Vermischtes vom 17. Dezember 2016
1. Das Zeitgeistblog anylsiert den Sexismus in unserer Gesellschaft, wenn es um die Frage geht, wer bei einem Date die Rechnung zahlt.
Die männliche Verunsicherung äussert sich (...) nicht nur in persönlichen Ängsten, sondern seit geraumer Zeit auch im politischen Feld. Die jüngsten Ergebnisse der Yass-Studie ("Young Adult Survey Switzerland") dokumentieren vor allem bei den jüngeren Männern einen signifikanten politischen Rechtsrutsch. Dass verunsicherte Existenzen aller Länder in Zeiten der Verunsicherung nach starken Figuren Ausschau halten, fügt sich ins internationale Bild – ob diese nun Trump oder Le Pen oder Wilders heissen. Insofern ist es nicht nur zynisch, sondern grobfahrlässig, wenn sich die Berner Soziologin Fabienne Amlinger im "Bund" darüber freut, dass Männern heute zunehmend das Selbstvertrauen abgeht.
Professor Walter Hollstein schildert die Lage der Dinge in der Neuen Zürcher Zeitung.
3. Eine (relativ) neue Studie belegt den Zusammenhang zwischen Sexismus und der Unterstützung der Frauenquote – und erklärt zugleich, warum Jungen immer mehr in der Schule zurückbleiben:
In a new study at The Choice Lab, Ranveig Falch, Alexander W. Cappelen and Bertil Tungodden show that men are held accountable for their poor achievements to a greater extent than women are.
We do not support men when they do poorly. However, we do support women.
If one has a positive attitude about helping capable women through gender quotas, one will perhaps also be more positive towards supporting women who do poorly than men who do poorly, Ranveig Falch, a doctoral student at NHH contends.
"It is women and supporters of gender quotas who are responsible for the skewed distribution," says Ranveig Falch. She presented the study at the Economic Science Association European Conference, which was recently hosted by The Choice Lab.
The researchers think the findings are interesting in the debate on why young men are increasingly falling behind.
The study by the behavioural researchers at NHH is based on a laboratory experiment with a representative selection of several thousand persons from the USA. In the laboratory, decision-makers (observers) were tasked with distributing the income of two persons, who each had worked separately. The pairs were a woman and a man, or two persons of the same gender.
The participants were made aware that their choices would have genuine consequences: The persons who had performed a job were paid money. One worker received a wage of six dollars for working, while the other did not receive anything.
The observers in the experiment were then given the opportunity to redistribute the income between the two workers.
They chose to treat men and women differently.
"When the reward is based on productivity, and the man in the pair produces less than the woman, men receive less money from the observers than the women do," says Falch. Gender quotas
So why did the men receive lower pay than the women?
Falch says that they find that there is a connection between being positive about gender quotas and distributing more to the losing women.
"Those who supported gender quotas, were also more apt to discriminate based on gender," says Falch.
"If one has a positive attitude about helping capable women through gender quotas, one will perhaps also be more positive about supporting women who do poorly than men who do poorly," she contends.
"If you want to promote women who do well more than you want to promote men who do well, you will end up discriminating between women and men," says Falch.
In recent years, there have been several studies indicating that there is differential treatment of boys and girls in determining the outcome of achievements. Falch refers to findings by Cornwell, Mustard and Van Parys in 2013 in the USA, and Lavy in 2008 in Israel, who find that female teachers give better grades to girls than to boys for the same achievements.
The pattern resembles what we see in the field, for example, the results from the schools in the USA and Israel. It is difficult to say why this occurs, and whether it is a conscious or unconscious action.
(...) The researchers find therefore only two relevant factors that characterise the group that transfers more to the losing women: they are women themselves, and they are positive about gender quotas.
When they test these two factors against each other, it is the latter that remains.
"We therefore find significant discrimination of men who drop out, even in a controlled experiment with a representative group of the US population. We believe that this can shed some light on ‘the boy crisis’ and why men drop out in several important areas," Falch concludes.
