Neue App: Sollten Männer öffentliche Kritiken wie Restaurants erhalten?

In den USA sorgt eine neue speziell für Frauen gedachte App namens "Lulu" für einiges Aufsehen: eine Plattform, auf der Männer von Frauen bewertet werden können. (Im April letzten Jahres sollen dort bereits 200.000 Männer erfasst worden sein.) Diese App erhält von den verschiedensten Seiten massive Kritik, wie man in der englischen Wikipedia nachlesen kann:

Critical reactions such as in Forbes note the a sexist double standard regarding the app: "If Lulu existed for men to rate women," columnist Kelly Clay notes, "it's likely that Apple would probably reject it from the app store." The Daily Barometer likewise suggested that the app is degrading to both men and women, concurring that: "If there was a man’s version of Lulu, women would absolutely not stand for it." BuzzFeed described the app as a "Yelp for guys" and compared it to the website DontDateHimGirl.com, which provides similar metrics for evaluating acquaintances; the site criticized the app's focus on "sex-stereotypic ideas about what is and isn't desirable in a guy" such as "money, good looks, and financial provider-masculinity". Slate described the app as "creepy" and noted that "[u]nwelcomed sexual commentary isn't a compliment, it's harassment." Forbes notes that Lulu "has enabled female millenials to think that digital revenge is acceptable ... and provided them a sleek platform to slander men."

Eine ausführliche Kritik enthält auch der folgende Artikel:

This week America observed Valentine’s Day. A day that is about honoring the person we admire most in the romantic tradition of courtly love. But if you’re a young woman using ‘Lulu,’ chances are that the guy you’ve trashed online didn't rush over with chocolates and roses.

Seventeen years ago, while working as a cub reporter on the JonBenet Ramsey murder case for the tabloids, I learned how powerful and hurtful words can be. Knowing all too well that tabloid audiences are typically female, it didn’t take long for my editors to falsely accuse JonBenet’s father, John Ramsey, of sexually molesting and brutally murdering his 6-year old daughter. After all, men make easy targets nowadays as ‘chauvinist pigs’ and ‘sexual predators.’ But John did not sexually abuse or murder his daughter. He was a loving father who adored his little girl.

The false accusations against John Ramsey coincided with the birth of Internet chat rooms, and I quickly realized the danger of how online users can spread lies like wildfire.

Seventeen years later, as an investigative journalist and practicing lawyer, I thought I’d seen every form of defamation imaginable. But I was proven wrong when I read about “Lulu” in the New York Times, an invasive new app that encourages women as young as 17 to literally, as the Huffington Post described, “review men like restaurants,” including their performance in bed while awarding points for sex-drive.

Lulu, which now has millions of female users, allows women to anonymously and non-consensually use men’s photographs to build profiles and rate them from 1-10 while leaving revealing, often times stinging hash tags to describe them.

Trashing people with anonymous sources?

Taking people’s photos without their consent for publication?

As a former tabloid reporter, that sounded all too familiar.

One Huffington Post blogger, a mother concerned about her sons’ privacy called Lulu, “A parent’s and all boys’ worst nightmare,” and Forbes contributor Kelly Clay says, “Not only does it encourage young women to destroy other young men for the sake of revenge and in the heat of heartbreak, it will undoubtedly have a long term impact on the lives of these men.”

(...) Now, Ms. Chong has given every self-absorbed, narcissistic female bully an official outlet to ridicule the boys they want to make fun of with no way of filtering what is true and what is a lie.

Instead of encouraging women to be thoughtful and reflective about the mistakes both people have made in a past relationship, Lulu does the opposite by creating a one-sided platform where women are invited to indulge in their vindictiveness by unilaterally shifting blame to the men they’ve dated.

Even female journalists have criticized the site as “creepy” because the profiles are non-consensual and many of the ratings about men are shallowly based on how much money they’re willing to spend on their dates.

(...) The founders of Lulu audaciously say they are promoting “female empowerment,” prostituting the feminist culture for profit. Spokeswoman Deborah Singer told me in an e-mail that, “We see empowerment as having the opportunity to share experiences in a safe environment and getting information to make smarter decisions …”

(...) In a stunning act of hubris, Ms. Chong even admits that the site’s threat of negative feedback can be used to control men’s actions. “Should a man not do well in a particular category, then they can change their behavior,” Ms. Chong proudly told Buzzfeed.

Hier findet man den vollständigen Artikel – inklusive einer Passage, wo eine Feministin zu einem angebrachten Urteil über diese Monstrosität gelangt.

Prinzipiell macht "Lulu" aber nichts anderes als die deutsche Wikipedia: Männer verunglimpfen, weil Frau die Macht dazu besitzt (aber mangelndes Reflexionsvermögen, dass das irgendwie falsch sein könnte). Immerhin kann man positiv verbuchen, dass "Lulu" so viel Kritik erntet, statt als Heilsweg zur Frauenbefreiung gepriesen zu werden, wie es vielleicht vor zehn Jahren noch der Fall gewesen wäre.