29. november 2020

CFDP-rapport: 100+ ikke-voldelige mænd er imod BLM & MeToo, krænker minoriteter… ‘emotionally’

Jeg har tidligere blogget om Christian Mogensen fra Center for Digital Pædagogik (CFDP), senest da han til DR Nyheder advarede mod ‘antifeminismen’: “…vi har det retoriske tilløb. Vi mangler bare det ene angreb.” Der er gode stillinger i at forske i postulerede ‘voldelige højreradikale’, og sammen med Cand.psych Stine Helding Rand har han netop udgivet et skattefinansieret rapport for Nordisk Ministerråd. En på alle måder overflødig udgivelse, hvis vage forbeholdne konklusioner, kun giver basis for det forventelige: Behov for yderligere forskning.

Titlen er ‘The angry internet – A threat to gender equality, democracy & well-being’, og formålet er at undersøge den danske og nordiske ‘manosfære’. Der er ikke et eneste dansk eksempel på vold med udspring i antifeminisme, men Breivik er stadig et selvstændigt argument. Der gennemgås kvindehadske miljøer på Twitter, Reddit og 4chan, og begreber såsom Incels (Involuntary celibates), MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists), MGTOWs (Men Going Their Own Way) og PUAs (Pick-Up Artists). Uha, der findes mænd der åbent modarbejder venstreradikale feministers agenda.

Symptomatisk for rapporten, så bruges der to helsider på at beskrive Gab, et mindre censoreret alternativ til Twitter (s. 73-74). Det erkendes, at ‘the lack of open discussion and equal exchange of ideas’ radikaliserer subkulturer, hvad udgør et demokratisk problem, men rapporten anbefaler naturligvis ikke mindre censur på sociale medier. Bemærk tvetydigheden…

“One threat of free speech-platforms like Gab is that if only one political ideology feels a need for free speech, those views will seldom be challenged and it therefore effectively becomes a digital echo chamber. This incentivises a strong us vs. them-narrative, as noted on both Gab, incels. co, 8chan etc. where users talk of ‘normies’, blue- pills, soyboys and more, as a political and societal opponent, though without engaging in discussions with them, as they are on separate platforms.” (s. 74)

Det ville være befriende, hvis rapporten så anbefalede mindre censur på sociale medier, men det er ingenlunde tilfældet. De mange tilknyttede konsulenter er en broget forsamling af ekspert og identitetspolitiske aktivister – i det omfang det overhovedet giver mening at skelne. Det være sig eksempelvis Zetland-skribenten Frederik Kulager, der festede på skrift, da Youtube begyndte at shadowbanne Rasmus Paludan. Listen inkluderer derudover feministen Emma Holten, aktivisten Natasha Al-Hariri og mere ukendte Michael Bang Petersen, Lasse Lindekilde, Lumi Zuleta, Lene Stavngaard, Helena G. Hansen, Rasmus Munksgaard og Esther Chemnitz.

Der er ingen klare definitioner, og alt er således problematisk per definition, men alligevel konkludereres det at de anslåede 100 til 850 nordiske debattører i ‘The Manosphere’ ikke er farlige: “In the data gathered for this report, however, no indications of intentions to act upon misogynistic opinions have been noted.” (s. 30)

Det understreges i slutningen af rapporten, at der i øvrigt heller ikke er mange danskere i de her ikke-voldelige subkulturer, som de statsansatte feminister målretter sit virke imod.

“A quick look on the Nordic search key reveals that the Danish search key is more developed than the Swedish and Norwegian search keys… However, as visible in Table 3, Denmark does not come out as the dominant of the Nordic languages on any of the platforms, even though the Danish part of the search key is more elaborate. On 4chan it even appears that Danish is the second rarest language. (s. 101)

Det skrives ikke ordret, men kan man læse lidt mellem linjerne, så handler det ikke for frygten for vold. Det handler om frygten for ideologisk modstand, camoufleret bag plusord. Den yderste venstrefløj vil gøre dissens illegitim, og da selverklærede demokratiforkæmpere ikke åbent kan bifalde censur, så er der nødt til at være et farligt voldspotentiale et eller andet sted derude. De kommende år vil de formentligt tale om ‘mørketal’.

