Vermischtes vom 17. Oktober 2015

Jungen ab 12 dienen als legitime Ziele für den Abschuss, berichtet ein Drohnenpilot der USA:

Zu "Kollateralschäden" unter Zivilisten ist es laut dem Zeugen immer wieder gekommen. Die Flieger hätten Menschen in verschiedene Gruppen eingeteilt, "Raben und Krähen" seien als Kennzeichen für Frauen und Kinder verwendet worden, die besonders geschützt werden müssten. Jungen über 12 Jahren hätten aber schon als legitimierte Ziele gelten können, was wohl UN-Konventionen widerspreche.

Wir erwarten nun eine neue Aufschrei!-Kampagne aus dem feministischen Lager, weil Frauen und Kinder als "Raben und Krähen" bezeichnet und damit entmenschlicht werden.

Anderes Thema: Der Alpha-Blogger Fefe verlinkt und kommentiert ausführlich den zuvor auf Genderama verlinkten Bericht über einen jungen Mann, der nicht an einem Workshop darüber teilnehmen möchte, wie man eine Frau nicht vergewaltigt:

Noch haben Männer auf dem Papier die Wahl, ob sie sich in so ein Umerziehungslager begeben wollen, aber wenn jemand nicht will, kriegt er einen Shitstorm. (...) Wir haben auch keine "Mord ist uncool"-Workshops und keine "Völkermord ist nicht OK"-Workshops. Wenn mir das an der Uni jemand angetragen hätte, hätte ich mich auch geweigert. (...) Ich fordere von Frauen auch keine Teilnahme an "Wie man sich Kleidung anzieht"- oder "Wie man nicht auf den Boden scheißt"-Workshops. Das empfände ich als vergleichbar beleidigend.

Ich mache mir ja bei sowas nicht nur Sorgen, dass die Männer hier unter Generalverdacht gestellt werden. Ich mache mir auch echt Sorgen um die nächste Generation Frauen. Diese Art von sozialer Veränderung kommt häufig als Pendel. Das Pendel schwingt dann zu weit und dann schwingt es massiv zurück. Je weiter wir es jetzt überdrehen, desto krasser wird der Backlash. In 20 Jahren wird man dann als Mann moralisch fast alles verteidigen können, indem man zurück verweist auf was die Gender-Idologie den Männern in diesen Tagen alles brutal reingedrückt hat.

Der Student, der diese Debatte und den Shitstorm gegen sich losgetreten hat, George Lawlor, wird inzwischen von einem Redakteur des Magazins, in dem er seinen Artikel veröffentlichte, gegen den "Mob" in Schutz genommen - einem Mob, den die Leitmedien selbstverständlich wieder anstacheln:

George Lawlor was, until earlier this week, an unexceptional boy at an unexceptional university. To the people who write columns in newspapers, and the people whose Twitter bio declares an affinity with Caitlin Moran, he was just another Warwick student. That was until he had the courage to say something everyone else was thinking. He said he didn’t need consent lessons.

In response, the Independent cleverly used quotation marks to share their article on Facebook with a headline which read: "Student refuses consent lessons because he ‘doesn’t look like a rapist'". Rebecca Reid at the Telegraph told George he fundamentally misunderstood rape. The Metro falsely accused George of deleting his Twitter account in response to the torrent of abuse and pressure piled on him after publishing his story. His account was already long gone, perhaps for the best though.

Der so herbeigeführte Hass führte auf Twitter zu Nachrichten wie diesen:

George Lawlor: If you "don't care" about being a bigoted, misogynistic rape apologist you are in dire need of education re sexual assault.

Leider stürzt der Artikel in senen letzten Zügen noch ab, indem er fordert, dass Workshops darüber, wie man Frauen nicht vergewaltigt, für jeden verpflichtend sein sollten. Oje.

