Vermischtes vom 29. Oktober 2016

1. Neun von zehn Frauen sind froh, dass sie in unserer Gesellschaft eine Frau und kein Mann sind. 1947 waren es nur etwas mehr als die Hälfte.

Wieso sind es noch nicht zehn von zehn? Wir brauchen eindeutig noch viel mehr Feminismus!

Dazu passt ein Abschnitt aus einem Interview, in dem die ehemalige Feministin Cassie Jaye schildert, wie ihr bei der Arbeit zu ihrem Film überhaupt erst ihre Privilegien als Frau aufgefallen sind:

I recorded 38 video diaries during filming (I only include five in the film). Now being out of that bubble and looking back at those diaries, I think it is an interesting psychological study of the process of questioning your beliefs. It really does rock your world. Some of the things that were the most difficult to shed — oh, a big one for me was acknowledging my privilege. I remember thinking it for awhile, for maybe a month or two, where I was starting to realize my privilege, but I couldn’t say it. And I felt like if I told any one of my family or friends, for some reason I felt like I would lose that privilege if I acknowledge it.

Auf die Frage, wie diese Privilegien aussehen, erwidert Cassie Jaye:

Definitely financial issues. I was at a time where I was still getting assistance from my stepdad for certain bills, and realizing that if I were his son, I don’t think he’d be letting me coast this long. My first car was paid for by my stepdad. My boyfriend has a sister, and his sister got a car but he had to work to get his. Just that conditioning that guys need to get out and start making money sooner and girls get a lot of assistance. So acknowledging that privilege was a big pill to swallow, like "Oh, I think it is because I’m a girl." I think it’s partly when you think women are at a disadvantage, you’re more willing to give them assistance. Yesterday I was standing outside of my hotel and there were two guys waiting for awhile trying to hail a cab. A girl walked up and put up her finger, and they both did that "Oh, do you want to go?" to the girl and she got the cab. The guys were standing there so long, and she just walked up. There expressions were like "Oh gosh, now we gotta wait for another one." That could be chivalry, it could be just trying to do a nice gesture, who knows. But girls do have this advantage.

Und auf die Frage, ob sie jemals frustriert darüber gewesen sei, was einer ihrer Interviewpartner ihr geantwortet habe, erwähnt Cassie Jaye einen männlichen, feministischen Professor:

The topic was father’s rights, and father’s not getting custody as often. His argument, this feminist professor, was that women are doing the majority of housework and childcare, so while MRAs say they want equality after the divorce, they were not equal in the marriage. There’s so many things to pick apart about that argument. To say that the woman is doing the majority of housework and childcare doesn’t mean that the man wasn’t contributing to the family as well, providing the income and the mortgage, but beyond that, when I went further to research, over fifty percent of children in the US are born to unwed parents. Unmarried fathers have so fewer rights to their children than married fathers do. So this feminist professor was only addressing a divorce situation, but the laws for father’s rights when they’re unmarried — the woman can adopt a child away without his consent. She could essentially kidnap the child for eighteen years and never tell the father that he is the father, and sue eighteen years later for back child support, and the woman has no consequence for doing that. There’s so many father’s right’s issues that the feminist professor wasn’t addressing in his statement.

Meines Wissens wird in The Red Pill nur ein männlicher feministischer Professor interviewt: der männerhassende Demagoge Michael Kimmel – bezeichnenderweise der einzige ausländische Gast, der vom profeministischen Bundesforum Männer zu einem Vortrag nach Deutschland eingeladen worden war.

Die australische Presse berichtet übrigens weiter über die Männerrechtler-Dokumentation: Cassie Jaye’s Red Pill too truthful for feminists to tolerate. Der Artikel enthält keine neuen Informationen, aber zwei nette Schlussabsätze:

Stephen Marche in The Guardian admits that "men do sometimes suffer mistreatment from the courts or from the women in their lives", but suggests the film fails to demonstrate any systemic cause. "Instead, the author of men’s troubles here is always that vague bugaboo feminism, which we’re told is designed to silence its opponents," sniffs Marche.

That’s pretty ironic, given this "vague bugaboo" persists in trying to silence Jaye’s attempts to tell this story. As she points out in her movie, the issues she examines came as a revelation not only to her but to many others exposed to the material she put together. That bugaboo carries a lot of clout.

2. Wie das Magazin "Spektrum der Wissenschaft" berichtet, hat die Pille für Männer noch zu viele Nebenwirkungen:

Eine Verhütungsmethode für Männer, die mit 96 Prozent Zuverlässigkeit ähnlich sicher ist wie die hormonelle Verhütung für Frauen, ist im klinischen Versuch vorerst an Nebenwirkungen gescheitert. Das Team um Studienleiter Richard Anderson von der University of Edinburgh sah wegen gehäufter Probleme während der laufenden Studie davon ab, weitere Teilnehmer zu rekrutieren, so dass die Untersuchung früher endete als erhofft. 20 der mehr als 300 Teilnehmer beendeten die Studie vorzeitig wegen Nebenwirkungen wie Akne, Schmerzen durch die Injektion, depressiver Episoden und Veränderungen der Libido. Dennoch sehen die Wissenschaftler das Ergebnis als Teilerfolg: Der alle zwei Monate injizierte Hormoncocktail erwies sich nach Angaben der beteiligten Wissenschaftler als fast so effektiv wie die Antibabypille. Wie es mit dem Präparat nun weitergeht, ist unklar.

