Genitalverstümmelung, Emma Watson, feministische Gedankenpolizei – News vom 9. Mai 2017

1. Die Zeiten werden immer düsterer für Simone Schmollack und die "taz" und immer besser für Maskulisten. So berichtet jetzt auch das Schweizer Radio sachlich völlig korrekt über männliche Opfer häuslicher Gewalt:

Jedes fünfte Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt ist gemäss der Polizeilichen Kriminalstatistik ein Mann. Fachleute gehen jedoch davon aus, dass die Dunkelziffer gross ist. Denn geschlagene Männer schämen sich noch mehr als Frauen, sich an Angehörige, an Kollegen oder an Beratungsstellen zu wenden.

(...) Im "Zwüschehalt" – einem Männerhaus im Kanton Aargau – finden betroffene Männer einen Unterschlupf. Es ist mehr als ein Dach über dem Kopf für geschlagene Männer und Väter mit ihren Kindern. Es ist ein Ort, wo sie zur Ruhe kommen und ihre Zukunft in Angriff nehmen können.

Das Interesse am "Zwüschehalt" ist inzwischen so gross, dass analoge Angebote in Bern und in Luzern in Planung sind. Die Reportage aus dem Männerhaus hören Sie ebenfalls in der Sendung "Doppelpunkt".

Ich hatte Oliver Hunziker von "Zwüschehalt" vor fünf Jahren interviewt.



2. Norwegens Regierungspartei will Genitalverstümmelung bei Jungen unter 16 Jahren verbieten. Das berichtet der britische "Independent" – und auch über die Reaktionen:

"This is very sad," Ervin Kohn, a Jewish community leader in Norway, told Aftenposten. "They [the Progress Party] must know they won’t get a majority for this in Parliament. It seems like they want to send a signal that we are unwelcome in the country."

He tweeted encouragement for Norwegian voters to support "any other party" in the election this autumn.

Another opposing voice came from Rabbi Menachem Margolin, general director of the European Jewish Association. He wrote a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to call for collaboration between European Jewish organisations and government to prevent the proliferation of anti-Jewish legislation.

"I have no doubt that the State of Israel – the state of the Jewish people – cannot remain indifferent to it, and I call on you to exert all your political influence in order to prevent the exclusion of Jews from life in various European countries," the letter read.

3.

Zum fünften Jahrestag des "Kölner Urteils" legen Dr. iur. Ralf Eschelbach (Richter am Bundesgerichtshof), Prof. Dr. med. Matthias Franz (Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf) und Prof. Dr. iur. Jörg Scheinfeld (Universitäten Mainz und Wiesbaden) ein gemeinsames Papier vor, in dem sie die zentralen Argumente der Beschneidungsdebatte zusammenfassen und die Parlamentarier nachdrücklich zum Handeln aufrufen. Ihr Text zeigt auf, dass die Politiker bei der Verabschiedung des Beschneidungsgesetzes von fehlerhaften Informationen ausgingen und dazu verleitet wurden, eine Einsicht zu ignorieren, die in einem modernen Rechtsstaat selbstverständlich sein sollte, nämlich dass der Intimbereich von Jungen ebenso unverfügbar sein muss wie der Intimbereich von Mädchen.

Hier geht es weiter.



4. Die Schauspielerin Emma Watson bekam den ersten "genderneutralen" MTV Award verliehen. Einer der wenigen, die sich kritisch dazu äußern, ist der britische Journalist und Moderator Piers Morgan. Der New Musical Express berichtet:

Speaking on today’s episode of Good Morning Britain, Morgan ranted: "Gender neutral awards, just what the world was craving. I can’t think of a better recipient than Emma Watson, a great flag bearer of all things gender neutral. Women will now win a lot less awards because they’ve made them gender neutral and there are more male actors so actually in trying to get equality you end up with more inequality," he continued. "It’s a masterpiece."

Returning to the topic later, Morgan said: "Is the world becoming gender neutral? Do we need to have men and women? Do we just get rid of all of it and take the ‘man’ out of ‘woman’ and call them ‘woes’? You’ve got man in there, that’s offensive and sexist. We can’t be ‘men’ anymore, we have to be called persons and everything becomes gender neutral ... The Queen can’t be called the Queen anymore and we can’t call her ‘her majesty’ so she’ll have to be ‘the majesty'. Eventually I’ll have to smash my head repeatedly into a brick wall. I think it’s all utterly ridiculous."

