Men should express their feelings, but not about feminism. Introducing the German antifeminism hotline.
Since March 2023, the German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ) has been financing the operation of an "Antifeminism Reporting Office" sponsored by the Amadeu Antonio Foundation (AAS) with €133,000 annually. This development has been commented on in many German media in recent weeks, but not the media outside Germany. Some criticisms of this feminist initiative, which is made possible with taxpayers' money, have not yet been mentioned in the public discussion, because they only become apparent from a deeper psychological-functional analysis. That is what the following is about.
The “founder and head of the Antifeminism Reporting Office at the AAS, herself said: "We still reserve the right to name public figures as examples in brochures whose anti-feminist actions are known to the Reporting Office.”
Civil society would be well advised to stop such developments in the bud, because they endanger freedom and democracy. The social protection for women who are threatened or mistreated is important, but it is the responsibility of the police and the judiciary.
Why report at all?
When people report other people's statements and behaviors to a state-affiliated institution, this is an act with serious implications. In the case of the reporting office, this is not whistleblowing. The examples given on the website of the Hotline are partly about clearly criminal offences ("attacks against trans persons, up to physical fatal attacks"), in the other part about freely legitimized expressions of opinion (statements against gender theories or gender language). The former belongs to the police and the judiciary, the latter should not appear in the context of a reporting office, because it is then pure intimidating denunciation.
“The Antifeminism Reporting Office […] places real crimes that endanger women and suspected anti-feminism in a grey area, mixing criminal offenses with liberal expressions of opinion.”
The act of making a report to a body that is not democratically or legitimised by the state always carries the risk of misuse of this report. It can then also be misused as a denigration, denunciation or false suspicion. Even if the AAS assures on its platform that all reports will be treated anonymously and confidentially, this does not have to happen in the future. Repeated improvements and publications of clarifications by BMFSFJ and AAS in recent weeks certainly feed the doubt as to the future data protection practices of the Notification Office. Most recently, Judith Rahner, founder and head of the Antifeminism Reporting Office at the AAS, herself said: "We still reserve the right to name public figures as examples in brochures whose anti-feminist actions are known to the Reporting Office. This is important for a picture of the situation regarding a phenomenon that has so far received too little attention." (Interview in the Berliner Zeitung from 07.03.2023).
Why criticize antifeminism at the reporting office?
The Antifeminism Reporting Office is a wrong approach to combating group-related enmity in society. It places real crimes that endanger women and suspected anti-feminism in a grey area, mixing criminal offenses with liberal expressions of opinion.
A critical reflection of the BMFSFJ's own approach with regard to the reporting office and its scientific and social legitimisation has not taken place anywhere. One does not want to face social criticism in relation to one's own approach. It should not be forgotten that it is a fundamental democratic right to express critical opinions on ideologies such as those behind the hotline. Where dissidents who do not break the law are reported to a supposedly legitimate institution, it becomes dangerous for democracy and the rule of law.
The reasons for reporting cited by the Antifeminism Reporting Office also include criticism of gender studies and organised statements on gender language. However, both are examples of democratically legitimized expressions of opinion. The fact that these are documented on a platform together with clearly criminal acts against women (such as physical attacks, coercion and threats) taints legitimate fundamental rights with the whiff of deviant attitudes and actions.
It can be assumed that this mixing of different levels does not happen unintentionally. A critical attitude towards feminism, which is also communicated openly and appropriately, must not be treated as an insult to medieval royalty. The Antifeminism Reporting Office behaves like a feudal institution even though in Germany today it is a democratically guaranteed fundamental right to express criticism of political and ideological positions. Subsidization of a reporting office seems to be a deviation from modern democratic principles.
Criticism of feminism is made taboo
Antifeminism as a critique of feminist concepts is to be delegitimized and criminalized. Attitudes critical of feminism are increasingly stigmatized as anti-feminist and misogynistic, but this is a logical short-circuit. It can legitimately only be about criminally relevant offenses and not about critical expressions of opinion against feminist ideology. The two areas would have to be cleanly separated from each other. One belongs to the area of responsibility of the police and the judiciary, the other should be part of an open social discourse and not the target of a reporting platform.
“using taxpayers' money to strengthen a foundation that runs a reporting office for denunciation and defamation, and which was also run for over 20 years by a former unofficial employee of the Stasi, is even less possible."
