Huffington Post: Chefredakteurin tritt wegen Männerhass zurück - News vom 23. April 2017

1. Zum vermutlich ersten Mal in der Menschheitsgeschichte wird von verantwortlicher Seite Hate Speech sanktioniert, die nicht gegen Frauen, sondern gegen Männer gerichtet ist.

Genderama-Leser konnten in den letzten Wochen ja den Konflikt um einen Artikel der südafrikanischen Huffington Post mitverfolgen, in dem gefordert wurde, weißen Männern das Wahlrecht zu entziehen. Normalerweise werden solche und schlimmere Entgleisungen mit großer Heiterkeit aufgenommen, und öffentlich niedergemacht werden nicht die HetzerInnen, sondern diejenigen, die diese Leute als "Feminazis" oder "Femifaschistinnen" titulieren. In diesem Fall trifft die Sanktion erstmals eine Täterin:

A blog calling for white men to be disenfranchised‚ published by news website The Huffington Post SA‚ was discriminatory and constituted hate speech‚ press ombudsman Johan Retief found on Saturday.

The publication was ordered to publish an unreserved apology for its "serious misconduct" – the most serious breach of the press code of ethics.

"Let me be short and sweet: If disenfranchisement of anybody (whether white males or black females for that matter) is not discriminatory‚ the meaning of discrimination should be redefined‚" Retief wrote in a hard-hitting 14-page finding.

Sexismus gegen weiße Männer wird von verantwortlicher Stelle als genauso übel bezeichnet wie Sexismus gegen schwarze Frauen! Das ist ein Novum und läuft der feministischen Ideologie, die in der westlichen Gesellschaft sonst durchgehend herrscht, komplett entgegen. Normalerweise wird diese Auffassung nur von uns Männerrechtlern vertreten, und es sind wir, die dafür als schräge Sonderlinge gelten.

In dem von mir zitierten Artikel heißt es weiter über den Tadel, der etwa seitens des Deutschen Presserates unvorstellbar wäre:

"I do not believe for one moment that such discriminatory and denigratory opinions can be described as being in the public interest – especially given this country's history of its struggle for liberation. To disenfranchise a section of the population once again would indeed represent a huge step backwards – one that may have some serious unforeseen consequences."

(...) Retief rebuked Huffington Post SA editor-in-chief Verashni Pillay for initially defending the blog following the public outcry. Pillay claimed the blog was "pretty standard for feminist theory" and that there was "nothing in the article that should have shocked or surprised anybody".

Die Ironie an der Sache: Pillay hat mit ihrer Einschätzung durchaus Recht, was die feministische Theorie angeht.

However Retief's ruling means the publication must also publish an unreserved apology which points out that the published text was malicious‚ inaccurate‚ against the public interest‚ discriminatory and denigratory‚ amounted to hate speech‚ and "impaired the dignity of reputation of many people".

Retief criticised Pillay's handling of the matter‚ and said her online comments had created the impression that she (and the publication) had "no serious problems with the content of the blog" and that the major error had been Roodt concealing his true identity.

"The main problem with the blog was 'internal'‚ not 'external' – it was not a fault in the system‚ as Pillay alleges (as a decision was made to publish the blog – it did not just slip in by itself); if was not an accident‚ it was a mistake made by the editor and her editorial team‚" Retief said.

(...) Horn said the company regretted the incident: "A number of in-depth interventions will be‚ and in some instances‚ have already been‚ implemented to address processes and attitudes that caused this situation. The investigation into the incident is at an advanced stage and will be concluded early next week."

Dieser Tadel hat für die verantwortliche Redakteurin Verashni Pillay weitergehende Konsequenzen:

Andreij Horn, head of 24.com, announced that the company has accepted the resignation of Verashni Pillay from her position as editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post SA.

Her resignation followed immediately on the release earlier today of the findings of the press ombudsman that a blog published on the site was "malicious" and "discriminatory".

Horn said editorial control over the site has been reassigned: "With immediate effect, Ferial Haffajee, The Huffington Post SA’s editor-at-large, and Pieter du Toit, the site’s deputy editor, will take over the editorial management of the site until we have appointed a new editor. We have the utmost faith in their ability to lead the site through both the changes we are making to address the internal issues that made this situation possible in the first place, and the impact it had on society at large, the company, and its staff."

In Deutschland hingegen wird zum Beispiel Dreck, in dem Mirna Funk dazu auffordert, "eine feministische Terrorgruppe zu gründen und die alten weißen Männer aus dem Weg zu schaffen", von der "Zeit" übernommen. (Geht man in den Kommentarbereich unter der Hetze heißt es in dem ersten Text, auf den man stößt, übrigen allen Ernstes: "Entfernt. Bitte bleiben Sie sachlich. Die Redaktion.") Kann sich jemand auch nur vorstellen, dass der Deutsche Presserat die "Zeit" wegen diesem Artikel scharf rügen würde? In vielen deutschen Leitmedien gelten Feministinnen als Heilige, an denen sich jede Kritik verbietet. Und eine Radikalfeministin wie Anne Wizorek landet in einem Gleichstellungsteam von Frauenministerin Schwesig. Bei uns wird Hass auf soziale Gruppen belohnt, so wie seit jeher, solange es nur die "richtige" soziale Gruppe trifft.

Die Schrecken der deutschen Geschichten haben uns im Gefolge der 68er Bewegung mit Büchern wie Theweleits "Männerphantasien" zu der Auffassung verholfen, dass Männer nun mal scheiße sind. Die Schrecken der südafrikanischen Geschichte scheinen zumindest in diesem einen Fall zu der Auffassung geführt zu haben, dass das Schüren von Hass gegen Menschengruppen generell falsch ist. Letzere Auffassung wird von uns Maskulisten vertreten, und die Anfeindungen, die wir dafür erhalten, sind bekannt.



