This is not what a Nazi looks like

This is not what a Nazi looks like 

When I was 13 I went on holiday camp to Hungary and enjoyed myself, swimming in the Ballaton lake and using hands and feet to communicate with people. The next summer I went to Spain but this time I took a small English dictionary, so I could look up words and make sure that no one finds out that I am German. Having learned about my home country’s darkest past in the previous school year I was deeply ashamed of my heritage. I had always liked travelling and meeting different people. Though I grew up in a small suburb where everyone pretty much looked the same I never had any reservation towards people who looked different. In fact I still pay so little attention towards people’s looks that for years I believed my housemate’s hair to be blonde when it is in fact brunette and I have mixed up several people at my work place but could identify them again correctly once I remembered what we had talked about. According to the current strand of progressivism a person is racist when they don’t notice someone else’s skin colour. Fortunately, I have now left all German guilt behind and no longer worry about whether not instantly recognising that my best friend was Mexican when I first met him makes me racist. But when I was in my formative years and sat through the story of the holocaust in almost every subject except sports and maths, I was convinced that somehow behind my open-minded verneer there was a racist lurking in the shadows, waiting to come out any moment … While no one objected to my German nationality in Spain or years later on my stay as an Au-Pair in London I still fell fool to the story of an exchange student from London, who claimed that a class of Germans who had travelled to the North of the UK had been pelted with stones and their teacher had said to them: “No matter how poor your English is, don’t speak German”. In my following years on exchange in the UK, I came across many sections on WW II in museums, even in museums where they seemed out of place. However, there was never any reservation towards my being German. Quite on the contrary, I met quite a few people who shared stories with me of how they visited Berlin when the wall was still up. That was fascinating and I could see their empathy towards a people that were living under occupation without ever having committed any crime. My shame and what I now call ‘German guilt’ began slowly to diminish. It made a last desperate attempt to come back to life when I saw Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” being sold at a newsagents in Karachi / Pakistan. That book is forbidden in Germany and had to me always seemed like toxic material that no one should get their hands on. Now being in a city where people were violently murdered every night and day, feeling guilty for crimes, people that I am not related to had committed when my dad was a small child, suddenly seemed ridiculous. Here, the last dictatorship was only a few years past and thus it was no real surprise that people were a lot more relaxed towards the one whose name must not be said within the country that he brought so much blood shed to. I later learned about the genocide in Cambodia, Srebrenica, Ruanda and other parts of the world and realised that being German does not make one predisposed towards racism. There is not a country on earth whose inhabitants have not committed acts of cruelty against other human beings. Violence knows no nationality, race or sex.

German woman

Hence why the current fashionable talk of men as inherently violent makes me very uneasy. I feel a new kind of guilt, for being part of the half of the population on whose behalf men are asked to atone for sins that they have never committed. Since speaking out against feminism and misandry I have had to read statements from male feminists that made me shudder. In their self-flagellation they sounded so much like 14 year old me, claiming that discrimination against men is the right way forward as men constitute an inherent danger towards women … I cringe when I read the words of these men who look at their masculinity as something toxic and harmful towards society, when it has in fact built our infrastructure and saved many a woman’s life.

I personally was so intrigued by the atrocities committed by Germans in the past that I read many books on the subject from the library. From my classmates, however, I heard more than once that they were fed up with hearing about it in almost every class. As if they hadn’t understood it’s wrongness the first ten times around. When I now see what’s in the media referred to as casual racism I sometimes wonder if it couldn’t just be people who are fed up with being the eternal nazis. That is a thought I had more than once since the xenophobic Pegida movement surfaced about a year ago. Maybe, just maybe it does not do the human psyche any good when people are constantly told that they are the worst of the worst.

I certainly think we need education about the holocaust. I certainly think we need sexual education for young boys and girls. I certainly do not think that telling people they are genetically predisposed towards racism makes them open-minded. I certainly do not think telling men they are genetically predisposed towards physically harming women and enjoying seeing them suffer makes them empathic human beings. Yes, I do not only believe that consent-workshops are a waste of people’s time. I do also believe they are harmful.

