Mittwoch, Januar 22, 2014

"Feminismus: Eine Krankheit der Linken wie der Rechten"

Nowadays any one who protests against injustice to men in the interests of women is either abused as an unfeeling brute or sneered at as a crank. Perhaps in that day of a future society, my protest may be unearthed by some enterprising archaeological inquirer, and used as evidence that the question was already burning at the end of the nineteenth century. – E. B. Bax

Vor etwa zehn Jahren bekam ich für mein Buch Sind Frauen bessere Menschen? den Belfort-Bax-Preis verliehen. Da passt es gut, dass die männerpolitische Website A Voice for Men gestern einen Beitrag von Bax online gestellt hat, in dem dieser beklagt, wie sehr der Feminismus sowohl ins linke als auch ins rechte Lager eingedrungen ist und sogar Belfort Bax' geliebten Sozialismus unterwanderte. Der zitierte Text aus "Essays in Socialism New & Old" stammt aus dem Jahr 1907 und klingt teilweise erstaunlich aktuell. Ein Auszug:

All parties, all sorts and conditions of politicians, from the fashionable and Conservative west-end philanthropist to the Radical working-men’s clubbite, seem (or seemed until lately) to have come to an unanimous conclusion on one point – to wit, that the female sex is grievously groaning under the weight of male oppression. Editors of newspapers, keen to scent out every drift of public fancy with the object of regaling their "constant readers" with what is tickling to their palates, will greedily print, in prominent positions and in large type letters expressive of the view in question, whilst they will boycott or, at best, publish in obscure corners any communication that ventures to criticise the popular theory or that adduces facts that tell against it.

Were I to pen an impassioned diatribe, tending to prove the villainy of man towards woman, and painting in glowing terms the poor, weak victim of his despotism, my description would be received with sympathetic approval. Not so, I fear, my simple statement of the unvarnished truth.

(...) The foregoing, then, I repeat, is the present state of the woman question – as it exists in our latter-day class society, based on capitalistic production. The last point that we have to consider is the relation of this sex-question to Socialism. Some years ago, on its first appearance, I took up my esteemed friend August Bebel’s book Die Frau in the hope of gaining some valuable hints or at least some interesting speculations on the probable future of sex-relations under Socialism. I was considerably disgusted, therefore, that for the "halfpennyworth of bread" in the form of real suggestion I had to wade through a painfully considerable quantity of very old "sack" in the shape of stale declamation on the intrinsic perfection of woman and the utter vileness of man, on the horrible oppression the divine creature suffered at the hands of her tyrant and ogre – in short, I found two-thirds of the book filled up with a second-hand hash-up of Mill’s Subjection of Women and with the usual demagogic rant I had been long accustomed to from the ordinary bourgeois woman’s-rights advocate.

(...) I will give one instance of a transparently false analogy which is common among Socialists and Radicals. It is a favourite device to treat the relation between man and woman as on all fours with the relation between capitalist and workman. But a moment’s consideration will show that there is no parallel at all between the two cases. The reason on which we as Socialists base our persistent attack on the class-privileged man or woman – on the capitalist – is because we maintain that as an economical, political, and social entity he or she has no right to exist. We say that the capitalist is a mere parasite, who ought to and who eventually will disappear. If it were not so, if the capitalist were a necessary and permanent factor in society, the attitude often adopted by Socialists (say, over trade disputes) would be as unfair and one-sided as the bourgeois represents it to be.

Now, I wish to point out that the first thing for the woman’s-rights advocates to do, if they want to make good the analogy, is to declare openly for the abolition of the male sex. For until they do this, there is not one tittle of resemblance between the two cases …

What does Socialism, at least, profess to demand and to involve? Relative economic and social equality between the sexes. What does the woman’s-rights movement demand? Female privilege, and when possible, female domination. It asks that women shall have all the rights of men with privileges thrown in (but no disagreeable duties, oh dear no!), and apparently be subject to no discipline but that of their own arbitrary wills.