Hier findet man den vollständigen Artikel.
4. Dem feministischen "Guardian" zufolge gibt sich der maskulistische britische Parlamentsabgeordnete Philip Davies alle Mühe, wenn es darum geht, männliche Opfer zu vertreten. Leider hat er bislang kaum eine Chance:
A Conservative MP has spoken for more than an hour in the House of Commons to try to derail a bill to protect women against violence.
Philip Davies, the MP for Shipley and an anti-feminist who was recently elected to parliament’s equalities committee, said he thought it was sexist to say the focus should only be on violence against women.
He was unsuccessful in his attempt to stop the passage of the bill, but was accused by Labour and the Liberal Democrats of trying to filibuster the bill by talking for so long that it would run out of time.
The draft legislation brought forward by Eilidh Whiteford, a Scottish National party MP, is intended to force the government to ratify the Istanbul convention on tackling and preventing violence against women.
(...) It was supported by a number of MPs from all parties, with the vote passing by 135 to two.
(...) [Philip Davies] said: "It basically comes with a worthy sentiment: who can possibly be against trying to stop violence against women? Nobody. I’m not aware of anybody who wants to argue that people should be violent towards women and girls, of course not. Because of the title the bill has, about ‘combating violence against women’, then it presumes as long as you support that premise you must support this particular bill, and therefore if you oppose this bill it means you must be in favour, as it follows, of violence against women and children. Now that’s the kind of level of debate I’d expect from the morons on Twitter but I still live in hope that we might have better quality debate than that in this house, although my experience is it doesn’t actually get much better normally."
He continued: "I can’t really believe this needs saying, to be honest, but I think it’s so discriminatory and sexist to say that we should only be focusing on violence against women. If this was the other way round, there would be an absolute outcry from people in this house – and rightly so. I don’t take the view that violence against women and girls is somehow worse than violence against men and boys. As far as I’m concerned, all violence is unacceptable and all violence against the person should be punished by law. Both men and women are victims and both are perpetrators of these crimes. I believe in true equality and want people to be treated equally when they are a victim of crime and when they’re a perpetrator of crime."
Speaking after him, Thangam Debbonaire, the Labour MP for Bristol West, said she had to cut her contribution short to make sure Davies’s filibustering did not succeed.
Aus dem Independent erfährt man, welcher extreme Druck aufgebaut wurde, um ein sexistisches Gesetz durchzuprügeln und Philip Davies mit seinem Plädoyer für Gleichbehandlung der Geschlechter sozial auszugrenzen:
Survivors of domestic abuse who were present in the chamber, in a gallery above MPs, stood up and turned their backs while Mr Davies was talking by way of protesting his actions, victims' groups said.
While addressing the chamber, some MPs in the benches opposite laughed in disbelief, while his Conservative colleagues on the benches next to him turned away in apparent embarrassment.
(...) The bill has received cross party support and an open letter backing it was published in The Independent, signed by UN Women’s ambassador Emma Watson, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women Dubravka Šimonović, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron.
Wie die britische Zeitung Metro berichtet, möchte Davies auch das Wort "Women" in dem "Women and Equalities Committee", dem er diese Woche beigetreten ist, gestrichen sehen.
5. An der Universität Minnesota reagieren die ersten Studenten mit massivem Widerstand gegen Männerfeindlichkeit:
A major showdown over Title IX is brewing at the University of Minnesota, where the entire football team has agreed to boycott future games in support of 10 players who were suspended for sexual misconduct violations.
Student-athlete Drew Wolitarsky read a statement on behalf of the team Thursday night in which he blamed the administration for conducting an "unjust Title IX investigation without due process."
"We are concerned that our brothers have been named publicly with reckless disregard in violation of their constitutional rights," he said. "We are now compelled to speak for our team and take back our program."
Coach Tracy Claeys appears to be in full support of the boycott. "Have never been more proud of our kids," he tweeted.