Wie hoch ist der Anteil weiblicher Täter bei partnerschaftlicher Gewalt? Die Antwort auf diese Frage hängt davon ab, wer gefragt wird. Ein Polizist wäre aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach der Ansicht, dass weibliche Täter respektive männliche Opfer nur mit einem einstelligen Prozentsatz represented. Domestic violence is a male, so the commonly held belief. A criminologist or sociologist, however, would surprise us with the assertion that women put in 51 to 53 percent of all cases the perpetrators. The difference between the two statements - that of the police and that of the criminologists and sociologists - equivalent to between brightfield and darkfield. The former includes only by police, hospitals or counseling centers known cases. In the 80 years of violence researcher Murray Straus has published research that reveals for the first time this mismatch between light and dark field. Straus developed in this context, the so-called "Conflict Tactic Scales" die heute ein bedeutendes Instrument in der Gewaltforschung sind. Grundlage einer jeden Dunkelfelduntersuchung ist die sorgfältige Befragung nach etwaigen Gewalterlebnissen.
Da Gewalt ein äußerst scham- und tabubesetztes Thema darstellt, hängt das Ergebnis einer solchen Befragung entscheidend davon ab, wie die Fragestellung formuliert ist. Die simple Frage "Haben sie schon einmal Gewalt durch Ihren Partner / Ihre Partnerin erlebt?" wird immer einen verschwindend geringen Anteil männlicher Opfer zu Tage fördern. Fragt man hingegen präzise nach bestimmten Gewalthandlungen wie etwa "hat Ihre Partnerin sie mit der flachen Hand geschlagen" oder "Hat Ihre Partnerin Sie mit der Faust geschlagen", so erhält man völlig andere Ergebnisse. Straus' Untersuchungen zeigten ein ausgeglichenes Verhältnis von männlichen und weiblichen Tätern. Mittlerweile gibt es mehr als 300 internationale Studien und Meta-Analysen, die zu demselben Ergebnis gelangen.
Der Grund hierfür besteht in der unterschiedlichen Sozialisation von Männern und Frauen. Gewalt gegen Männer, ob in den Medien oder in der Wirklichkeit wird weit eher toleriert als Gewalt gegen Frauen. Jede dritte Frau habe in ihrem Leben schon einmal Gewalt erfahren heißt es. Allerdings gilt das ebenso für beinahe jeden Mann. Gewalterfahrungen sind fester und leider auch selbstverständlicher Bestandteil männlicher Sozialisation, so selbstverständlich, dass minor acts of violence against men are not even perceived as violent, even by the affected women themselves, the same acts against women, by contrast, clear interpreted as violence and condemned.
Suppose a woman and a man were each slapped by their partner or their partner. When asked whether they had ever experienced intimate partner violence, the woman would be yes, answer the man well in the negative, although both have experienced the same thing. The man, however, would not even remember the slap might as act of violence. But violence is not what is perceived as violence? No! For many men find not only because as violence, because they are accustomed to or you have at least taught them to "not to make so". This makes things but not better. On the contrary it shows how brutalized the social attitudes towards men.
This "under reporting" violence-affected men in the dark field research is a relevant problem dar. The Conflict Tactic Scales now offer an approach with which is exactly this effect is eliminated. First, value-neutral acts of violence described as "conflict tactics" rather than "violence". This will help to de-stigmatize Violence Against chattels and to build as internal barriers to the respondents. The essential feature of this method is that is quite specifically to "conflict tactics" such as hitting with the hand or fist, the threatening demand with a knife, etc.. the respondent will be taken so that any possibility of interpreting the experience itself and classified as violent or non-violence. He answered only with yes or no. In addition, the history is taken into account, that is, from which emanated the two partner violence.
One that Straus' views inform the woman's rights activist Erin Pizzey, she founded one of the first women's shelters in the UK and made early on to point out that they met in their facilities to many women who are themselves considerably Levels of violence against their partners and children were doing. Pizzey said in this context of "family terrorists." The sociologist and gender researcher Gerhard Amendt calls about the abolition of pure women's shelters and instead wants an equal support to both male and female victims. The Mainz criminologist Michael Bock created in 2001 during the Violence Protection Act, a report for the German Bundestag, in which he drew attention to these problems. Nothing happened.
