnahme, denn Männer sind eben schlecht für die Gesellschaft. Sie will sie ja dort auch nicht umbringen, sie sieht immerhin noch eine Chance, dass sie sich bessern und vertritt als vermutliche Anhängerin reiner sozialer Konstruktion keinen „Sozialdarwinismus„. Vielleicht wäre insofern eher der Vergleich mit kommunistischen Umerziehungslagern angemessen
Alles Evolution 