To exclude women on the ground of incapacity from any honourable, lucrative, or agreeable social function whatever, is a hideous injustice to be fulminated against from platform and in press – to treat them on the same footing as men in the matter of subordination to organised control or discipline is not to be thought of – is ungentlemanly, ungallant, unchivalrous! We had an illustration of this recently. At a meeting held not long since, the chairman declared that all interrupters of speakers should be promptly put out. A man at the back of the hall did interrupt a speaker and was summarily ejected, Subsequently a woman not only interrupted, but grossly insulted another speaker, but the chairman declared that he could not turn a woman out. So it is.

(...) This sentiment also plays a part in the franchise controversy. Let women have the franchise by all means, provided two things, first of all: provided you can get rid of their present practical immunity from the operation of the criminal law for all offences committed against men and of the gallantry and shoddy chivalry that now hedges a woman in all relations of life (...); and secondly, provided you can obviate the unfairness arising from the excess of women over men in the population – an excess attributable not only to the superior constitutional strength of women, but still more, perhaps, to the fact that men are exposed to dangers in their daily work from which women benefit, but from which women are exempt, inasmuch as they are, and claim to be, jealously protected from all perilous and unhealthy occupations. Now, surely it is rather rough to punish men for their services to society by placing them under the thumb of a female majority which exists largely because of these services.

(...) Many Socialists, indeed, believe that the sex-question altogether is so entirely bound up with the economic question that it will immediately solve itself on the establishment of a collectivist order of society. (...) I hold rather, on the contrary, that the class-struggle to-day over-shadows or dwarfs the importance of this sex-question, and that though in some aspects it will undoubtedly disappear, in others it may very possibly become more burning after the class-struggle has passed away than it is now. Speaking personally, I am firmly convinced that it will be the first question that a Socialist society will have to solve, once it has acquired a firm economic basis and the danger of reaction has sensibly diminished or disappeared.

(....) In conclusion, I may say that I do not flatter myself that I am going to convert many of my readers from their darling belief in “woman the victim.” I know their will is in question here, that they have made up their minds to hold one view and one only, through thick and thin, and hence that in the teeth of all the canons of evidence they would employ in other matters, most of them will continue canting on upon the orthodox lines, ferreting out the twentieth case that presents an apparent harshness to woman, and ignoring the nineteen of real injustice to man; misrepresenting the marriage laws as an engine of male, rather than of female, tyranny; and the non-possession of the suffrage by women as an infamy without a parallel, studiously saying nothing as to the more than compensating privileges of women in other directions.

Es sind Sätze wie der letzte, aus dem Baxens Kritiker versucht haben, ihm einen Strick zu drehen: Er sei gegen das Frauenwahlrecht gewesen, was beweise, wie verkommen und zurückgeblieben er sei. Tatsächlich wird aus Bax' Text deutlich, dass er nichts anderes forderte, als es viele Männerrechtler heute tun: Mit dem Erhalt gleicher Rechte sollte auch der Erhalt gleicher Pflichten und gleicher Verantwortung einhergehen. Zu Zeiten von Belfort Bax waren nicht zuletzt deshalb außer Männern auch viele Frauen gegen das Frauenwahlrecht, weil sie befürchteten, mit denselben Rechten wie Männer auch dieselben Verpflichtungen tragen zu müssen – beispielsweise in jungen Jahren an die Front gezwungen werden zu können. Wer sich nur ein wenig mit den Greueln des Ersten Weltkriegs beschäftigt hat, kann nachvollziehen, dass ein solcher Tausch vielen Frauen als nicht besonders reizvoll erschien. Bekanntlich wurde dieses Problem dadurch gelöst, dass Frauen immer wieder neue Rechte zugestanden wurden, die Nachteile aber weiter einseitig bei den Männern verblieben. Daran hat sich seit 1907 wenig geändert.

kostenloser Counter