"Auch vergewaltigte Männer sind privilegiert" – Ein Männerrechtler antwortet
Vor ein paar Tagen habe ich auf einen Artikel über eine feministische Kolumne verlinkt, der zufolge vergewaltigte Männer bei Debatten über sexuelle Gewalt hübsch still sein sollen, weil sie andernfalls versuchen, Kontrolle über die Befreiungsbewegung der unterdrückten Frauen zu gewinnen. Einen Kommentar dazu habe ich mir erspart, weil die Menschenverachtung in diesem Beitrag für jeden Nicht-Feministen offensichtlich sein sollte. Jetzt aber hat sich das Blog Toy Soldiers, dessen Schwerpunkt sexuelle Gewalt ist, die Mühe einer Antwort gemacht:
It appears many feminists are incapable of discussing sexual violence without resorting to "who has it worse" arguments. Advocates for male victims and men’s rights activists frequently challenge feminists on those arguments. Feminists usually respond by dismissing the challenges as "misogyny" or an attempt to silence women. Yet there is good reason for people to persist in those challenges, and that is because when such arguments are left unquestioned, they lead to rather ugly statements.
(...) No one who knows, works with, or treats male victims would ever state that it is unlikely that a man would be asked what he wore or told he deserved it because of his behavior. They would know those comments happen often. Yet most despicable aspect is the tacit assertion that male victims are complicit in "oppressing" women, ergo they do not belong in feminist spaces.
(...) This is precisely why feminists and feminism have no place in discussions about sexual violence. Feminists are incapable of talking about these issues objectively. They must inject their politics into the discussion at every point. While this situation reveals the depth of feminist hatred of men, it does nothing to help male victims. It only worsens the situation by creating an adversarial dynamic and ultimately silences abused men and boys.
(...) Accusing men’s rights activists of belittling women’s experiences for mentioning male victims does not make it seem that Polick-Kirkpatrick wants abused men to receive support. It makes it seem that she does not think what happened to these men is wrong, criminal, or worth discussing, let alone worth addressing.
Feminists wonder why people do not like them. This is a perfect answer to that question. This is what feminists do when they think no one is looking. This is what they say when they think the door is closed. This is how they think and how they respond to people who do not agree with their purulent views. Why would anyone like such a person?