5 Vor einigen Tagen verlinkte ich hier einen Beitrag des Blogs "Red Pill Berlin", in dem es um die Anfeindungen geht, die Feministinnen gegen die Philosophin Rebecca Tuvel abfeuerten, nachdem diese das Konzept des "Transracialism" als Analogie zum "Transgenderism" vorgestellt hatte. Inzwischen widmet sich Kelly Oliver in einem Artikel für den Los Angeles Review of Books dieser Kontroverse. Der vollständige Titel des Beitrags wird dabei nur in seiner URL erkennbar: "If This Is Feminism, It's Been Hijacked by the Thought Police":

The split between what people wrote to both Rebecca Tuvel and to me in private, and what they felt compelled to say in public is one indication that the explosion of personal insults and vicious attacks on social media is symptomatic of something much bigger than the actual issues discussed in Tuvel’s article. In private messages, some people commiserated, expressed support, and apologized for what was happening and for not going public with their support. As one academic wrote to me in a private message, "sorry I’m not saying this publicly (I have no interest in battling the mean girls on Facebook) but fwiw it’s totally obvious to me that you haven’t been committing acts of violence against marginalized scholars." Later, this same scholar wrote, again in private, saying Tuvel’s article is "a tight piece of philosophy" that makes clear that the position that "transgender is totally legit, [and] transracial is not — can only be justified using convoluted essentialist metaphysics. I will write to her privately and tell her so." Others went further and supported Tuvel in private while actually attacking her in public. In private messages, these people apologized for what she must be going through, while in public they fanned the flames of hatred and bile on social media. The question is, why did so many scholars, especially feminists, express one sentiment behind closed doors and another out in the open? Why were so many others afraid to say anything in public?

Dass Leute mir privat versichern, wie Recht ich hätte,während dieselben Leute sich niemals trauen würden, Männerrechtler und Feminismuskritiker auch öffentlich zu unterstützen, kenne ich selbst zur Genüge. Mehr Zivilcourage wäre besser.

In Kelly Olivers Artikel heißt es weiter:

Last week, a flurry of outrage stormed through social media calling the article "wack shit," "crap," "offensive," "violent," and more. And its author was called "transphobic," "racist," "crazy," "stupid," and worse. Many were (and still are) calling for a retraction of the article and an apology from Tuvel. Some scholars associated with the journal posted condemnations of the article and issued apologies for it.

(...) The feeding frenzy in response to Tuvel’s article couldn’t have happened without social media. The viciousness of the attacks was fueled by the mob mentality of Facebook. Dissenters, even those who just wanted a civil discussion of the issue, were shut down immediately or afraid to voice their opinions in public. Some who in private were sympathetic to Tuvel, felt compelled to join in the attacking mob. The thought police were in full force. Both Tuvel and the journal were under pressure to retract the article and apologize. In a private message to me, one of my academic friends said one editor’s Facebook apology for publishing such an "offensive" article, "sounded like something ISIS makes its captors read in a hostage video before beheading them." Joking aside, there was (and still is) tremendous pressure to condemn Tuvel and her article. Some who joined in the protests later admitted in private that they hadn’t even read the article. And at least one person who signed a petition demanding that Hypatia retract the text in question, later, when the media tides were turning, wanted to remove her signature from the damning letter. I wonder how many of those who signed that letter had actually read the article. Just this morning, I received a text from someone I respect, lamenting the cruelty on social media, but telling me she was sure she would disagree with the article and find it offensive, even though she hadn’t yet read it.

Naja, auch meine Bücher werden am schärfsten von denjenigen kritisiert, die sie nicht gelesen haben. Die Bloggerin Nadja Hermann berichtet bezüglich ihr Buch "Fettlogik überwinden" dasselbe.

I have to admit, I didn’t want to enter the Facebook shit-storm and face the wrath of the "mean girls" either. I felt the need to defend Rebecca Tuvel not only because she is a friend and former Ph.D. student of mine, but also because I respect her work, which is always well argued — whether or not you agree with it — and I found her arguments compelling. I summoned up the courage and entered the fray suggesting only that Hypatia invite critical responses to the article. This suggestion was met with ridicule and derision. I then asked critics to respond with philosophical arguments rather than lobbing insults, which was met with claims that I was doing "violence" to marginalized scholars.