Frygten er dog også, at tilfældige debattører risikerer at blive ‘desensitized to the violent and anti-progressive rhetoric’, og det er naturligvis også hæmmende for minoriteters ytringsfrihed, at de møder modstand på sociale medier: “… poses the risk of causing harm to others, physically and/or emotionally.”

Minoriteters følelser trumfer højrefløjens ytringsfrihed. Racisme er ikke en ytring, men en handling, kan man læse i diverse AFA-skrifter. Her er den akademiske udgave. Jeg har ikke læst rapporten slavisk, og det kommer jeg heller ikke til. Livet er ganske enkelt for kort til den slags.

(Center for Digital Pædagogik, 2020; Mere: The Angry Internet / Dansk resume)

Udpluk

“In this report it is concluded that specific Nordic misogyny is present on all three platforms though the amount varies from platform to platform – from 0.4% on Twitter, over 1.6% on Reddit, to 5.0% on 4chan1. Based on these numbers, it was estimated that a total of up to 850 active Nordic users had posted misogynistic and antifeminist content on the three select forums during the last year. … While the estimated amount of up to 850 Nordic aggressively misogynistic users can seem trivial in a political perspective, it does not take into it does not take into account how many passive consumers of the 850’s rhetoric there is. These passive consumers are at risk of being desensitized to the violent and anti-progressive rhetoric used by the 850. Through qualitative interviews and field observations the analysis identified spillover effects of misogynistic content, in the form of phrases, neologisms, ideologies, and worldviews, migrating into ‘mainstream social media’. This spillover effect risks establishing a discourse of acceptance toward misogynistic rhetoric, which in turn could deter women (especially young) to refrain from participating in the public online debate.

One important point established in interviews with participants on aggressively misogynistic forums, and through observations on the same forums, was that many of the users had originally sought emotional and social support from the forums. Later these supportive structures had given way to narratives thought to be less ‘un-manly’, dealing less with vulnerability and unhappiness, and more with vengeance, assertiveness and ideas of (taking) power (back). Some of these forums were formulated in perspective of a ‘men vs. women’ idea, and as such had a (male) user base already feeling alienated from the usual intergender socializing. The users often describe themselves as ‘losers’ or (socially) unattractive, but seem to lack pro-social and pro-male communities, outside of these.

In order to deal with the issues of misogyny the following main recommendations are put forth:

– Forming partnerships with the most troubled forums to educate current moderators, or by installing volunteers, to help establish and reaffirm the support systems that these online communities are for many of their users. By mitigating the echochamber effect that these forums can often hold, and by trying to build bridges to the society that the users feel have shunned them, the brunt of the harmful ‘us-and-them’ rhetoric and mindset could be avoided.

– Building literacy and developing a more equal perspective on the possibilities and capabilities of each gender. Such engagement should target both children, youth, adults, and professionals, through a greater focus on gender, gender identity, and gender development. Furthermore, this can lead to changing and expanding gender norms and ideals to become more inclusive and to create room for diversity and standing up against traditional and stereotypical gender roles.

Requiring identity authentication in order to create accounts on social media platforms would diminish the amount of fake accounts considerably. …” (s. 2)

—–

“One often cited solution to any such problems of hate speech or gender- or minority targeted aggressive rhetoric is to close down the platforms. De-platforming the ideas, and hoping that they dissipate. Even if the notion of de-platforming carried any anti-radicalizing merit, it would largely negate the problem initiating the complex situation to begin with…

De-platforming can be viewed as a tool to close down particularly problematic networks, but should not be done without any secondary action, to ‘catch’ the users before they simply migrate from the now closed down forum, to the next – often to an encrypted or more elusive forum. Likewise, banning certain users will either motivate them to move on to other platforms or create new accounts. In the best of worlds, this will solve the democratic problem of these users preventing minorities and women from participating in the democratic processes of discussions online, but will not solve the problem of the wellbeing of the men themselves. Therefore, different strategies should be employed.

