Susan Martinuk: "Männerhass auf dem Campus hat einen neuen Tiefpunkt erreicht"

In Kanada sorgt der feministische Versuch, Männer zum Schweigen zu bringen, anders als in Deutschland immer mehr für öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit. Susan Martinuk kommentiert für den Calgary Herald so angemessen und seriös, wie es auch deutschen Journalisten gut zu Gesicht stünde. Ich veröffentliche Martinuks Kommentar hier einmal als Beispiel für professionellen Journalismus im Volltext. (Wenn er euch langweilt, wisst ihr ja, wo sich der Scrollbalken befindet.)

There’s been a steady rise in the number of stories and academic studies suggesting men need help. Boys are falling behind early in the education process and are far more likely to drop out of high school than girls. Far too many boys are being raised without fathers; and gay men are bullied.

Yet Canadian campuses focus on women’s studies, where courses are geared to radicalizing women and making marriage, children and men into interlopers who exist only to prevent women from attaining their goals. But while women are indoctrinated in their all-encompassing rights, legitimate academic discussions that relate to the above issues are being unfairly silenced.

Why? Because they involve men; and according to a motion before the Canadian Federation of Students, men create an environment of sexism, patriarchy and misogyny that promotes "hateful views towards women" and "justifies sexual assault."

Of course, there is no evidence to support this irrational theory. But that didn’t stop the CFS (a union for university students) from debating this non-existent, insidious evil at last week’s general meeting. Motion N16 alleges that men’s rights groups promote the atmosphere described above by bringing speakers onto campus, and the CFS should therefore oppose meetings or events whose purpose is to "frighten, intimidate and/or target women students on campus."

We don’t know if the motion passed or not. The national and provincial CFS failed to respond to my multiple phone calls and e-mails, although several student websites suggest that this is the norm. Like a typical union, they demand transparency from others, yet rarely bother to inform the student media or the students they represent about the decisions they make.

The motion apparently stems from events at the University of Toronto, where a men’s rights group (the Canadian Association for Equality) has promoted the creation of men’s awareness groups on campuses and presented such dangerous speakers as Barbara Kay (National Post columnist) and well-known McGill academics who gave a scholarly presentation on moving past misogyny and misandry to "intersexual dialogue." Warren Farrell, author and former member of the board for the National Organization of Women in the U.S., talked about transforming problems with young boys into opportunities for their success.

No wonder they must be silenced.

For daring to discuss such hate-filled ideas, speakers and audience members at the last two events were subjected to angry feminists who blocked doors and shouted out a litany of anti-male rhetoric to defame the speaker.

The group chanted, "No hate speech on campus," while some screamed at audience members, referring to them as "f—g scum" and repeatedly telling them to "Shut the f—k up."

So who is intimidating whom? And who is spewing out the hate-filled invective? I’m sure that the irony of the situation was lost on these women.

It doesn’t matter what the topic is, or will be. If the CFS motion passes, angry protests like these will certainly become the norm.

The problem is that the CFS and campus women’s groups have provided no evidence to support their claims. Sadly, most so-called gains by women on campus have been won by making irrational claims of an environment of hate and using fear to sell the blatantly false notion that all men are misogynists and rapists.

The University of Connecticut is now being sucked into that rhetoric because it changed its Husky sports logo from a cute puppy-like figure to the realistic face of a Husky dog. But one self-described feminist has generated media waves by claiming the new logo is a "menacing, pro-rape symbol" that conjures up "images of sexual assault, will intimidate women and empower a rape culture."

Wow. I’m not even sure if it’s a male dog. Hard to tell by looking at the eyes. But if a picture of a dog can accomplish all that, it’s time for me to stop writing columns and take up doodling to effect cultural change here in Canada.

These entitled, spoiled women need to take a trip to Africa and the Middle East, where brutal civil wars have established a deadly culture that thrives on the multiple rapes/gang rapes of women. Then come back and tell us that a team logo or intelligent discussions have the power to inspire rape.

Susan Martinuks Kommentar zeigt: Der journalistische Umgang mit dem Thema "Feministen" vs. "Maskulisten", den wir hierzulande gewohnt sind, ist keine naturgegebene Selbstverständlichkeit. Er ist ein typisch deutsches Problem. Eine gewisse Vorliebe für totalitäre Ideologien scheint in unserer Kultur besonders tief verankert zu sein.