Then how can we reduce sexual assault rates? I could not say it any better than George in his interview with Lauren Southern: “One of the things people have been asking me, what would I have as an alternative to consent classes. The way in which I learned not to rape people was through my upbringing. I was fortunate to be raised by very decent and very admirable parents and I am so grateful for that and. But I realise that not everybody has that privilege. Not everybody comes from a stable household. Not everybody comes from a household where their parents were there for them. So I think to teach consent we need to have long-term fundamental education. By fundamental education I mean being taught not what consent is and what it isn’t but what beinga decent person is. Exactly, so my mother never went to me: “George. don’t go into a club and don’t put your hand up a girl’s skirt.” She said to me: “George treat other people with decency and respect.” From that the rest follows. From treating people with respect you learn not to rape people and you learn not to abuse people.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKuAVEX5ats)

This is not what a rapist looks like

George Lawlor

To these words i have nothing to add as they adequately represent my own attitude towards life. What I could add is that my upbringing was not as stable as George’s but I still managed to not abuse people and also to protect myself against abusive people for all my adult life. So his point about self-reliance and individual responsibility instead of the currently fashionable victim attitude also strongly resonated with me. Also, during my youth I witnessed plenty of violence and thus know with certainty that violence knows neither sex, nor age, race or nationality. I will probably write about some of my observations on another post. However, after almost two years of being openly anti-feminist I know that the internet is not misogynistic as the Sarkeesians like to claim but very unkind towards people whose opinions differ from the commonly accepted narrative.

Mandantory paternity testing at birth

An mra friend of mine asked on his fb whether people thought paternity testing at birth should be mandatory. Since it is estimated that historically 5 – 10% of children were not biologically related to the fathers who were raising them and since this number must have risen dramatically in the current polyamorous hook-up culture this is a valid proposal.  I had a discussion on this topic a few months back on my old fb profile. Since that is gone and I no longer trust fb to not take this profile away as well and since my answer is too long for a fb post I will lay it out in this blog post.

My answer: Definitely!

Benefits

1) It would bring more harmony to families. There would be less tension over unresolved conflicts. Thus, less likelihood for domestic violence to occur. Less likelihood for children and adults to develop personality disorders or other serious behavioural problems. Children would grow up in stable families and become a blessing instead of a curse to those around them. They would help build strong communities and contribute to the betternment of mankind.

2) Resulting from the first and main reason it should be obvious that more harmony in families leads directly to greatly reduced government spending on police, social workers, hospitals and doctors, etc. Reduced crime benefits everyone, locals and visitors alike. Hospitals and doctors treating domestic violence cases and children/youths who have gotten involved in violence could be freed up to deal with e.g. cancer treatment.

3) Ending the current hook-up culture. If someone wants to be intimate with a different person every weekend or weekday they are free to do so. However, the research clearly shows the damaging psychological effects of establishing and immediatly breaking close bonds. Even people who haven’t experienced childhood or other trauma are getting increasingly psychologically insecure these days. And, no, I don’t want to reverse history.  There is no need to go back to Victorian times and have a chaperone accompany a young lady on her every outing. It should be possible to expect women to take responsibility for their own actions in the year 2016😉 Just as we are expecting more of school children and professionals in their fields these days than we did 100 years ago we can expect young women to think of the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, at the moment the consequences are a life that will be bitter when lived out – raising children on their own or in a dysfunctional relationship – but ahead of time do not look bad enough to keep women from sleeping with every Tom, Dick and Harry.

And while feminists would claim that there is still stigma attached to promiscuous women, they have already found a way of getting around that in allowing any woman who regrets what she did last night to easily get out of societal stigma and her own personal regrets by accusing the man of rape, thus making a mockery of actual victims of sexual assault and making men increasingly wary of getting involved with women in any way.