Having a place to talk about one’s problems is often a good thing, seeing as this can offer relief, and thereby limiting the probability of the individual needing a physical (or verbal) outlet. On the other hand, the culture on these platforms can also further fuel already budding thoughts, cementing them as peer-qualified political and social opinions. In essence, there is a fine line between having a place to vent, seek boundaries, and develop one’s identity, and fostering societally undesirable beliefs and attitudes. The former is a positive, while the latter poses the risk of causing harm to others, physically and/or emotionally.

… tackling this issue requires interventions on multiple fronts. Creating a change in culture requires early intervention, but such changes take a long time to take effect. Therefore, more immediate action is required as well. Early intervention could be in the form of educating child caregivers to be less gender stereotypical in their daily interactions and verbal exchanges with the children. Instead of lauding girls for their princess-like appearances and niceness, whilst at the same time complimenting the boys on being tough, fun or assertive, a more gender-neutral approach should be considered.

These small day-to-day interactions are part of a bigger picture, forming the way children see themselves and others in terms of gender, what is expected of each gender, and what each gender is and is not capable of. … The authors of this report see it as evident, when observing in maledominated online communities, that men more easily identify with aggressive emotions and strategies than ‘weak’ and emotional ones. This trait can lead to the problems being re-framed as political and gender-oppressing of men, and a call-to-arms to fight back against perceived evil oppressors, instead of daring to talk about the negative feelings that led the men there in the first place.” (s. 24)

—–

“The Men’s Rights Activists is a reactionary movement, meaning, it has emerged as a reaction to another social movement gaining support and momentum – in this case a reaction to feminism and multiculturalism (e.g. MeToo and Black Lives Matter). MRA’s can, in some instances, divert from past egalitarian movements such as the aforementioned BLM and MeToo, as it is focusing rather on removing rights from others, than gaining some for its own. Many key objectives for MRA’s are to roll back or halt the changes other movements are making.

They are trying to attain this goal by focusing on key feminist issues, such as equal pay, sexual assault, abuse against women, and the representation of women in popular and entertainment media, from a conservative ‘men suffer more than women, and women are actually just trying to blame men for their problems’ point of view. Most rape stories are perceived as false, and campaigns like #metoo are seen as ‘witch hunts’ designed to demonize men. By combating the feminist goals, under guise of them attacking women, they aim to reframe an anti women’s-rights-movement as a Men’s Rights Movement.

Most MRA movements see rights and power as a zero sum-game. Here the notion of women and minorities gaining the same liberties and societal influence as them is a threat to what they have always had. What the others gain, are feared to be lost on their own account. Therefore the feminist movement gaining traction throughout the last decade, becomes extremely threatening to the ipso facto sovereignty of the white man. Furthermore, the MeToo-movement, aiming at protecting women from men, is seen as an attack on the rightful rule over the sexual landscape, and therefore also an attack on said sovereignty.

Thus, Men’s Rights Activists are not only interested in protecting the rights of men, but also in cutting short the rights of women. Interestingly, MRAs and feminists focus on a lot of the same issues; e.g. oppressing gender-based stereotypes, violence and aggression in men, the overlooking and ignoring of assault against men, the skewed division of parental leave and child care, and the lack of openness towards men showing emotions among other issues. However, where feminists see this as being the fault of the patriarchal society and gender-based norms, MRAs see feminism as the root cause. (s. 48)

Denne weblog er læst af siden 22. juni 2003.

 



 

Vælg selv beløb



Blogs


Meta
RSS 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
Valid XHTML
WP






MediaCreeper