Straus, Pizzey, and Amendt addition to their belief is something else in common: the concentrated hatred of various radical feminists. All three have been terrorized received power-up to death threats, telephone terror, car tires slashed. Pizzey left the UK and therefore Gerhard Amendt required for his appearance in a men's conference even personal security.
It's not about the victims
We are confronted now the question of why radical feminists, is so attached to a long-unmasked error is recorded and why they do it with such aggression. It seems as must be defended here for the last taboo - as if he were to want to push down an ugly, unpopular truth literal force. But why? Many of those which today are frequent for male victims of domestic violence, was formerly on the "other side" and were in the belief that the victims were only women. Even Murray Straus was initially expects to encounter in their studies only on male perpetrators and female victims.
The truth is that these people never switched sides, but merely adapted their target group and their operations to new findings. They were always on the side of the victims of either gender. As long as they were based on predominantly female victims, their focus was on women. Soon companies realize was that and men are affected the same part, the audience has just been extended to them. If it were said radical feminists actually the protection of victims, should they really put no great pains to recognize and male victims and female offenders as such. But they is not about the victims. The last taboo to be defended is something else, something more fundamental, something that modern feminism as the innermost core of our own.
Polarizing men's and women's image
Simone de Beauvoir described the relationship between the sexes still be ambivalent. Although she claimed that the man himself superior than sex, more precisely than the absolute set, while the wife of him as the Other, the second sex is defined. However, they also went assume that define men and women are also in mutual interaction. Wherefore de Beauvoir to the women certainly have some responsibility.
I agree with most of de Beauvoir's theories do not match (as I could). The essence, however, is that it definitely makes a difference if someone like de Beauvoir makes statements with which you disagree and must be challenged, or whether such views are represented with a totalitarian claim, as so many feminists today is certainly the case. It also makes a difference if you simply denouncing gender relations or the world into good and evil, stubborn in the sense of male and female split. The fact is that over the past decades established a polarizing men's and women's picture that men have sole responsibility for the so-called "patriarchy" and ascribes stylized women to mere objects. Women never appear here as a designer interior. Their role is reduced to that of collective sacrifice.
power differential between men and women?
to a law of nature is thereby resembling festgeschrieben, dass zwischen Männern und Frauen ein grundsätzliches Machtgefälle besteht, mit Männern als Machthabern und Frauen als Unterlegenen. Als Beweis hierfür dient der Umstand, dass Männer in der Arbeitswelt und in der Politik in der Regel an den Hebeln der Macht sitzen. Hierbei werden geflissentlich ganz simple Dinge übersehen: Männer dominieren nicht nur die Spitze, sondern auch den Bodensatz der Gesellschaft. Sie sind hierzulande häufiger arbeitslos, doppelt so oft ohne Schulabschluss, stellen 90 Prozent aller Obdachlosen, stellen zwei Drittel aller Suchtkranken und sterben vier mal häufiger durch Suizid. Auch wenn die UNO einen Tag gegen Gewalt an Frauen ausruft, sind weltweit 70 Prozent aller Gewaltopfer Männer. Although media and political interest exclusively for female war victims, there is a vast mass of all civilian war victims from boys and men aged between 15 and 55.
The basis for the adoption of said power differential is the claim that men pass through the story always was in possession of all power resources. That's right. However, and this is the crucial mistake only if one includes only material power resources into consideration. Decisive, however, are intangible, social and emotional resources, such as the relationship with the young. When mothers bind more strongly to children as Fathers, if they can avoid alienating the latter, the children and when women dominate the education and then have the next generation, this is a lot of power, but a more subtle form of it.
