Tarzan ist nicht das Problem. Die Menschen sind es.
Was Skar sagt. Der Mensch und seine Einstellung ist das Problem, nicht das Produkt.
Unter dem Gesichtspunkt fand ich den Artikel
#JeNeSuisPasLiberal von David Auerbach interessant, wo er die Schismen innerhalb der linken Onlinekultur in den letzten Jahren angesichts von #JeSuisCharlie/#JeNeSuisCharlie, #YesAllWomen, #CancelColbert, (Anti-)#Gamergate usw. analysiert.
Interessant im Kontext von strukturellem Sexismus in der Videospielbereich finde ich dabei vor allem die Betrachtung der Unterschiede zwischen Ethischem Pol (mit Fokus auf persönlichen Handlungen, um soziale Gerechtigkeit voranzubringen) und Strukturellem Pol (mit Fokus darauf, die Strukturen aus denen sich soziale Ungerechtigkeit ergibt zu ändern):
Within each the Solidarity and Suspicion camps, there is further ideological division: this division runs along the Axis of Agency. The determinant question here concerns the prospect of individual efficacy—do we, as individuals, have real agency? Do individuals have the capacity to bring about change through quotidian action? Adherents of those concepts existing in the top-half of the graph, or the Ethical Pole, would answer in the affirmative. The legitimacy of these concepts depend upon the existence of the free, autonomous individual who is responsible for his or her beliefs and actions, and is capable of changing and improving them through directed effort. Adherents of those concepts populating the bottom-half of the graph, or the Structural Pole, would respond much differently. For a simple example, take environmentalism. Those closer to the Ethical Pole will stress the need for individual action: recycling, green living, badgering your friends, driving a Prius, etc. If enough people were individually to take positive action, our environmental problems would be solved. Those closer to the Structural Pole instead focus on the large-scale systems that make environmental damage and catastrophe an inevitable consequence. To them, more Ethical exponents are not just inefficacious, but also wrongheaded: their drop-in-the-bucket activism creates a false sense of positive change that draws them into dangerous complacency. Nothing short of substantive systemic change can turn our civilization around.
Ebenfalls interessant ist die Trennung in einen Solidaritäts-Pol (der in Personen und Institutionen, deren gute Absichten und deren Fähigkeit zur Selbstreform vertraut) und einen Mißtrauens-Pol (der sowohl Personen als auch Institutionen grundsätzlich mißtraut und sie ständig hinterfragen muss):
The Axis of Trust measures how much credence a given leftist label or concept gives to the good faith intentions of individuals and institutions. Those positions that fall on the right side of the graph are most fundamentally informed by a sense of Solidarity. These positions are predicated on a belief that entities are what they say they are: what individuals and institutions profess to believe and act upon is indeed what they truly believe and seek to act upon. They are also predicated on a belief that entities do not contain the seeds of their own destruction, and can, therefore, be reformed absent total systemic overhaul. Those positions that fall on the left side of the graph are, on the contrary, most fundamentally informed by a sense of Suspicion. These positions are predicated on a deep mistrust of the claims of both individuals and institutions. Adherents worry that rhetoric and appearance are mere smokescreens, and that an entity’s true allegiances and motivations are generally quite different from, and often more nefarious than, their surface presentations.
Als jemand, der sich politisch selbst im liberalen Cluster verortet (wo ethischer Pol und Solidaritätspol zusammenlaufen), ist mir durch den Artikel klarer geworden warum ich die Callout-Fraktion, aus der die vokale Sexismuskritik hauptsächlich herkommt, nicht verstehe (deren Hauptunterschied zu mir Mißtrauen gegen Solidarität ist).
Klar finde ich Sexismus, Rassismus und andere -ismen scheiße, wie die meisten anderen Menschen (außerhalb von Stormfront, /pol/ und Pegida) auch. Allerdings vertraue ich den meisten Menschen und den von ihnen gegründeten Institutionen darin, dass sie -ismen auch scheiße finden, dass sie nicht darauf hinarbeiten sie zu verbreiten und dass sich das Problem durch die Summe von persönlichen Einstellungen und daraus gespeistem Kaufverhalten selbst durch die normalen Marktkräfte lösen wird.