Thus, eliminating hook-up culture by implementing mandatory paternity testing at birth would at the same time bring down false rape accusations, which are running rampant at the moment, especially, at American and Candadian college campuses. As Camille Paglia said: “In the 70s we fought for freedom from ‘in loco parentis’ to be allowed to go wherever we wanted, whenever we wanted, so that we could make our own mistakes and learn from them, just like the boys. And today women want to be protected again.” Today’s young women are asking men to protect them. It seems they want an actual patriarchy. As a woman living in this society I sometimes wonder – when I look at my ‘sisters’ whether feminists aren’t right after all. Men have started to vote with their feet. It is men’s disapproval of women’s current behaviour, men’s shunning of women because their mere company has become a liability to a man’s life that is slowly leading to a sea change in matters concerning the lives of men and women. I personally don’t mind being mainly surrounded by men at men’s issues conferences – makes me feel like a fish in the water actually, since I grew up a tomboy – but I am deeply disappointed by how little responsibility my fellow women are taking for the course our society is taking.

4) Re-establishing trust or better than that: creating a new and better kind of trust between men and women. It is obvious to anyone that the situation at birth – when the woman definitely knows that she is the mother of the child but the ‘father’ has to blindly trust her is a deeply unequal one. In very rare cases the mother goes home with a child that isn’t hers and these cases of babies being mixed up in the hospital are always seen as deeply tragic. Ironically, when the father is affected in this way, no one seems to care. All this incessant talk about inequality but people seem to be blind to it when it’s men who are affected by it.

I see men talk about the costs of raising a child. Ironically, it tends to be those men who would happily spend 250,000 on raising a child that they have fathered, that they are getting to spend time with, that they are seeing grow from a girl into a woman or a boy into a man: a child that won’t suddenly be ripped from them, turned against them and only come back to ask for more money. Unsurprisingly this situation sends many men to an untimely death. Isn’t it ironic how feminists always claim they want men to be more emotional and when they are they call it misogyny and lobby to make laws against it.

A child is an investment in the future and so was a spouse once. You pooled your resources together because together they were worth more than individually. Now they are worth less after a few years when you have to separate them again. For many women they are worth more due to unjust laws but does that mean that women have all the power now and that their lives are filled with endless joy? You don’t need to read the much hyped book by the palliative care nurse Bonnie Ware ‘The Top Five Regrets of the Dying: A Life Transformed by the Dearly Departing’ to know that material posessions don’t bring happiness. Men’s high suicide rate is a clear indicator of men’s suffering from the current situation. But so is the insecurity and neediness of the vast majority of women I interact with on a daily basis. When I look into their faces I see the living dead.

Most of all a relationship with a child or an adult – romantic or friendship or familial – is an emotional investment that can only fail so often before a person becomes so wary of the accompanying pain of that failure that making that investment feels no longer worth it. That is the point at which we are at the moment. I can observe that very clearly in the experiences of a friend of mine with online dating. It’s not only not wanting to go for a meal – because who wants to spend 20 Euros, assuming the bill is split – on a person they might never see again – but the sheer unwillingness to actually get to know the other person. A chat over a drink is not getting to know someone. People get to know each other when there is sudden disharmony after the initial ‘the other person can’t do no wrong phase’ and they need to figure out what that is caused by: their attitudes/behaviour or the other person’s? something between them? something outside of them? Most people don’t get to that stage these days, whether online or offline. Big cities are increasingly referred to as single capitals and people on the look-out know that there is an overflow of supply of men and women looking for Mr or Mrs Right out there. They read books telling them there is no such person, that this whole concept is made up by Hollywood to sell cinema tickets. But they don’t learn anything from these books. I am an avid reader and I get lots of inspiration from great books. But neither I, nor anyone else is changed by reading a book in isolation. Books can never change people. Only people can change people. People that get so close under our skin that we want to do the hard work to become a better version of ourselves, making us as a result a better person to be in a relationship with (romantic, friendship or familial).

The benefits outlined above should reason enough to argue for mandatory paternity testing at birth. However, I will list the problems with the procedure that should be taken into account as well.

Problems

1) In a discussion I saw someone mention costs on the already overstretched health system. That is not an actual argument as they would be far outweighed by the spending savings outlined in benefits 2) Also, they would obviously come down a lot if this was carried out in high numbers.

2) And this is the only real problem I see: Most people think that because we refer to the natural sciences as hard sciences that the results are always accurate. That is a widespread myth. Faulty results in medical tests are much higher than most people know. Sadly, practioners and makers of the equipment prefer this information to not become widely known. One major reason, according to the author of the book ‘Risk Savvy – How to make good Decisions’, Gerd Gigerenzer, is the suing culture in North America. Another is the high income that can be generated from operating (cancer) patients, regardless of whether the operation is actually necessary.