2. "Feminism Is Now Toxic" lautet die Überschrift eines aktuellen Artikels auf der Online-Plattform "Splice Today". Aufhänger ist die in feministischen Kreisen beliebte These einer "vergifteten Männlichkeit":

Proponents of the toxic masculinity theory have been successful on college campuses at spreading the message that young men carry a demon seed within them that only feminists know how to remove. Educational programs are aimed at telling half of the students they have a chromosomal, poisonous rage within them that must be expunged before it inevitably explodes and hurts someone. Many men who’ve never manifested any symptoms of this malaise are resentful that there’s an implied connection between themselves and savage men like Stephens.

Toxic masculinity doesn’t have a formal, academic definition. It’s more of a catch-all term that can be applied to anything that’s identified as male-related rage. It’s a concept that men’s advocacy groups have used to describe a single-mother family situation that might produce a mental image of exaggerated masculinity in boys. Now, feminists are using it to suggest all males were born with this "original sin."

(...) Men do commit most crimes, but most men aren’t criminals, so the toxic masculinity theory falls short as an explanation. Forcing it on college men isn’t going to stop any of these murders, although it does provide an opportunity for feminists to achieve power. While they’d never admit it, insisting every man has a toxic masculinity provides an opportunity to denigrate them. Teaching it to college students as if it’s established fact supported by research, rather than a trendy theory being pushed due to campus politics, is problematic as well.

Assigning a negative trait broadly across a gender is stereotyping, usually abhorred by liberals, but liberals are always willing to make exceptions to their creed when it suits their agenda. Try to imagine negative traits that some ascribe to females (watch reruns of the Real Housewives of New Jersey), labeling them toxic, and then lecturing 18-year-old women about them at a freshman orientation. Does anyone think that they’d react well to it, or that it would improve relations between the sexes?

It’s no secret that many feminists in academia don’t like men. Then how can it be a good idea to put them in charge of educating men in a belittling manner in which only the negatives of a gender are discussed? It’s acceptable due to the feminist worldview of the dominant patriarchy that makes men the victimizers and women the helpless victims. Feminism is what’s now toxic, which is a major reason only one in four women want to be known as feminists. Perhaps college men should be taught this.

3. Wie es an US-amerikanischen Universitäten mitlerweile zugeht, berichtet aktuell auch die Nachrichten-Website Heatstreet:

A feminist professor said she was so triggered by a male student’s paper that “I began to have trouble distinguishing him from the man that [raped me].”

Writing anonymously in Inside Higher Ed, the professor described a lesson on rape culture she included in her gender class, saying she was frustrated with male students skeptical that it exists.

But one male student’s paper left her "thrown back into a pit of traumatic, fragmented memories," she wrote.

The student cited a men’s rights advocacy group, referenced a case where a woman raped a man, questioned whether feminism was relevant, and said that concerns about gender inequality were overblown.

The professor thought the paper was not well sourced, and that the argument wasn’t sufficiently supported. But that wasn’t all.

"As I went over his paper," she wrote, "I realized that I was reading a paper that sounded word for word like something the man who raped me would say. And not only did this sound like something my rapist would say, this student fit the same demographic profile as him: white, college male, between the ages of 18 and 22."

She said she was so upset that she could no longer grade papers or read.

"Although I knew it was unlikely that this student would literally try to rape me, his words felt so familiar that I began having trouble distinguishing him from the man that did. Their words were so frighteningly similar that the rational-instructor side of my brain could not overpower the trauma-survivor side," the professor wrote.

She recounts screaming "Zero! You get a f*cking zero!" at the computer screen as she graded the student’s two-page paper, saying that she also felt that simply by writing the paper, he had undermined her authority as an instructor.

"I imagined him sitting on the other side of his computer screen laughing at my pain, joking about my distress," she wrote. "I imagined him being friends with my rapist (though the man who raped me is now significantly older than this student, he is frozen in the 18-22 age bracket in my mind)."

She says never received any training to guide her through "how to grade a paper that sounds like something my rapist would say," speculating that other professors who survived rape might also be similarly triggered.

"How, I wondered, could I possibly evaluate this student’s work in an ‘unbiased’ fashion?" she asked. "Such a request would involve me living an entirely different life than the one that I have had."

Unter dem Artikel findet man eine Online-Umfrage zu dem Thema "diskriminieren amerikanische Colleges männliche Studenten?" Derzeit 92 Prozent antworteten darauf mit "Ja". Hier kann man nur zustimmen. Statt dass jungen Menschen beigebracht wird, verschiedene Seiten einer Debatte zu sehen und sich selbst ein begründetes Urteil zu bilden, wird ihnen von traumatisierten und/oder ideologisierten Lehrerinnen eine bestimmte Weltsicht in den Kopf gehämmert.

In dem von "Heatstreet" zitierten Originalartikel der Dozentin, grotesk betitelt mit "How to Survive Rape Apologists in the Classroom", schreibt diese:

Many feminist instructors, especially those who are women, know all too well what it is like to navigate the "mansplaining" of a few men students who would like to ardently deny that rape culture exists.

Eine Auffassung zu haben, die von der verschrobenen Ideologie solcher DozentInnen abweicht, erscheint hier bereits als sexistisch etikettierte Zumutung, die man eben irgendwie in den Griff bekommen muss. Das Ziel dieser Erziehung ist nicht mehr der eigenständig denkende Mensch, sondern der im Gleichschritt mitmarschierende Zombie. Man braucht sich nicht zu wundern, dass amerikanische Hochschulen derart in Verruf geraten sind.