The deputy CDU/CSU parliamentary group leader in the Bundestag, Dorothea Bär, has written to the reporting portal: "Denunciation and defamation at state expense: The Federal Minister for Family Affairs has learned nothing from our history. It is not ashamed to promote a culture of denigration in order to supposedly strengthen our democracy. In doing so, it lacks any sensitivity to what really endangers and divides our social cohesion. Sexism, hostility against women, misanthropic attacks, all this is of course not possible. But using taxpayers' money to strengthen a foundation that runs a reporting office for denunciation and defamation, and which was also run for over 20 years by a former unofficial employee of the Stasi, is even less possible."
“The [hotline] operators act from a completely exaggerated, radicalized perspective, without seeking dialogue with the majority society.”
The approach of a hotline divides society instead of bringing it together. If those responsible were to engage in an open dialogue with civil society, it could become clear whether antifeminism really poses as great a threat as is postulated. The operators act from a completely exaggerated, radicalized perspective, without seeking dialogue with the majority society. The non-democratically legitimized "guardians" at the AAS are thus being given an instrument of power that does not belong there.
“Other equally relevant human rights issues, such as the protection of boys from violence in any form, are ignored.”
The operators of the reporting portal are not even able to define what feminism is, cannot make it clear who is to be regarded as a woman today. In the spirit of the Federal Minister of Women's Affairs Paus, a woman is regarded as a person who defines herself as a woman. This definition is so vague that it opens the door to abuse.
Huge imbalance
Other equally relevant human rights issues, such as the protection of boys from violence in any form, are ignored. These human rights violations do not fit into the ideologically narrow worldview, which sees boys and men as a danger because they belong to the so-called patriarchy.
What our society needs is a comprehensive, non-ideologically narrow discourse on the risks and dangers in the lives of all people due to violence, extremism (from all sides!), hate speech, radicalization and discrimination. These include threats and violence against girls and women as well as risk situations for boys and men.
The risks facing girls and women today need to be fully documented, without question! These include violent crimes – knife crimes, rape – by men, but also violence within groups of girls.
The violent crimes, which have often been committed by male immigrants in recent years, are not mentioned by the operators of the registration office as exemplary anti-feminist and reportable crimes in their collection of examples. But that's exactly what many women are afraid of.
Instead, organized criticism of gender language emerges as a threat. The relations between violence and endangerment for girls and women are obviously skewed and arbitrary. They are subject to ideological rather than objectively justified views. Intersectional feminism, which prevails among the operators of the hotline, excludes the naming of crimes by migrants, because this should not be due to their ideology, since these men are themselves racist or colonialist victims. Thus, relevant threats to girls and women remain out of sight because they do not fit into the prevailing ideology.
“What escapes the operators of the reporting portal is the fact that nowadays a majority of the population is critical of the current radicalized feminism […] The Antifeminism Reporting Office is likely to reinforce this trend.”
However, a truly valid analysis and prevention of violent crimes against individual groups in society must not have a narrow view in which only politically acceptable victims are included and politically non-opportune perpetrators are ignored. When it comes to legitimate protection against violence for the population as a whole, all threat scenarios must be recorded, analyzed and changed without taboos. For this, an anti-feminism reporting office is of little help if only politically opportune anti-feminist points are named. The medium-effect ratio is also not very conducive, since due to the highly selective messages, no valid picture will emerge in the end. It is rather a political-propaganda action, since data is not scientifically sound, but highly selective.
Being critical of feminism is not misogynistic, or even necessarily anti-feminist
What escapes the operators of the reporting portal is the fact that nowadays a majority of the population is critical of the current radicalized feminism. A large survey in England recently showed that around 52 percent of Generation Z (born between 1995 and 2010) and 53 percent of Millennials (born between 1980 and 1995) believe that society has gone so far as to discriminate against men in promoting women's rights.
According to data published by the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) on the basis of 1,009 respondents, only 22 percent of women and 8 percent of men considered themselves feminists in 2021. It becomes clear that feminism today is no longer seen as the necessary liberation and emancipation movement, but is seen in an increasingly critical light. And apparently for good reasons. The Antifeminism Reporting Office is likely to reinforce this trend. On the other hand, well over 90 percent of the population is in favor of equality and fairness between the sexes.
“Misogyny is dangerous and to be condemned [but…] on the website of the Antifeminism Reporting Office [everything] is mixed with everything: criminal offenses with liberal expressions of opinion, criticism of feminism with misogyny.”
An important distinction is often blurred by the activists. An attitude critical of feminism is not automatically misogynistic, not even necessarily anti-feminist. It often corresponds to a critical or negative attitude towards the ideology of feminism. And ideology is nothing more than a collection of ideas. It is not identical to a hostile or hateful attitude towards women. This would be misogyny.