It is not just a stereotype that women enter into partnerships and relationship issues the sound, make most buying decisions, often decide on all activities and even the common circle of friends. The power of women was and is quite large, it is not only quantifiable, and plays less from public life. Male power, however, is clearly written and so anklagbar. Whether it is differences in pay, or the proportion of executives. All that gives men power, is usually worth its money and is therefore attractive to statistics wonderful process.
violence is not a "male principle"
men, a central thesis of the theory of patriarchy, violence use to exert power over women. Violence is explained by a "male principle" (z), which largely serves the oppression of women. However, male violence directed mostly against men. When it actually comes to power, men seem to the women to care the least. On the contrary, it will be noted that the most violent men are often the most powerless. Violence is concentrated in the social hierarchy where it is the people at the worst - in the social dregs. And because of this obvious as the social head is male, male violence also appears to us as such. By the same logic we could also speak of violence as a black principle or a migrant principle, it would be equally absurd.
The feminist caricature of hegemonic masculinity could therefore establish so good because it reflects gender stereotypes par excellence and the human intellectual laziness really ingratiate. The physically superior man and his wife are losing that which leaves a deep impression purporting as in human perception. Here, nature plays a trick on the men. The child pattern - a very useful invention of nature - can be found in young animals, children and women. It is used in human behavior to address protective instincts. This mechanism has established the nature deliberately to ensure the conservation of the species. Since men lack this childlike, they do not have Opferappeal. They do not need, no matter how badly they're doing, so to speak, they are disadvantaged by nature.
Die äußere Stärke der Männer war folglich auch schon immer ihre größte Schwäche. Sie führt bis heute dazu, dass Männer "verheizt" und Frauen geschont werden. Auch aus diesem Grund wird eine maskulistische Bewegung es wesentlich schwerer haben als die feministische. Besonders gilt dies, wenn eine solche Bewegung sich feminismuskritisch geben, also gegen diejenige Gruppe mit dem größeren Opferappeal ankämpfen muss. Und in der Tat - das muss sie. Denn feministische Interessen stehen heute männlichen Belangen oft diametral gegenüber.
Unterstützung für Frauen, Disziplinierung für Männer
members of the men's movement in the past by feminists and gender politicians cold ranks were sought. Was made aware of male disadvantage, there was the usual strategy is to deny to play down, or to defame Gesterkampscher Art. The resistance of the women's movement to give up their monopoly on suffering was enormous. The moderate, dialogue-oriented men's movement tried to solve this problem by first partially assumed the perspective of feminism and finally become completely absorbed by it. Men were tolerated by their commitment, as long as they acknowledged that Privileged to be and has been confined to work on themselves and to improve.
A look at the nature and content of government aided boys' and men's projects shows the flowers of this Gynozentrismus drives. What strikes first is that the offer here from the beginning rather sparse fails. Second, it is striking that the vast majority of projects, such as for example, have "New ways for guys" in essence, a "critical examination of masculinity patterns" as the basis, or - as the club dissent - are also pursuing a deconstructionist approach, in which the male role in principle, as considered destructive and is therefore to be placed in a socially acceptable form.
For projects that seen in boys and men not only patriarch, violent criminals and defects being, there is no funding. For the award are to a large extent namely equality bodies responsible. Their tasks are in turn regulated by various laws, reveal in their formulation, what rudimentary understanding of the law of "equality" has: promoting women and nothing else. "Equality between men and women," the legal texts, are for "elimination of existing inequalities." The law provides for only "existing discrimination" ausschließlich auf weiblicher Seite. "Gleichstellung von Männern und Frauen" kann dann nur bedeuten, den Frauen etwas zu geben und den Männern etwas zu nehmen. Gleichstellung bedeutet in diesem Sinne plumpe Umverteilung von den Männern zu den Frauen. Gleichstellungsstellen sind demnach verpflichtet, Gelder so zu verteilen, dass sie Frauen nutzen. Jungen und Männer zu unterstützen nutzt Frauen nichts, sie zu disziplinieren und umzuerziehen jedoch sehr wohl.
