Germany wants the women's quota, Norway, she already has and has not only had good experiences. Discussed is the "how", the "if" and the "when". They also dispute over whether rates are the appropriate means to eliminate discrimination. But one question in this debate hardly seems to emerge, and if then only in passing. What is actually really about discrimination against women?
In the social sciences one uses certain indicators to obtain information on the social position of a group. These include unemployment, accident rate, life expectancy, suicide rates and crime rates. Blacks have about the U.S. in these indicators significantly worse scores than whites. The same applies to immigrants or people from lower social classes. Does this then also for women compared to men? No, it's vice versa. Taking away these indicators as a basis and one would think at this point consistently to the end, it would have to assume that it probably is not a population that is as privileged as white women in Europe or North America. Europe and North America as it is precisely those parts of the world in which feminism has become the greatest power of interpretation.
commit men four times more often Suicide than women, have an average six years shorter life expectancy, provide two-thirds of all victims, and the clear majority among the addicts. In this country, they leave the school twice as often without qualifications, the vast majority occur on the secondary and special schools, and not only crime is male, and homeless people are 90 percent men. The head of the society may be male, but this is misleading over the fact that its floor rate is reserved for men. Finally, the sediment is much wider than the tip, there are more men who want the very bottom, as such, are the very top.
The relationship between these indicators on the one hand and social status on the other hand, is commonly recognized. But when it comes to men, the most ludicrously constructs are trying to deny these connections. Wherever women seem to be worse off than men, the Company or the so-called patriarchy is to blame. Other hand, where men seem to be worse than women, the men there have probably even be to blame. That men as human beings and social beings, as the socio-cultural conditions and influences of their environment are also seems to want to be clear to anyone.
No one is coming to mind, blacks or immigrants hold, given their shorter life expectancy that they do not care about their health or "exploitation operate in itself." No one would dare seriously to reproach such minorities in terms of their degrees on average poorer laziness. With boys and men you are doing this constantly. No one would take it down if violence would be declared on a Turkish or a black character, just because blacks have in the U.S. and Turkish immigrants in Germany, a statistically higher crime rate. But violence sweeping rise to a "male principle" has become a matter of course. Simplistic finger-pointing exactly this kind are there, the men silent make such indoctrinated men are simply unable to recognize their disadvantages, let alone articulate.
The discrimination against women - a mirage
The discrimination of women is thus not an incontrovertible fact, but rather the product of a distorted perspective. We are subject to a fallacy here. Just because everywhere and always exhaustively discussed the problems and concerns of women, are being written, only because they are your wife talks, women's offices, and social and family ministries available to view in the almost exclusively female issues have, just because a network of Gender Equality Delegates representing only their interests, this does not mean that all these measures will inevitably have their place, their mere existence is not evidence for discrimination against women. It means no more than that we seem to care exclusively for the female side first. The fact that female disadvantages are moved constantly in the spotlight, while the male side categorically fades, only one gets the impression that women are the only disadvantaged - a simple illusion.
that men hushed with its interests be proved, in fact just the opposite: men are discriminated against. The marginalization of an entire population, that is not focus attention on their problems and give them no place in public discourse - all this is after all a fundamental characteristic of discrimination. It is important to understand that a mechanism is held, in many cases of discrimination in the first place. Taking a man openly violated his rights, or to humiliate him, so this is a anklagbare and verifiable action. Mere silence and ignorance, however, are silent and invisible means of exclusion. At best, the marginalized to know what is happening around him oder zumindest ahnt oder spürt er es. Es aber zu benennen und zum Vorwurf zu erheben, wird ihm kaum gelingen.
Im Falle der Männer führt diese Strategie bisweilen sogar dazu, dass sie ihre eigenen Benachteiligungen als solche erst gar nicht wahrnehmen. Die meisten Menschen haben die Probleme sehr wohl vor Augen, gewisse Dinge lassen sich nun mal nicht leugnen. Dennoch gelingt es ihnen nicht, das vor ihnen liegende in den Kontext "Benachteiligung" einzuordnen. Sie sind diese Sicht- und Denkweise nicht gewohnt. Man hat ihnen stets beigebracht, Frauen seien benachteiligt, aber doch nicht Männer. Die Begriffe Frau und Benachteiligung sind in ihren Köpfen fest verdrahtet. Das Bild von den unterdrückten Frauen and the hegemonic men has been condensed in their imagination to an axiomatic truth. Discrimination against women are either accepted with a shrug, it is they themselves are blamed for it or it is seen as poetic justice for allegedly much wider discrimination against women.
quotas for women - a Dekadenzphänomen
The debate on quotas for women in leadership positions provides a recent and vivid example of how this marginalization is male issue of pay and absurdities which are sometimes brought to light here. The proportion of women is nothing more as a Dekadenzphänomen. This luxury needs of a small elite group of highly qualified women are satisfied. Public and politicians dance around the small gold tip at the top, while the broad, masculine bottom sediment is not perceived simply. For example, the state rate professor donated up to 150,000 € per year the professors program. From such a venture capita premiums institutions that really care about the disadvantaged, not to dream again. We are therefore faced with here is not just a perception but also a sturdy distribution and justice problem.
The social consensus as a source of discrimination
The General Equal Treatment Act contains so-called "positive measures". For this purpose generally include any form of promotional activities and benefit from the elimination of discrimination, including rates are included. Accordingly, by law, deliberate discrimination against a group is allowed if it results in the elimination of discrimination to another group. But the question of whether certain groups are disadvantaged or not is largely determined by social consensus. The company appears to agree that women and men are disadvantaged. From this they deduced that it exclusively Frauen sein sollen, die in den Genuss von Fördermaßnahmen kommen sollen. Dass man sich über etwas einig ist, bedeutet allerdings noch lange nicht, dass dieser Konsens auch die Wirklichkeit abbildet. Man mag mir diesen harten Vergleich nachsehen, aber zur Zeit der Rassendiskriminierung war es ebenso gesellschaftlicher Konsens, dass die Diskriminierung von Schwarzen ihre Richtigkeit habe. Wäre dem nicht so gewesen, hätte die Rassendiskriminierung nicht funktioniert.
