Karen Straughan bricht Lanze für die Konservativen: Ist eine Gesellschaft, die sich um Männer kümmert, überhaupt vorstellbar?
Karen Straughan, eine der international bekanntesten Männerrechtlerinnen, fordert mit einer spannenden Argumentation, die die Männerrechtlerin Janet Bloomfield rekapituliert, die politische Linke heraus:
Here’s why I attack feminism: feminism bills itself as a progressive movement, yet it employs traditional conservative tropes in order to achieve its ends, and characterizes its appeals to the traditional as "progressive".
Actual conservatism (whether you agree with it or not) is more honest. It says "women are incapable of X, therefore women need protection from Y, and men must provide that protection". Feminism says "women are every bit as capable of X as men, but men are monsters whose agenda is to keep women subordinate, therefore women need protection from Y".
Traditionalism says that sex is something men do to women, therefore rape is something men do to women. Feminism says that sex is something that men and women do to each other, but because of the malicious and malfeasant "Patriarchy" and all the men in charge of it and benefitting from it, rape is not just something men do to women, but a conscious process by which all men keep all women in a state of fear. Also, because of the political context, yada yada, it’s just not the same when a woman forces a man to have sex. Yes, we think men and women are equal, but it’s still different, because reasons, most of which have to do with how men created a system that oppresses women for the benefit of men.
Conservatism said "women are temptresses, and it is a man’s responsibility to not succumb to the seductive nature of women, and if he does, then he’s at fault for defiling his own purity, oh and we’ll probably make him marry her."
Feminism says "women are helpless victims with no sexual agency even though they should be allowed to climb random guys like fire poles and grind on them because how dare you shame her for expressing her sexuality, and it’s a man’s responsibility to not succumb to his own predatory and rapey nature, and if he does, then he’s a rapist and needs to rot in prison."
Both ideologies hold men more to account than women. Both ruthlessly exploit conservative ideas about men and women. But only feminism says that it’s about treating both genders equally.
When we are fighting feminism, we’re often also fighting conservatism. But I’m sorry, a shotgun wedding is less bad than 20 years in prison. The acknowledgement that women are "temptresses" (that is: women have sexual agency) is better than the assertion that a woman in an abbreviated latex dress and stripper heels shouldn’t have to endure the "male gaze". The claim that women are dependent on men and should be appreciative and respectful of the men they’re dependent on is better than the claim that women are independent and need men like fish need bicycles, while women rake in 75%+ of available government benefits that are funded disproportionately by men.
Marriage, even to a harpy, is better than being impoverished paying child support to a harpy who accused you of DV and got you jailed for it and who won’t let you see your kids, and who has you thrown in prison for non-payment because your DV record got you fired from your job, and then claims that she’s all about "equality" between the sexes. I’m sorry, but it is.
Feminism is traditionalism dialed up to 11. When we fight feminism, we’re fighting extreme traditionalism. Moderate traditionalism can wait.
Wie Janet Bloomfield weiter berichtet, wird Karen Straughan für ihren Standpunkt von jenen scharf kritisiert, die ähnlich wie Genderama einem linken Maskulismus folgen und der Ansicht sind, dass das althergebrachte Geschlechtergefälle zu Lasten von Männern genauso abgeschafft werden muss wie das feministische. Darauf erwidert Karen Straughan:
I think perhaps my biggest beef with feminism is that it has convinced society in general that society hates women and has always hated women, when in reality all societies have largely served women. And they’ve essentially said that men created these societies that hate women for their own benefit and privilege.
This is a smear on the characters of men that I have a great deal of trouble tolerating, and even more so because it is not remotely true, and I doubt it has ever been true.
During the suffragette era, there were political cartoons that showed a sweating, distressed male politician sitting between two pretty young women, one wearing a sash that said "suffragette" and another wearing one that said "anti-suffragette". Back when universal male suffrage was enduring its birthing pains, the UK put the question to women: do you want the vote? 70% of women said no. Yet Cenk Uygur acted in our interview as if there was no way male politicians would have given women the vote were it not for the suffragettes committing acts of domestic terrorism. He ignored the fact that women themselves opposed women’s suffrage, and that this was a major reason why women got the vote later than men. So literally, a government listening to women was a government that was oppressing them.
I guess what I’m getting at is that both traditionalism and feminism require that men provide for, protect, and sacrifice for women. Traditionalists call that loving women. Feminists call that hating women. This is why I oppose feminism first and foremost – all feminist roads lead to misogyny.
As for going back to traditionalism, I don’t think it’s possible. The toothpaste is out of the tube. As George RR Martin wrote once, the cow’s been milked, there’s no squirting the cream back up her udder.
Woraufhin Karen Straughan zu ihrer zentralen Frage gelangt:
I never said traditionalists accept an individual man for what they are. I said "do X, Y and Z and you’ll get respect."
The difference between traditionalists and feminists is that they both demand you do X, Y and Z. Traditionalists will respect you for it. Feminists will spit on you for it.
You can do what you want. I can understand why you’re upset with me. But I’m not going to lie to you. I’m not going to say there’s some world where you won’t be required to do X, Y and Z. I’m only saying that if you manage to do that, you should be respected rather than shit on.
Like I said to some in this thread, show me an alternative. The alternative depends on convincing society to care about men as much as they care about women. So show me how to make society do that. Show me it’s possible. Show me a society in the boonies in Nepal that made that work, even on a small scale. Show me that it can happen, on a visceral, emotional level.
Traditionalism is bad for men. Feminism is worse. If you were forced to choose between them, which would you pick?
Karen Straughan hat natürlich Recht: In jeder Gesellschaftsform, die wir kennen, wurde und wird in erster Linie von Männern erwartet, dass sie ihre Gesundheit und ihr Leben dafür opfern, dass diese Gesellschaft funktioniert. In der Steinzeit kämpften die Männer mit den Mammuts. Beim Aufbau unserer Zivilisation schufteten sich vor allem Männer zu Tode. Und in der Gegenwart schickt man Männer in das zusammenstürzende World Trade Center oder die Atomkatastrophe von Fukushima. Aber in einer konservativen Welt wurden Männer dafür respektiert und geehrt, in einer "geschlechtergerechten", "emanzipierten" Welt hingegen angespuckt.
Ist eine Gesellschaft, die nicht auf Männer herabscheißt, überhaupt realistisch vorstellbar oder ist es eine reine Utopie? Werden wir Männerrechtler vor allem deshalb so massiv dämonisiert, weil diese von uns propagierte Utopie der menschlichen Zivilisation allzu fremd ist? Janet Bloomfield muss auf Konzepte wie künstliche Gebärmütter zurückgreifen, um eine solche Utopie zu entwickeln (und auf Gesetzesvorschläge, die nicht realistisch durchzusetzen sind). Was meinen die Genderama-Leser?