Somit steht Feminismus zwangsläufig für die Maximierung weiblicher Privilegien. Wie so etwas aussehen kann, demonstrierte jüngst die UNO, als sie sich unter dem Einfluss feministischer Lobbies dafür entschied, der Supporting female victims of war give absolute priority. And although the majority are civilian war victims, boys and men. Even among the military victims can find a large number of young men in a forcible conscription are often under pressure no choice and actually the same as civilian casualties were. During the Balkan wars, such as hidden, some men with their sons in the woods and holes in the ground to the clutches of the army to escape. That is what is the conscription is a form of violation of human rights and is outlawed worldwide.
But when men killed, wounded, tortured und verfolgt werden, ist das nichts weiter als Kollateralschaden. Den Frauen freilich nutzt diese Haltung. Sie können sich sicher sein, dass sie schneller, besser und umfänglicher versorgt werden, gelten doch sämtliche Aufmerksamkeit und jedwedes Mitgefühl bevorzugt ihnen. Zudem trägt die Tatsache, dass Frauen sich an Kriegshandlungen im Gegensatz zu den wehrpflichtigen Männern nicht beteiligen müssen, dazu bei, dass sie "sauber" bleiben, und sich selbst als das bessere, friedlichere Geschlecht empfinden dürfen, derweil den geschundenen Männern der böse Zeigefinger gilt. Ganz nebenbei bemerkt finden sich unter den Unterstützern der Männer-Wehrpflicht bezeichnenderweise meist mehr Frauen als Männer.
Die einfache Formel "Die Männer zetteln doch die ganzen Kriege an, das geht uns Frauen nichts an", gilt nicht. Ohne die vielen Kriege der Vergangenheit würden wir heute noch unter Königen und Kaisern leben und nicht unter Kanzlern und Präsidenten. Demokratie und Menschenrechte sind nicht vom Himmel gefallen. In Kriegen ging es neben dem Kampf um Ressourcen auch um den Kampf für Ideen, die uns die Freiheit und den Wohlstand brachten, der heute für uns selbstverständlich ist. Das ist das Doppelsinnige und somit die unangenehme Kehrseite des Ganzen. Desweiteren sind und waren es nicht Männer, die Kriege führen, sondern Machthaber, darunter Männer wie Frauen. Richtig ist, dass es ausschließlich Men were and who perform these wars often under duress.
Male handicaps are hidden
by the dogmatic establishment of the power differential between men and women, men are compelled not only by constant finger-pointing to perpetual reparation. It also means that there are inequalities between men alone by definition can not exist or can not be more precise. Instead, they are made invisible. This marginalization leads to the suppression itself quite banal facts and relationships. People are not able, the world unfiltered in their raw state capture. You can only by their own socio-cultural ground glasses see them as they are taught it. So it happens that many men and women are quite aware of the problems are, this place but not in the context of "discrimination" or "discrimination".
While already very indirect, may move only material deprivation of women after a wave of outrage to be immediate and existential inequalities between men simply tolerated and accepted as being self-evident. Whether it's an average of six years lower life expectancy, four times higher suicide rate, the service that, nine times higher homelessness and increased unemployment, a much higher number of occupational diseases or work accidents, poor education attainment, the double the number of school dropouts, etc., either the men are to blame, or is it simply not important enough, or - and this is a particularly popular method - it is regarded as compensation for the allegedly more serious disadvantage of women.
Likewise, it has become fashionable to male victims of beginning to fade completely evading the perception from the outset. A frequently encountered in the media Formulierung - und darauf sollten Sie einmal achten - lautet: "Frauen sind besonders betroffen", z.B. vom Klimawandel, Naturkatastrophen, Kriegen, Erdbeben. Aber Vorsicht! "besonders betroffen" bedeutet nicht, dass Frauen "häufiger" betroffen sind. Sie dürfen, wie im Falle von Kriegen, auch durchaus in der Minderheit sein. Was "besonders betroffen" bedeutet, ist dabei jedem selbst und seiner Fantasie überlassen.