A common pre-birth test at the moment is screening for Down Syndrome in the baby. For good or worse the number of children born with the genetic defect has gone sharply down since testing has become widespread. However, again and again women who had been told their baby was going to be born with Down Syndrome but decided against an abortion, gave birth to healthy babies.

Thus, babies with a positive test should be tested again and a counsellor should be present at all stages of the process in order to not damage perfectly healthy relationships. However, I expect the accuracy of the technology to increase sharply over time with its widespread use.

This article is not locked at this moment in time. Since I started writing I realised how many aspects there are to this issue. I have touched on quite a few but I will certainly keep coming back to this topic.

 

 

 

Der Pöbler und die Menschenrechte

man tau

Sehr geehrter Herr Hurtz,

unter dem Titel Pöbeln für die Männlichkeit schreiben Sie in der Süddeutschen Zeitung über Menschen, die spezifische Nachteile von Männern und Jungen ansprechen. Da ich das auch öfter einmal mache, da ich aber auch davon überzeugt bin, weder zu pöbeln, noch allein für Männlichkeit einzutreten – und da es zudem bei der Süddeutschen Zeitung keine Möglichkeit der Gegenrede gibt – antworte ich Ihnen einfach einmal in einem Brief.

Sie beginnen Ihren Text mit einem Mann, der die Gesellschaft für „verweichlicht und verweiblicht“ hält, der glaubt, dass er „nirgendwo mehr richtig Mann sein“ dürfe. Er fühlt sich als Opfer einer feministischen Diktatur, redet von „Geschlitzten“ und meint damit Frauen und sagt dann gar:

„’Diese Kampflesben hassen alles, was maskulin ist (…) Echte Kerle mit harten Muskeln und harten Schwänzen. Dabei gehören die doch einfach nur mal richtig durchgefickt.’“

Spätestens bei dieser Passage hatte ich dann Zweifel daran…

View original post 2,300 more words

Jedes Kind ist wertvoll – Eine Antwort an die Hilfsorganisation Plan International

man tau

Auf den offenen Brief, den ich an die Hilfsorganisation PLAN geschrieben hatte, habe ich nun doch noch eine Antwort bekommen. Ich hatte die Hilfsorganisation danach gefragt, warum auf ihrer großen und weithin präsenten Werbeaktion Gewalt gegen Mädchen, aber nicht Gewalt gegen Kinder generell abgelehnt werde. Denn dadurch würde Gewalt gegen Jungen als weniger schlimm, vielleicht gar als ganz in Ordnung erscheinen.

Nun hat bei Facebook, wo ich den Brief gepostet hatte, „dein Team von Plan“ geantwortet.

Lieber Man tau – Lucas Schoppe,
es tut uns leid, dass wir bis jetzt noch nicht auf deinen Beitrag auf unserer Seite reagiert haben, es muss uns versehentlich im Tagesgeschäft durchgerutscht sein.
Wir setzen uns für die Kinderrechte und die Gleichberechtigung von Mädchen UND Jungen ein. Das heißt, wir fördern Mädchen und Jungen gleichermaßen, berücksichtigen aber auch geschlechtsspezifische Benachteiligungen. Natürlich leiden auch Jungen unter Kinderrechtsverletzungen. Auch ihnen wiederfährt Gewalt, sie werden ausgebeutet oder…

View original post 2,878 more words

Gewalt gegen Jungen ist okay: Bitte spenden Sie jetzt!

man tau

Ein Brief an das Kinderhilfswerk Plan

 

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren vom Kinderhilfswerk Plan,

Ich hatte zunächst lange nach der Pointe gesucht. „Gewalt gegen Mädchen“ steht auf Ihren Plakaten, das Wort Gewalt ist dick und rot durchgestrichen, und daneben sieht uns ein großes Mädchengesicht an. Eine aggressive Kampagne, mit Anzeigen und Beilagen in vielen Medien und Plakaten in mehreren Städten, oft gleich mit drei oder vier Plakaten nebeneinander, immer mit demselben Bild und Text.

