Männerrechtler: Wer ist eigentlich "der Feind"?

Okay, ich stelle fest, heute bietet es sich an, die News durch ein paar nette Essays und Kommentare zu unterbrechen. Nachdem ich heute morgen schon mit einigen begonnen habe, geht es heute abend fröhlich weiter.

In der amerikanischen Männerrechtsbewegung zum Beispiel spielt sich mal wieder eine Debatte darüber ab, wer eigentlich als "der Feind", also der politische Gegner, zu gelten hat. Die Spannbreite der Antworten reicht mal wieder von "mittlerweile so ziemlich alle Frauen" bis zu "selbst von den Feministinnen nur ein Teil". Einer der Männerrechtler hat bei Wendy McElroy (international bekannt als "die Feministin, die denken kann") einen Text veröffentlicht, den ich hier gern verlinke und auszugsweise vorstelle:

Men’s Rights Activists, for all of our differences, can (in large part) unite behind one simple and easy to grasp idea - Feminists are the enemy. Some go further and say that all women in contemporary society have benefited from the excesses of feminism, whether they are aware of their having benefited or not. While men were imprisoned in droves in response to rape and domestic violence hysteria, while men’s lives and livelihoods were ruined by ridiculous charges of sexual harassment, punitive alimony and child support enforcement, and all the other arrogant inequities of a family court system that seems to see them as sperm-doning wallets who had their fun and now they are going to pay, pay, pay - women did not rise in outrage and what was happening to their sons, brothers, fathers and potential life partners. If women are now beginning to feel a backlash in society in the form of marriage strikes, prenuptial agreements, an unprecedented aversion to chivalry on principle, and increased indifference on the part of men to the challenges they face in society, call the National Organization for Women. This was all their idea.

Okay, fair enough. But for far too long, far too many men have then taken the first premise – feminists are the enemy – inserted the legitimate justifications for that premise, and preached a gospel that women are the enemy. Screw ‘em all – take the same approach to guilt or innocence the feminists have, and if a few innocent women get caught in the switches of social change, well, they had it comin’ – they should have done something when they were in control.

Catherine MacKinnon couldn’t have said it better herself.

But what about the women who have tried for years to do something? What about women like Kate O’Beirne, Christina Hoff-Sommers, Charlotte Hayes, Carrie Lukas, Cathy Young, Erin Pizzey, Esther Vilar, or Wendy McElroy? This is not an inclusive list, mind you, but these are names that come off the top of my head when asked to name women who have stood damn tall in facing down institutional misandry. They did so when an awful lot of so-called men- in military leadership, in government, in academia, in the judiciary - were crawling on their bellies, willing to sell out every principle they had sworn to uphold to convince the feminists “they get it.” For their trouble, these women have lived with death threats, threats of rape, censure, loss of income – the whole litany of consequences the entrenched feminist culture has at their disposal to punish heretics. Are they the enemy?

Yes they are, say these so-called Men’s Rights Activists, and here’s why – “because now that men are beginning to wake up and mount an organized response to gender feminism, they are jumping over to the winning side to save their own skins. Just like women, they want it both ways – they can see the tide is turning.”

That position demonstrates a level of stupidity worthy of an Ivy League Professor.

To begin with, the simple fact is that most women (and men for that matter) have no idea how bad it has gotten out there. In keeping with the finest traditions of human nature, most women (and men) don’t believe it even when they are told just how bad it is – only when it bites them do they believe the alligator is a threat. Women as a whole cannot be held accountable for not understanding the size and scope of the problem when most men don’t know. Feminism put on a warm cuddly face that a lot of people bought into, and feminists knew how to work that media. While I would be sympathetic to a position that cut no slack for a woman (or man) who, once informed, continued to champion or tolerate the goals of groups like NOW, the fact remains that we come to our present state largely because feminists were at war when most people didn’t even know there was a war on – and they couldn’t have done that without the craven cooperation of an awful lot of men. I hear MRA’s wondering about the stances the current sorry crop of contestants for welfare statist-in-chief are taking on men’s rights. Where in the world were these “leaders” when our schools, military, courts and police agencies were becoming infested with the philosophies (if not the persons) of people like Dworkin, MacKinnon, French and Clinton? I’m supposed to trust some pol that starts putting forth solutions to problems he played no small part in creating because he is a man, but hate and distrust people like the women I mentioned above? When they were championing my cause (at great personal cost) years before I knew it was my cause?