Menschenfeindliche Rechtsprechung, religiöser Eifer, Doppelmoral – News vom 2. Juli 2017

1. Im Schweizer "Tagesanzeiger" beschäftigt sich Claudia Blumer unter der Überschrift "Böser Vater, schutzbedürftige Mutter" mit einer "verheerenden Mischung aus Rückwärtsgewandtheit und Väterfeindlichkeit" in der Familien-Rechtsprechung, die damit "letztlich auch frauenfeindlich" ist.



2. Die Neue Zürcher Zeitung hat den Sozialpsychologen Jonathan Haidt für den Artikel "Das ist ein normales religiöses Verhalten" über die Gefährdung der Meinungsfreiheit durch politisch korrekte Social-Justice-Warriors an amerikanischen Hochschulen befragt. Haidt berichtet von einem "widerspruchsfreien Raum, in dem jede anderslautende Meinung intolerabel geworden ist" und einer "Atmosphäre der Zensur, in der der kleinste verbale Ausrutscher katastrophale Folgen zeitigen kann":

"Es ist eine kleine, aber wachsende Gruppe, hauptsächlich aus den Geisteswissenschaften und den Gender-Studies, die die in den achtziger Jahren aufgekommene Idee vertreten, dass die integralen Bestandteile der Gesellschaft ein umfassendes Unterdrückungssystem bilden. Diese Studenten sind so voller Wut und Selbstgerechtigkeit, dass sie meinen, allen anderen vorschreiben zu können, was sie sagen dürfen und was nicht."

3. US-amerikanische Feministinnen haben sich in den letzten Tagen einmal mehr zu enormer Empörung über die angebliche Frauenfeindlichkeit von US-Präsident Trump hoch gesteigert. Heather McDonald analysiert im "National Review" diese "feministische Doppelmoral":

It is the height of hypocrisy for feminists to claim that females should be equal in all things and then erupt in outrage when they receive the same boorish treatment that Trump routinely doles out to males. Suddenly, the scorned values of chivalry and a Victorian respect for women’s delicate sensibilities resurface in a petulant claim of vulnerable group identity.

Representative Nancy Pelosi called the president’s Twitter posts "sexist, an assault on the freedom of the press and an insult to all women." Dianne Feinstein weighed in on MSNBC: "I’m appalled. This is the president of the United States. You don’t do things like that. You don’t attack women." Democratic National Committee spokesman Adrienne Watson said that "Trump’s bullying tweets are an attack on women everywhere."

Why weren’t all men equally insulted by [Joe] Scarborough being called "psycho?" The New York Times did not even report that epithet in its front-page lead story on the offending tweet, except as mentioned by a female Republican pollster who had counted the number of characters devoted to Brzezinski and to Scarborough. (Naturally, the pollster reached the usual conclusion that Trump was a sexist.) During the campaign, Trump routinely mocked Rick Perry’s intelligence and eyeglasses and belittled George Pataki’s political virtù. He mocked the size of Marco Rubio’s ears and insinuated that his own sexual organ would put everyone else’s to shame. There was no men’s-movement backlash claiming that "all men" were being attacked.

With typical feminist narcissism, the Times claims that the silly tweets were about "gender": "The tweets ended five months of relative silence from the president on the volatile subject of gender," write reporters Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman. The tweets "reintroduced a political vulnerability," they opine, "his history of demeaning women for their age, appearance and mental capacity." No, Trump’s tweet was not "on the volatile subject of gender," it was about two specific individuals. Trump doesn’t give a damn about gender, and rightly so. Wrongly, he recklessly indulges his pique, but he does so as an equal-opportunity offender, treating his real and imagined enemies with perfect equality.

(...) Trump’s tweet, along with his obsession with watching cable news, are beneath the office. But feminists belie their claim that females are identical to males every time they break down over an insult that would have been treated simply as a matter of Trumpian course if directed to a male.

4. Eine neue Fotoserie zeigt die Gesichter türkischer Jungen im Moment der Beschneidung. Vermutlich weil es sich nicht um die schmerzverzerrten Gesichter von Mädchen handelt, bleibt die öffentliche Empörung über diese Praktik vergleichsweise gering.



5. Nicht anders sieht es bei den afghanischen Jungen aus, die als Sexsklaven gehalten werden. Aktuell berichtet die Hindustan Times über dieses Greuel, und das männerpolitische Blog Toy Soldiers kommentiert:

How long does it take for someone to consider a widely known instance of systematic child rape to be a problem? Clearly it is not ten years because that is how long the West has known about the plight of Afghanistan’s boys. (...) Indeed, there have been several reports (...) to Canadian and US officials about the abuse, only for the soldiers reporting it to be reprimanded for not respecting the Afghan culture.

(...) When people talk about "rape culture", this is what an actual rape culture looks like. Here we have a society that goes out of its way to ignore child rape, shame the victims, and push the child’s family to cast them out rather than help them. Should the family attempt to help the boy, the family faces reprisal, often violent, as well as communal abandonment. They cannot even take their children to receive medical treatment without asking the doctors to keep it secret.

I do not expect the West to do anything about this. This is a cultural concept that likely will not change just because we put boots on the ground. However, I cannot imagine that this could occur on this scale for a decade and receive so little international attention and outrage had the targets been girls.

Yet because the victims are boys, no one cares. No one in the West is pushing for change. The United Nations is well aware of the situation, as are the top nations in the world, yet there is barely a syllable uttered about it. As for the progressives who claim to oppose "rape culture" and sexual violence, they could not care less. For the most part, they do not write or talk about this problem, and when they do the focus is solely on the gendered aspect of the abuse and sex segregation in the community, not that thousands of boys have been kidnapped, bought, and sold for rape.