Why do I Care for THE Men when THEY Don’t Exist?
I answer with a counter-question: Why can I stand up for blacks if there are no blacks at all? Or, even more blatant: Why should one campaign for the Jews, if they are not THE Jews at all?
This is where the first misunderstanding lies: I do not stand up for the men, but only for those who are affected by discrimination – and only in the necessary areas where discrimination takes place. This is because it is not about how you define yourself, but how you are defined from the outside.
This is justified by the biological differences. In the past, it was also similar to ancestry, skin colour and the like: a group of people was attributed certain behaviours or a form of protection due to biological differences, which they would then also have in the collective; in doing so, this different aspect was isolated and linked to a difference that was also demonstrable. It was disregarded that factors other than this one isolated aspect could have been decisive for possible behaviour.
There are two different ways of seeing the world in this respect – and both have an impact on all people. In one view, gender is the central point and being human is all that matters. In the other, sex is only a property such as hair, skin or eye colour, and then sex revolves around being human. Which worldview one takes, one determines only oneself.
How much of our behaviour currently depends on our female or male sex at birth, whether we were born with or without a Y-chromosome, cannot be determined. After all, no human being is born sexless, no-one without skin colour, no-one without ancestry or without a place of birth. Furthermore, no-one can decide for themselves whether he or she is born as left-handed or right-handed, or whether he or she is born with brown, red or blonde hair.
A few centuries ago, when fire-red hair was attributed to people who were particularly close to the devil, they were turned into a group with a common fate. THE redheads were born, and they had to be burned, otherwise, their own souls would be spoiled. Of course, there were redheads even before this superstition, only the attribution of a certain character trait, a behaviour took place during this time and often ultimately led to devastating consequences for everyone who had been born with red hair.
Now, especially here in the west, it is THE men who allegedly do certain things and are collectively responsible for certain acts in advance. “No, no, not you. Of course, only the collective – and that is why we need action against this collective.” In other parts of the world, it is women who are collectively blamed for something negative – and that is why we must also act collectively against these women. “The single woman is not meant, you’re a good one. No, it’s the collective into which you were born.”
No, I don’t want to deny reality, but I don’t want to be reduced to my gender. I am not to blame for the fact that, because I have a penis, I would collectively act significantly better or worse than someone born with a vagina. In whatever areas of life. My humanity is in the center, everything else revolves around it. Even my gender. I am currently being held hostage sexually, and collective traits are attributed to me which thus have an impact on my personal, individual fate.
As a Spaniard, even the duration of imprisonment, or the court I would be tried in, is determined by gender. I’m supposed to do certain things “not so well” because I’m a man. I’m supposed to do “other things better” because I’m a man. I’m more criminal because I’m a man. No-one seems to be disturbed by this open, ever-increasing quasi-sex racism.
So why am I a fighter for men’s rights, even though I refuse to attribute behaviour to men as a “collective”? Although for me THE men do not exist?
The question should have been answered with the example of Spain (see above). Martin Luther King was not a fighter for the blacks, but for the equality of all citizens. He never questioned the discrimination of blacks. However, he opposed the idea of reducing it to the colour of one’s skin. He never wanted to be a member of a “black race”, was a strict opponent of Black Power. For him, too, the focus of attention was always on his humanity. He’s my role model.
There is no compromise between the two worldviews – one about gender and the other about humanity – for me. I compare it to the geocentric and heliocentric worldview: one of them corresponds to appearances and the other to reality. The chaotic planetary orbits could not be explained by the geocentric view of the world.
We are now wrestling with explanations for the behaviour of the sexes and come up with ever more abstruse theories. For me, none of these explanations are necessary. We are all human beings – not equal, but equal. Nothing in our differences allows even one of our human rights to be defined differently. “Gender violence” is just one of those abstruse theories. There is only violence from people to people with different motives. These gender-centered concepts are constructed in the same way as the epicycles in the epicycles in the geocentric view of the world.
I do not deny the fact that discrimination prevails due to sex, skin colour, origin or otherwise. I only strongly deny that these can be claimed collectively in general terms, as long as there is no legal disadvantage.
That there are collectives that one has to consider like beings, regardless of the cause claimed, to which the preference or disadvantage of the individual human being can be allegedly attached, is for me highly nonsensical. Therefore all investigations of this kind are worthless for me and correspond to the interpretations of the early astronomers to the starry sky. Because they didn’t know any better.