Warum aber wird nur Gewalt gegen Mädchen kritisiert, nicht gegen Kinder? Ich bin seit vielen Jahren Lehrer und für Jungen und Mädchen natürlich gleichermaßen verantwortlich, und ich bin auch Vater eines Jungen. Warum sollte eine offenbar große Organisation sehr viel Geld ausgeben, um gegen die Gewalt gegen Mädchen zu protestieren, Jungen dabei aber ohne Angabe von Gründen auszulassen?

DSC_1685

Also suchte ich auf den Plakaten nach Hinweisen darauf, fand aber keine. Ich suchte nach alternativen…

View original post 1,897 more words

smug denigraters

A little while ago there was a showing of a Pakistani film advertised at the university. I was obviously interested but very much less so after reading the synopsis. It was all the worst cliches about Pakistan put into a Cinderella story line. I was unsure if I should invest the time. I am glad I decided to go as I wanted to hear the commentary from the lecturer and reactions from the other students. It was also worth watching the film for the excellent cinematography. The images of Karachi sent me back to my short stay there. I could almost feel the pleasantly warm sea breeze. The actors were also doing a really good job. But they couldn’t hide the fact that the characters were flat and there to convey a political message: Women are awesome and men are horrible and no matter how nice they seem at first, all they ever want is oppress women.

The reactions from the students were not really surprising though still quite shocking considering that their degree is supposed to provide them with more knowledge about South Asia than the general population. They are supposed to be more aware of stereotypes, their origin and their effects. But instead the first student raised her arm and enthusiastically talked about how great it was that the film had shown [insert stereotype] and [insert stereotype] and also [insert stereotype that wasn’t even in the film]. The joy in her voice and the smile on her face while talking about how the man in the movie had limited the woman’s life was remarkable. She was denigrating half the population (and by extension the other half) of a country that, by the choice of her university degree, she claimed to care about and it was giving her the greatest pleasure. If this how the people in the Asian Studies department think how can we expect anything more from the general population. It was only a student from Georgia who criticized  the stereotypical depiction of men and women.

The lecturer then said that this was actually a very poor film and mainly conveyed stereotypes. She didn’t say why she had selected it and the message certainly didn’t reach the last row where the young ladies where still more than happy that their stereotypes had been confirmed. Their worldview was the right and just one and by perpetuating it they would be making the world a better place. These are the moments when I am about to lose hope in humanity but instead I have begun to just be fascinated by these people who claim to want to make the world a better place by dehumanizing half the world’s population. It makes me wonder if we as humans will always need someone to hate. These days we preach acceptance of other countries and cultures but it is still more than acceptable to hate on the men from that other culture. Maybe that is a primal need to the human species?

I am still hoping that it can be overcome and that there will be peace among humans at some point in the future.🙂

Good-Morning-Karachi-Movie

BBC libels Mike Buchanan as “anti-women” and supports criminal attacks by campus cry bullies

this is absolutely shameful for the BBC …

hequal

UK readers may by now have had the misfortune of viewing some  of BBC Three’s weekly feminist propaganda pieces, it’s hard to miss them as they’re endlessly repeated, often meaning there’s one such broadcast shown almost every day. We previously analysed “The rise of Female violence“, a hugely disappointing programme but still one of the better gender issues related broadcasts.

BBC Three’s latest attempt at “discussing” gender issues took the form of a programme by Tyger Drew-Honey, titled “Am I sexist”, a clip from which you can watch below. The programme really is astonishingly biased, even by BBC standards with a total disregard for basic ethics throughout let alone the strict impartiality rules of the BBC Charter.

The broadcast supposedly has the premise of examining whether we are becoming”more sexist than ever before”. Throughout the vast majority of the broadcast sexism is framed in true feminist SJW style…

View original post 1,163 more words

Why I’m backing QLD Labor Premier on male victims

“If you haven’t been initiated into the ways of gender politics, you might expect domestic violence services to be concerned for the safety of all victims, regardless of their gender.”

Talk About Men

This week the Labor premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk, made headlines by calling for campaigns against domestic violence to be inclusive of male victims.