The most vocal figures on social media claimed they were harmed, even traumatized, by Tuvel’s article, and by my defense of its right to exist. Some said that Tuvel’s article harmed them, and I was doing violence to them, even triggering PTSD, just by calling for an open discussion of, and debate over, the arguments in the article. (...) One Facebook critic called my remarks "unforgivable," seemingly putting them on par with crimes against humanity. At this point in the social media blowout, (until the Daily Nous published a defense of the article, which elicited support from all sides) I seemed to be the only one publicly defending Tuvel, in spite of the private support she received from folks too afraid to go public.

Through every medium imaginable, senior feminist scholars were pressuring, even threatening, Tuvel that she wouldn’t get tenure and her career would be ruined if she didn’t retract her article. When I called out the worst insulters for threatening an untenured junior feminist, they claimed they were the victims here not her. (...) A senior feminist philosopher called to warn Tuvel that she should be appealing to the "right people" if she wanted to get tenure and warned her not to publish her book on this topic or it would ruin her career and mark her as "all that is wrong with white feminism."

Die eindringliche Warnung, sie würde mit einem politisch unkorrekten Werk ihre Karriere ruinieren, erhielt bekanntlich auch Cassie Jaye für ihre Männerrechtler-Doku "The Red Pill".

Some suggest they don’t want to "dignify" the article with a response. They’d rather just express their outrage at its very existence. (...) We live in an era of outrage — let’s call it the Trump era. That’s how Trump got elected, by voicing outrage. His most ardent disciples uncritically and unthinkingly believe everything he says because it is expressed with anger and zest. Civility is suspected of being "political," which has become a dirty word. It’s hard to argue with outrage, and that’s precisely the problem. Outrage has become the new truth. At one extreme, we have Trump and his supporters proudly embracing political incorrectness, and at the other, we have the political correctness police calling for censorship of a scholarly article written by someone working for social justice. On both sides, we have virulent intolerance fueled by hatred. The feminist thought police are the flip side of the alternative facts machine. And both are threats to the open dialogue that is so vital for critical thought inside and outside the academy.

6. Eine Feministin wird in eine High School eingeladen, um den Schülern dort ihre Ideologie einzuimpfen. Stattdessen sind dort vor allem die Jungen ausgesprochen kritisch und wagen Widerspruch. Daraufhin explodiert die Dame auf Twitter.

Wenn Feminismuskritik schon bei 15jährigen Jungen ankommt, obwohl die Schule alles tut, um den Nachwuchs auf Linie zu trimmen, stimmt mich das für die Zukunft sehr optimistisch.



7. Die Post. Einer meiner Leser schreibt mir heute:

Schon gelesen? Vor allem Frauen haben weniger die SPD gewählt.

Zitat:

--- Die SPD-Generalsekretärin Katarina Barley macht ein privates Interview von Torsten Albig für die Wahlniederlage in Schleswig-Holstein mitverantwortlich. (...) "Ich kann mir das nur so erklären, dass es in den letzten zwei, drei Wochen gar nicht mehr so sehr um politische, um Gerechtigkeitsthemen ging, sondern eher um Dinge wie das Privatleben des Ministerpräsidenten. So sehen wir auch, dass offensichtlich vor allem Frauen weniger die SPD gewählt haben." Barley spielte damit auf ein umstrittenes Interview des Regierungschefs Torsten Albig an. Schilderungen zur Trennung von seiner langjährigen Ehefrau, die er als zu Hause "gefangene" Mutter und Hausfrau beschrieb, lösten eine Diskussion über das Frauenbild Albigs aus. Sein Leben habe sich schneller entwickelt als ihres, und man habe sich kaum noch auf Augenhöhe ausgetauscht, sagte Albig der "Bunten". ---

Ja wie jetzt? Der Spitzenkandidat trennt sich von seiner Frau, weil diese zu sehr "Heimchen am Herd" war. Damit propagiert Albig eigentlich ein modernes Frauenbild, weil er das Traditionelle kritisiert. Und das ist dann auch wieder nicht richtig. Merke als Politiker: Jedes Thema mit "Frau" im Wahlkampf möglichst meiden. Man kann nur ins Fettnäpfchen treten.