Die aus Mißtrauen gespeiste Callout-Fraktion im Moralisten-Cluster hingegen hinterfragt, ob es mit dem Unwillen -ismen zu verbreiten getan ist, und siebt nach Instanzen von unbeabsichtigtem -ismus, um sie ans Licht zu zerren und deren Erschaffer dafür anzuprangern. Bei dieser Vorgehensweise, die gezielt nach Haaren in der Suppe sucht, ist es klar, dass dabei -ismen wie Bayonettas Körbchengröße, Cammys Kampfkleidung oder von schnurrbärtigen Klempnern gerettete Prinzessinnen ans Licht kommen und als problematisch empfunden werden, die für jemanden wie mich kein Ausdruck von Sexismus sind, sich soweit sie welcher sind durch die Summe individueller Handlungen lösen werden und damit keiner weiteren Aufmerksamkeit bedürfen.
Ansonsten fand ich noch diesen Abschnitt mit Binnenkritik aus dem radikalen, revolutionären Cluster (d.h. Anarchismus) gegen Anti-Unterdrückungs-Politik hervorhebenswert, der das Privilegchecking als Nebelkerze betrachtet, die vom Kernkonflikt um das Machtungleichgewicht in der Gesamtgesellschaft ablenkt:
An entirely more thoughtful critique is “With Allies Like These: Reflections on Privilege Reductionism,” which appears to be the work of anonymous Ontario anarcho-communists. Rather than elevating class struggle, they argue that Moralist ideas, which they term “anti-oppression politics,” restrict the capacity for positive change and are impotent against “the institutional foundation of oppression.” They describe the Moralist struggle toward anti-oppressive enlightenment in the terms of a self-help program.
For the privileged subject, struggle is presented as a matter of personal growth and development—the act of striving to be the best non-oppressive person that you can be. An entire industry is built on providing resources, guides, and trainings to help people learn to challenge oppression by means of “checking their privilege.” The underlying premise of this approach is the idea that privilege can be willed away. At best this orientation is ineffective, and at worst it can actually work to recenter those who occupy positions of privilege at the expense of wider political struggle…
The culture of anti-oppression politics lends itself to the creation and maintenance of insular activist circles. A so-called “radical community” — consisting of collective houses, activist spaces, book-fairs, etc. — premised on anti-oppression politics fashions itself as a refuge from the oppressive relations and interactions of the outside world. This notion of “community”, along with anti-oppression politics’ intense focus on individual and micro personal interactions, disciplined by “call-outs” and privilege checking, allows for the politicization of a range of trivial lifestyle choices. This leads to a bizarre process in which everything from bicycles to gardens to knitting are accepted as radical activity…
Privilege is a matter of power…It is much more than personal behaviours, interactions, and language, and can neither be wished, nor confessed away…We must organize together to challenge the material infrastructure that accumulates power (one result of which is privilege). Anything less leads to privilege reductionism—the reduction of complex systems of oppression whose structural basis is material and institutional to a mere matter of individual interactions and personal behaviours…
Proceeding from a fundamentally Structural orientation, the essay hones in on the tail-chasing flaw in Moralist practice, which we saw back in McIntosh’s essay: that there is no roadmap by which an ad hoc series of callouts and individual epiphanies can achieve Crenshaw’s vague “restructuring and remaking the world.” The authors cleverly deploy the Theorist sense of futility against Moralist techniques: “No amount of call-outs or privilege checking will make us into individuals untainted by the violent social relationships that permeate our reality.” In other words, an individual’s self-actualizing emancipation from Structural forces is an illusion. By illuminating internal contradictions in the Moralist position, the authors acknowledge the validity of the Moralist critique while making an acute case for both Solidarity and Structure.