Predictably—for anyone who understands the world of gender politics—this call for greater inclusivity and gender equality was not celebrated (or even begrudgingly tolerated) by the feminist movement.

Responding in The Guardian, representatives from Domestic Violence NSW (DVNSW) and Brisbane Domestic Violence Service (BDVS) warned Palaszczuk not to “put domestic violence against men above women”.

If you haven’t been initiated into the ways of gender politics, you might expect domestic violence services to be concerned for the safety of all victims, regardless of their gender.

In reality, DVNWS believes in “managing and operating refuges within a feminist framework for women alone” and BDVS takes the position that “all the indications are that 9 out of every 10 domestic violence victims is a…

View original post 1,033 more words

Muting people creates anxiety, not safety

The following is my response to Rachel Edwards excellent article: Safe Spaces

Hi Rachel, thanks for the article and generally your quest for making the internet a space where everyone feels safe to speak. Because that is what the internet has been for me over the past twelve years. A place where I dared speak my mind and thus gradually realized that other people’s angry reactions are not something I need to be afraid of.

My school life was similar to yours and I have now realized that this was what turned me mute. At school I was referred to as ‘shy’. I always hated that word, because not talking gives you the opportunity to observe others and I could see that I was different from actual shy people. My dad told me that as a preschooler I used to be very talkative and even when he took me to his office (telling his colleagues that the after school club, that I hated because the end of classes only gave the bullies more opportunities, was closed) I constantly talked to his colleagues and asked many questions about this and that.

When people say that social media has made human interaction more shallow I always disagree with them because it gave me a place to express myself bluntly and honestly (which is the only way I can express myself and probably the reason I go mute when I don’t feel safe to speak). Speaking my mind online has shown me that, while I received obviously criticism and also outright attacks, there are many people who share my opinions and who are more than that grateful that someone has said what I have said. This experience has helped me immensely become a more confident person in real life and clearly laying out my arguments in spoken conversation instead of going mute. As I am someone who can’t do small talk but will talk openly and honestly on any issue that comes up, every conversation runs the risk of differences of opinion. Accepting that any anger and screaming I encounter are the issue of the person who is freaking out and not mine has given me great opportunities to learn from other people and to broaden my horizon. Finding out about antifeminism and the men’s rights movement has fortified me to stay on this path. The number of amazing people I have met since speaking my mind on men’s issues and antifeminism far outweighs the number of people who have screamed at me. And thus I am more than happy to take the latter with the former.

The only time that I ever went mute online was last spring after the double incident of the honeybadgers being expelled from Calgary Expo and Sabeen Mahmud being shot in Karachi/Pakistan for providing a space where people could speak their mind without any ideological constraints being put on them (a week later). For a couple of months all I did on facebook was use the share button. When it was pointed out to me that I hadn’t written anything in a long time, I could not even say what was keeping me mute. When I thought about it between sobs I knew that the only appropriate reaction to both events was more speech but whenever I wanted to write I just had no words. It was the old shock over the realization that there are too many people who go to any lengths in order to silence people who utter words that make them uncomfortable. Maybe I don’t just fear the power these people have — on the school yard and in government — but they simply don’t make sense to me. I have always been ‘why’ child and continue to be as an adult. I want to know everything there is to know about any subject as there is no other way to form an opinion.

When youtube was banned in Pakistan to protect the sensibilities of a few screaming and US flag burning people the rest of the world was rightly shocked. But now the same people ban speakers from universities in the UK, the US and Canada to protect the sensibilities of a few screaming harpies and and in the same way want to restrict what can be said on the internet. People in Pakistan rightly cheered over a photo of the new prime minister of Canada taking part in Muslim iftar and wearing Pakistani clothes as an example of the religious tolerance that they wished to see in their country. Little do they know that the old religions have long been replaced in the west by new ideologies who dogma cannot be criticised either. While people who intentionally or accidentally cross the ideological lines don’t yet get shot, harassment campaigns against them that cost them their jobs, friends and family by the people who claim that to want to make the world a safer space are no longer uncommon. People in the west don’t have to hide in the bathroom if they want to eat lunch during ramzan but ask how many would openly criticise feminism at their place of work and you know how free speech in Canada really is.