Allerdings hat George Lawlor anderen Männern ein Beispiel dafür gegeben, wie man sich jenem Hass auf Twitter entgegenstellt, den die Vereinten Nationen in ihren ulkigen Berichten zu diesem Thema übergehen. Einer dieser Studenten, Jack Hadfield, schließt sich Lawlors Boykott von Wie-man-nicht-vergewaltigt-Workshops an und erklärt:

The University of Warwick Student’s Union has set up classes called "I Heart Consent," apparently aimed at teaching young people about how to get it on without accidentally raping their partner. I say people, but what I mean is men, because as all of today’s mainstream leftist ideologues know, men cannot be raped by women. When women do it, it’s called "non-consensual sex."

George Lawlor, a reporter for The Tab Warwick, has been first to publicly rebel against these finger-wagging tutorials. Now I must add my name to what I am sure is a growing list of understandably aggrieved young men. These classes are useless, and may even be damaging.

How many rapists are going to stop raping people because some pretentious student told them that "Yes means Yes"? Any at all? And why would any normal, right-thinking man attend a class that demonises them and normal, healthy male sexuality by pretending that all men are latent rapists who would take advantage of women if they thought they could get away with it? (...) I can’t be the only person to see a bit of irony in the coercion and social pressure attached to signing up for consent lectures.

Anyway, I’m not going. I think we all know what goes down at these things anyway, don’t we? The male students will be bombarded with stats about "1 in 4 women," bogus and offensive conspiracy theories about "toxic masculinity," and suggestions that yes, all men are potential rapists.

Well, I’m sorry, but in case you didn’t know, pre-crime is sci-fi. Having a penis does not make me a rapist. In fact, the highest volume of domestic violence and sexual abuse is found in lesbian couples – you know, the ones that don’t actually involve men.

(...) There’s no such thing as "rape culture," but there is a crime being committed on university campuses across Europe and America. It’s the demonisation of men and the pernicious spread of consent classes, the underlying suggestion of them being that men are dangerous sex pests and have to be "taught not to be rapists." Men — and women — deserve better.

Währenddessen setzt sich das männerpolitische Blog Toy Soldiers mit dem ideologisierten Unterricht in den USA auseinander, bei dem Schüler lernen, dass es sich um eine Vergewaltigung handelt, wenn nicht alle zehn Minuten nachgefragt werde, ob noch alles freiwillig geschieht.

Feminists argue that not only must a person receive enthusiastic consent, but they must do so at every stage of sexual activity. They must ask for permission to every time they touch, kiss, hug, hold, caress, cuddle, and engage in various forms of sexual activity.

To give people an idea of how utterly stupid this would look, feminist college students created a video.

Das betreffende Video können wir uns in Deutschland leider nicht anschauen, weil es Musik enthält und das zu Konflikten zwischen Youtube und Gema führen könnte. Toy Soldiers berichtet allerdings über das Gezeigte:

It is worth noting that the woman in the video does not ask for permission to engage in sexual activity. She acts when she wants, regardless of the man’s consent. Only the man must as for consent.

(...) No one acts like the people depicted in the feminist fantasy video above. That is not how sex works. This is not how people communicate in the moment, nor is it the better way to do it. The rapist woman in the feminist video shows that. She touches and kisses the man and he allows her to do it. If he did not want to do it, he would move her hand. That would get the point across just as clearly as saying "no." It is bizarre that feminists want to complicate sex to such a degree that it makes anything appear to be rape.

Kommen wir zu einem weiteren Thema. Genderama berichtete kürzlich ja über die feministischen Proteste bei der Promiere des Films "Suffragette". In ihrem Blog "Films and Things" distanziert sich Natasha Harmer sehr deutlich von diesen Protesten und erklärt ausführlich, warum sie widerlich und sexistisch waren:

It was all over the news recently; a group of feminists held a protest during the red carpet event for the newly released drama Suffragette. The group, who were allegedly protesting against domestic violence against women, threw themselves onto the red carpet and laid there in protest, basically throwing a childish tantrum at an otherwise classy event.