Allerdings wollten drei Viertel der beteiligten Männer die Verhütungsmethode trotz der Nebenwirkungen weiter anwenden. Die meisten von uns nehmen also einige Leiden in Kauf, damit auch ihre Reproduktionsrechte endlich gewahrt bleiben und es auch hier irgendwann zu Geschlechtergerechtigkeit kommt.



3. Brittany M. Hughes berichtet über den Auftritt von Jackie Coakley, die für das Magazin "Rolling Stone" eine Studentenverbindung als Gruppenvergewaltiger verleumdete, in dem dadurch entstandenen Gerichtsprozess und kommentiert:

Perhaps most shockingly, Garber-Paul somehow thinks the whole debacle was "traumatic" – for HER.

"When we went to print, I believed it all to be true," Garber-Paul told the court. "To have that all fall apart, that was incredibly traumatic for me."

Traumatic. For her. But what about those whose reputations have been dragged through the mud by Rolling Stone's libelous "report"? Nicole Eramo, UVA’s former dean of students, is fighting for damages in court right now after she received hundreds of defaming emails and letters calling her a "rape apologist" and a "disgusting, worthless piece of trash" following the article’s publication. While the magazine may have retracted its story, who repairs the damage done?

The answer: no one. And the reason? Because this is the society we CREATED.

It’s the society that demonizes a man for simply being a man, unless he renounces everything male and begs the Holy Vagina to forgive him his natural trespasses. A guy accused of rape is a villain even when his accuser is proved a flat-out liar, so long as she carts a mattress around campus and voluntarily films her own porno afterward.

It’s the society (...), where sex is totally OK until someone arbitrarily decides after the fact that it WASN'T, in which walking around sans clothing is an acceptable way to get attention until you actually GET attention (then you're a victim of rape culture), in which women are somehow simultaneously empowered enough to sleep with whoever they want, but are too weak to be held RESPONSIBLE for it. Women can lie and it's taken as gospel; after all, men can't be trusted.

This society perpetuates stories like the one in Rolling Stone, stories that titillate the senses while fueling this man-hating narrative our culture so craves. There is no room for facts or evidence here; fingers pointed in abject judgment at the elusive "male patriarchy" will do just fine, thank you.

4. Auf der männerpolitischen Website Relating to Men zerpflückt Mark Dent die Doppelmoral Michelle Obamas und zitiert dabei Äußerungen der First Lady wie diese:

"Men should simply be better if they want to help women achieve gender equality. Be better at everything. Be better fathers. Good lord, just being good fathers who love your daughters and are providing a solid example of what it means to be a good man in the world, showing them what it feels like to be loved."

Was für einen Aufruhr gäbe es, argumentiert Dent, wenn Donald Trump auf die Frage, welche Ratschläge er für die Frauen der USA habe, folgendes von sich gegeben hätte:

Be better mothers. Good lord, just being good mothers who love your sons and are providing a solid example of what it means to be a woman in the world.

Dent kann sich die Reaktionen auf eine solche Äußerung lebhaft vorstellen:

If Mr. Trump has spoken the words I just quoted he would be crucified by the media. Even people in his own camp would have thrown their hands up in dismay at his stupidity and chauvinism. Can you believe it? This buffoon has the effrontery to lecture the women of America and tell them how to be better women - him, a man! What a fat, sexist pig! He has cost himself the women’s vote, if indeed he had any to begin with. How can this woman hating pig even be running for President? There would be street marches and breathless, orgasmic editorials by the salivating left and head shaking condemnation from the right.

Yet here we have the First Lady, on stage with the most famous, influential and richest female in America and the only reaction to these words were positive. I am yet to hear one word of condemnation.

In den folgenden Passagen seines Beitrags zerpflückt Dent noch männerfeindlichere Äußerungen Michelle Obamas und gelangt zu dem Fazit:

The gender bigotry in our western society is a shameful reality; men are invariably viewed as blustering buffoons or dangerous predators, unless of course they sing from the feminist hymn book.

(...) What disturbs me the most is the fact that even Hillary and Michelle Obama’s conservative opponents refuse to call them out when they demonstrate their contempt for men. Hillary can speak to female only audiences and constantly speak about championing women’s rights. She used the mythical gender wage gap as proof of our oppression of women in the first debate and was not called out by her opponent. No male politician in a position of power and influence has ever declared his intention to focus on men’s issues as his most pressing priority despite the fact that this could be justified far more easily than the need to fight for women’s issues. It would be catastrophic come election day. Yet female politicians who are meant to represent the entire population can openly declare their intention to place women’s needs ahead of men’s and win applause and admiration when they do.

I live for the day when a male politician or journalist looks a female politician in the eye and tells her to cut the bigotry and do what she is meant to do - work and care for all the people she represents: men, women and children.

Eine der wenigen Personen, die sich in den Leitmedien entsprechend äußern dürfen, ist die Feminismuskritikerin Camille Paglia, die in einem aktuellen Beitrag zu Hillary Clinton ausführt:

‘In order to run for president of the United States, you have to spend two or three years of your life out on the road constantly asking for money and most women find that life too harsh, too draining,’ Paglia argues. ‘That is why we haven’t had a woman president in the United States — not because we haven’t been ready for one, for heaven’s sakes, for a very long time…’

Hillary hasn’t suffered — Paglia continues — because she is a woman. She has shamelessly exploited the fact: ‘It’s an outrage how she’s played the gender card. She is a woman without accomplishment. “I sponsored or co-sponsored 400 bills.” Oh really? These were bills to rename bridges and so forth. And the things she has accomplished have been like the destabilisation of North Africa, causing refugees to flood into Italy… The woman is a disaster!’