Feminismus zementiert Geschlechterstereotypen
Feminismus sei für Männer erholsam, meinen die Spaßfeministinnen Meredith Haaf, Susanne Klingner und Barbara Streidl, Autorinnen des Blogs "Mädchenmannschaft". He'll make that men "do not mark the alpha male testosterone-dripping" would have. Far from it! Rather, feminism is now the opposite effect. On the one hand, it calls for men to shed their hard shell to do more interior views and their vulnerable sides not only allow, but to also wear out. This is as it were, the educational mission of feminism, at least as far as his self-representation. As if they share the same feminists are extremely sensitive, men should not do as they wished. Everything is permitted and allowed, as long as men accuse himself. Do men but societal discrimination claims and overlap to its requests, even in the feminist territory, so the tone of the feminists quickly gouvernante aggressive.
men are human and vulnerable as such - a banality that is denied by feminists hard. Male discrimination can not and must not exist per se. Feminism is for men so far from tranquil, he is murderously demanding, but he demands of them to be more silent and tolerant. Paradoxically, modern feminism has cemented thus precisely those stereotypes and traditional roles, which he claims to actually resolve to do. For women, feminism, however, is actually relaxing. Men who work silent and endure - men, which inspired it to the oppressed of them women really like only to make possible and continually atone for their guilt in them - men whose heads are cut at even the most absurd blame to the ground - however, women absolved from all blame and responsibility are - these women is quite helpful. Feminism is committed to the interests of women, not for the whole society, especially the often forget the men.
Female hegemony
I would just make the point, what mechanisms are at work here. As would be first the categorical suppression of male vulnerability and victimhood along with the complete collection of the victim to the female part of the population. This collection introduces the exclusion of men from social support and sympathy for themselves. The degradation of traditional roles is operated there, where it benefits women and where there frustrated she considered it a loss of privileges.
The maintenance of traditional roles is so far within the meaning of feminism, as it rolls off the unpleasant tasks, allowing the men and legitimized. Feminism calls men of a development that he even blocked. The resulting changes will not intentionally completed cynical as the men accused. Finally, we have the most important element of the defamation of men as oppressors and perpetrators of gender, consequently, the induction of guilt and the corresponding obligation to make reparations. The latter forms the basis for feminist thought and speech prohibitions, because the men are guilty, so they have to be silent. Anyone who writes lines like this runs the risk of insulting a woman to be enemy. This mode of action is what I call the hegemony female. The state of feminism with its only to the advancement of women-oriented sites and equality officer, however, is nothing less than the institutionalization of this hegemony.
female What is violence?
Here I come back to the opening theme. The example of domestic violence is clear, inherent fundamental flaws which the feminist worldview. The ratio between men and women is defined herein as that of a government to his people. Men's violence against women seems to equal that of God, which makes use of an illegal government towards its citizens in order to keep them under control. Es scheint so, als ob die geistigen Architekten der Patriarchatslehre den Fehler machten, die Machtverhältnisse staatlicher Systeme eins zu eins auf die Beziehung zwischen den Geschlechtern zu übertragen. Es ist völlig verständlich, dass weibliche Täter und männliche Opfer nicht in ein solches Bild passen.
Ein weiterer, oft begangener Denkfehler ist der Glaube, Frauen seien aufgrund ihrer körperlichen Unterlegenheit überhaupt nicht in der Lage, Männer zu verletzen. Hierzu ein Beispiel: Wir denken uns Klaus und Holger. Klaus verpasst Holger eine Ohrfeige, Klaus aber hat Schwierigkeiten, sich dagegen zu wehren, sei es weil er zu schüchtern oder schlicht zu gut erzogen ist. In der Folge wiederholt Klaus seine Angriffe und drangsaliert Holger regelmäßig. Nach der zehnten Ohrfeige entscheidet sich Holger möglicherweise, sich zu wehren. Zwischen den beiden hat sich inzwischen aber eine Hierachie aufgebaut. Für Klaus ist es mittlerweile normal, dass er Holger so behandelt. Würde Holger sich aus dieser Situation lösen wolle, so müsste er nun wesentlich mehr Energie aufbringen, als wenn er sich sogleich bei der ersten Ohrfeige zur Wehr gesetzt hätte. Ob Holger zum Opfer wird oder nicht hängt entscheidend davon ab, ob er frühzeitig genug Grenzen setzen kann, dies wiederum hängt von seiner Persönlichkeit und seiner Beziehung zu Klaus ab, nicht von seiner Körperkraft.