Der gesellschaftliche Konsens kann demzufolge zur Grundlage und zum Werkzeug von Diskriminierung werden. Aus diesem Grunde wurden einst Antidiskriminierungsgesetze geschaffen, die unmissverständlich jedwede Diskriminierung auf Grund des Geschlechts, ethnicity, color, sexual orientation, etc. prohibit. The essence of these laws is that they provide the clarity and uncompromising interpretation of their formulations, the sovereignty of what is discrimination, but the state's constitution, respectively. The definitions are therefore cast so firmly and irrevocably, that the social discourse has no more influence on who as disadvantaged, privileged, parent-child or view is. This discrimination is an important fuel has been withdrawn.
An equally important aspect is the separation of the concept of collective discrimination. Not suffer the blacks, the immigrants or homosexuals as a particular group from discrimination, but discrimination against an individual as an individual because of his skin color, ethnicity or sexuality. This reflects the fact that discrimination is taking place in social contexts and may involve a representative of a group and not the other. The anchor of "positive measures" in the law makes it all been lost. First, discrimination is again based on the collective, positive measures such as quotas refer to entire groups instead of individuals. Devastating is that the interpretation of sovereignty over who enjoys what priority is given back to the public discourse. For the question of who These kinds of measures are to be given is not set by law, that is a duty obviously the society.
"positive measures" create discrimination rather than eliminate them
A general equal treatment, which applies to everyone in the same manner, allowing no deviations or exceptions provided so far that the right of every individual was respected, regardless of public opinion. Now, apply in the form of "positive measures" exceptions, the rule of equal treatment suddenly loses its universality and It is again the company that decides who is to be preferred who does not. To put it very clearly: it would have "positive measures" already existed in the days of racial discrimination, it would have been a powerful tool to discriminate against blacks even more comprehensive and prosecute. The social consensus would have decided that whites were the victims of blacks and therefore get to the white men in the enjoyment of "positive measures" would have. Because they corresponded to, in fact, the former white world view.
quotas and other "positive measures" are trying to discrimination through targeted, reverse discrimination to compensate. The prohibition of discrimination, which the State imposes on itself and its citizens, thereby broken up into itself and runs the opposite. From an instrument against discrimination is one that produces the discrimination. The great mistake that is committed here, lies in the assumption that the state would use such a tool only in well-measured and prudent way, the government already knew what he was doing his duty and come to care. The state is this, but generally not in a position, he can not control the instrument. This, we have seen, namely, does the social consensus, sets the profiteers and the victims of such measures. The winners are identified quickly. There are quite simply all the groups who understand the most skill, to influence public opinion. In short, there are those that their disadvantage can be the most credible and most vocal sale, no matter if they are real or disadvantaged.
The Tale of the wage discrimination
How may look like something that shows us the penetrance, with the feminist pressure groups to spread today, the myth of the wage inequality between the sexes. For a long time it is mentioned, that women would get the same job 23 percent less pay. This was especially The annual "Equal Pay Day" campaign in order to remind us of the alleged discrimination. However, the Federal Statistics Office has already made it clear in the publication of these figures, they say nothing about the reasons for the wage difference. Rather, without regard to factors such as industry, work experience, part time or overtime rate only the sheer number of average wages of both sexes collected.
shows A closer look reveals that women choose more obvious for employment with flexible working hours and less overtime potential. They are often part-time, even if they provide no children. In addition, men more often work in dangerous and physically demanding jobs, which is reflected in them in a higher pay even for the same level of training. In addition, the gender-specific career choice decision on the merits. It is therefore by no means less money for equal work. The wage difference can be explained almost entirely of factors associated with gender preferences in life and career choices. However, this mantra still holds tenaciously. Much of the population believes in it and even today some "quality media" is not too bad, this slow-moving again and bring out again. Extensive media campaigns have shaped public opinion and contributed to this growth is a picture of wage discrimination, which does not correspond to reality.
shows A closer look reveals that women choose more obvious for employment with flexible working hours and less overtime potential. They are often part-time, even if they provide no children. In addition, men more often work in dangerous and physically demanding jobs, which is reflected in them in a higher pay even for the same level of training. In addition, the gender-specific career choice decision on the merits. It is therefore by no means less money for equal work. The wage difference can be explained almost entirely of factors associated with gender preferences in life and career choices. However, this mantra still holds tenaciously. Much of the population believes in it and even today some "quality media" is not too bad, this slow-moving again and bring out again. Extensive media campaigns have shaped public opinion and contributed to this growth is a picture of wage discrimination, which does not correspond to reality.
"positive measures" conducive lobby groups
are now, for example against such a background of "positive measures" prescribed by means of which promoted the allegedly disadvantaged group and the seemingly privileged to be discriminated against are so general, the extent dangerous potential behind such measures. They favor lobby groups, which push their interests in the public impact most. However, are precisely those injured in their interests that public opinion can not unite behind him. It may take precisely those people for whom the anti-discrimination laws were originally intended. The disadvantaged status is a sought-after, with privileges provided bonus. And the question of who is actually a disadvantage in our society, becomes a powerful factor in this way. This is made possible mainly by linking the term "discrimination" with entire groups instead of individuals.
This article is licensed under a 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.