(...) I wanted to know why these women were protesting and what for. Digging deeper it seems that the issues they are protesting against run a lot deeper than simply protesting against domestic violence. They were protesting because of budget cuts to many of the women’s refuges in the country that have been set up to house and care for women escaping violent partners. Wonderful, what brilliant charities and if the cuts and consequent protests weren’t so damn hypocritical, I’d be angry along with them. But then we get to the reason for the cuts; equality law now says that in order for the government to continue to fund these refuges, they need to start opening their doors to male victims (who make over 40% of domestic violence victims might I add) in order to offer equal support to victims of domestic violence. These charities shunned this, and in their refusal to treat men and women equally they’ve had some of their funding cut. They would literally rather have their funding cut than allow male victims to come to them for support.

A movement that allegedly believes in equality of the sexes sure is incredibly sexist. To me the idea of domestic violence refuges taking in male victims seems a no brainer. Many men, even those who are victims of domestic abuse, probably wouldn’t admit to it and seek shelter anyway because of the way we treat such men; blasting them as weak because what kind of man could be hurt by a woman? In a day and age where men literally can’t fucking do or say ANYTHING to a woman without fear of being branded sexist it isn’t that hard for me to believe that there are men out there who are abused by their female partners enough to make them desperately in need of refuge. We women can be pretty horrible at times! It would be hypocritical of feminists to indicate that men couldn’t possibly be the victim of domestic abuse because that implies that women are too weak to hurt a man which is a notion considered sexist if said by anyone else (predominantly if said by a man). So we can’t kid ourselves and try to perpetuate that men simply cannot be victims of domestic abuse because that opens up a whole load of other problems, most of which would be hypocritical of a feminist to suggest.

I have, as a woman, completely disassociated myself with modern feminism and while I applaud and admire women like Emma Watson and Jennifer Lawrence who have both recently used intelligence and class to speak out about the various injustices that women still face, I do not want a group of childish women who see fit to throw themselves on the ground at a red carpet event to presume to speak for me. I recently had a run-in with someone who believed that what these women did was admirable and justifiable, who jumped down my throat when I expressed a differing point of view. Isn’t that what a lot of these type of feminists do these days? They preach about how women need a voice but very quickly try to silence, censor and shun any women who happens to hold a different point of view, rather than praise ALL women ALL THE TIME because we ALL deserve to not only have A voice, but OUR OWN voice. If I don’t conform to your views, I don’t want you to aggressively try to convert me I want you to accept, however begrudgingly, that I as an independent woman have my own opinions about things.

Extreme feminism has turned rather ugly of late and has become a whiney, childish, man-hating affair offering nothing to try and help women to progress. (...) Let’s show that we are worthy of the rights we now have and make use of so freely by putting in the effort and being intelligent. (...) Let’s not be man-haters who want equality but only when it’s in favour of women (because that’s not equality, darling, that’s simply role reversal). I hate that there are good men out there who have been put off by these nasty extreme feminist attitudes to the point of genuinely believing we women are all the same. It bothers me that while I take pride in achievements I have worked hard for, there are women out there who think that if they whinge and throw a paddy they’ll just get given something without having to work.

Okay, über dieses Emma-Watson-Ding müssen wir uns noch mal unterhalten. Dem unbenommen ist Natasha Warmer aber eine weitere Frau in einer stetig wachsenden Zahl von Geschlechtsgenossinnen, die das radikalfeministische Affentheater aber sowas von dicke hat.

Bemerkenswert bleibt, dass eine Bloggerin auf die Verlogenheit der feministischen Proteste hinweisen muss und dass dies nicht durch Journalisten der Leitmedien geschieht. Aber diese Weigerung von Journalisten, ihren Job zu tun, hält die Gleichberechtigung ja nur auf, und wird sie nicht ewig verhindern können. Gottseidank gibt es inzwischen das Internet. Und gottseidank findet man immer öfter jene Eigenschaften, die zur Gleichberechtigung für Männer führen werden:

- Neugierde und Fleiß, um herauszufinden, was eigentlich Sache ist und was einem viele Journalisten verschweigen.

- Mut, um über diese Dinge zu sprechen oder öffentlich zu erklären, bei bestimmten Dingen (wie "Consent-Workshops") nicht mehr mitzumachen.

- die Empathie, sich nicht nur in Frauen, sondern auch in Männer einzufühlen.

Zuletzt: Auch Lucas Schoppe bloggt über die massive Frauenfeindlichkeit im Feminismus.