This example shows that the physical balance of power secondary, indeed almost negligible, when violence happens between people, which are closely related. With respect the personality of victims and perpetrators, emotional, social or financial dependence, and the knowledge of the weaknesses of the other. Physical superiority is useless if the barriers too high and the power of decision are too small to use their own physical strength.
The recognition that women are equally violent in relationships with men led to the question of how male violence in general. In the criminological Maud Kips Journal, in an article [1] to the daring but interesting theory that the criminal law mainly male life-regulate and work worlds, and thus many women were not at all committed acts categorized as criminal. Most events relate to areas such as business, theft and drug trafficking. Female domains, such as raising children, caring for relatives or the utility would not be criminalized. Now, the boundaries between male and female worlds for quite some time are engaged in their resolution. Should be female violence, with the mingling of male and female worlds not be visible? In fact, the proportion of violent crimes committed by women in recent decades experienced a partially double-digit percentage growth. This may mean that female violence shifted quite simply into other areas of life and thus a greater criminalization is subjected.
The sociologist Ulrich Popp explained in "sex, violence, society [2], as the image of violence as a male phenomenon is socially constructed. First, this is done by a special, "terminological use of the concept of violence." Shall devolve social and psychological violence, and these are female dominated, generally not subject to the usual concept of violence und werden auch nicht strafrechtlich sanktioniert. Desweiteren werde weibliche Gewalt oft bagatellisiert und verharmlost. Ebenso werde Gewalt oftmals geschlechtsspezifisch bewertet und begründet. Wir dürfen also davon ausgehen, dass uns die Kriminalstatistiken einen nicht unerheblichen Teil weiblicher Gewalt und Kriminalität verschweigen, weil viele von Frauen begangene Delikte schlicht nicht als solche wahrgenommen und so einer Kriminalisierung entzogen werden.
Die Gewaltfrage als Kriegserklärung an den Feminismus
Man muss sich darüber gewahr werden, dass die Entstellung des Mannes zum Tätergeschlecht dem modernen Feminismus als universelle Formel für die Begründung seiner Forderungen dient. Ferner wurde es dadurch möglich, männliche Opferschaft nicht nur zu leugnen sondern als nicht existent erscheinen zu lassen und somit die Hälfte der Wirklichkeit vollständig dem öffentlichen Bewusstsein zu entziehen. Nährboden und Legitimationsgrundlage für feministische Opfer- und Forderungsrhetorik ist die Schuldigsprechung der Männer. Von elementarer Wichtigkeit ist hierfür die Aufrechterhaltung des Bildes von männlichen Tätern und weiblichen Opfern, sowie der Gewalt als ein "männliches Prinzip".
Die Gewaltfrage wird von Feministinnen folglich deshalb wie eine letzte Bastion verteidigt, weil sie der Schlüssel zum Survival of feminist interpretation sovereignty is. If, like Erin Pizzey, Murray Straus and Gerhard Amendt, the question of violence that does nothing less than this very foundation of modern feminism to question. Radical feminists understandably perceive this as a declaration of war, which of them is not of itself to the victims of violence but only to preserve. The image of evil, powerful men and good women oppressed but carries a certain aesthetic, but nothing more. The relationship between the sexes has always been much more ambivalent, which seem to have grasped some feminists.
[1] Maud Kips: Criminological Journal 1991, p. 125 Strafrecht für Männer, Psychiatrie für Frauen
[2] Geschlecht, Gewalt, Gesellschaft von Siegfried Lamnek und Manuela Boatca 2003
Dieser Artikel steht unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung-Keine Bearbeitung 3.0 Unported Lizenz . Es ist Ihnen erlaubt, diesen Artikel unter Nennung des Autors beliebig zu vervielfältigen, sofern sein Inhalt nicht verändert wird.
Hinweis: Sofern ein Artikel dieses Blogs unter der CC-Lizenz steht, wird dies ausdrücklich angegeben. Andernfalls sind alle Rechte vorbehalten.