Therefore, an anti-feminist attitude is one that rejects feminism as an ideology and nothing else. Misogyny is dangerous and to be condemned from a psychological point of view, as it should always be with such attitudes. So there is a big difference between feminism criticism and misogyny.
There is no mention of this on the website of the Antifeminism Reporting Office. Everything is mixed with everything: criminal offenses with liberal expressions of opinion, criticism of feminism with misogyny. The operators of the hotline claim that anti-feminism represents a closed, right-wing worldview and a strategy of anti-liberal forces. This is an unproven but politically and ideologically useful claim and at the same time an intellectual short-circuit. In essence, it is about equating any criticism of the ideology of radical feminism with misogyny and right-wing extremism and thus silencing it once and for all.
“the attempt to prevent criticism of radical feminism actually poses a threat to democracy and civil liberties.”
While the registration office is officially funded by the "Live Democracy!" programme, the attempt to prevent criticism of radical feminism actually poses a threat to democracy and civil liberties.
The intent behind the intent
Machiavelli showed that political action is always also power action. How is the establishment of a hotline to be understood in this regard?
Superficially, the Antifeminism Reporting Office wants to point out violence against women, individually and structurally. This is a welcome approach, but it belongs more in criminology and social research, where the appropriate methodology is mastered and used. There have been many relevant research and practical projects in recent years.
The question therefore arises as to why there must also be a reporting portal. The operators justify this with the need to explore the run-up to violence and radicalisation. But even this question can be better answered with professional social research than with a highly selective reporting portal.
In fact, it is about establishing anti-feminism as a social taboo. For this reason, criminologically relevant offences (sexual coercion, acts of violence, threats) are named and collected in a context of previously democratically legitimate behaviour (criticism of gender theories, feminist theories and gender language).
“It is no secret that the long-time director of the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, Anetta Kahane, was a former Stasi informer.”
The mixing of offenses with civil liberties, which is inadmissible for basic liberal-democratic considerations, makes clear the deeper intention of establishing the registration office: to deligitimize criticism of today's feminism and its manifestations (trans theories, gender language, gender theories) and to equate antifeminism with such fundamental human rights violations as anti-Semitism and racism. In the long term, a reporting reflex should be established for everything that is critical of feminism.
Intimidation and discipline
The deeper, uncommunicated purpose of the reporting office is to discipline and intimidate dissenters, even within the feminist scene. It is no secret that the long-time director of the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, Anetta Kahane, was a former Stasi informer. The culture of denunciation sometimes lives on implicitly in institutions. So it seems to be here too. There is no democratic spirit here, although the portal is significantly financed by funds from the "Living Democracy" programme.
The denunciation of critical statements on today's radical feminism (especially in the areas of transsexuality, biological bisexuality, gender theories, gender language) is to be made the standard of civic action by establishing a criminal quasi-offense "antifeminism". Rather, the BMFSFJ should conduct an open discourse in civil society about the advantages and disadvantages of modern feminism.
By collecting criminal offenses in the same breath as democratically legitimate critical statements and kneading them into a picture of the situation, attitudes that have nothing to do with extremism are put in a delegitimized, quasi-criminal light. These are the well-known manipulation techniques of labeling and stigmatizing uncomfortable, dissenting opinions.
Through a proximity to anti-Semitic crimes and attitudes, a complete deligitimization and stigmatization of feminism-critical attitudes is to be achieved. According to the currently applicable provisions in the Criminal Code, violent crimes against women can be punished consistently and specifically and also include forms such as stalking and threats. To treat a crime specifically committed by men differently from one committed by a woman is incompatible with gender equality in the Basic Law and would mean stigmatizing the gender of "man". Manslaughter out of jealousy committed by a man against a woman is as serious an offence as manslaughter by a woman out of jealousy of a man.
“It is quite possible that queer feminists receive reports of critical statements by traditional feminists on the subject of transsexuality and then declare them anti-feminist.”
Feminism vs. Feminism
The Antifeminism Reporting Office is also an attempt by queer feminism to gain the upper hand over the other directions within the fiercely divided feminist camps. It is quite possible that queer feminists receive reports of critical statements by traditional feminists on the subject of transsexuality and then declare them anti-feminist.
The Hotline is essentially an attempt to save feminism, which has broken itself up into countless factions fighting each other, and to fill it with new tasks so that subsidies and taxpayers' money continue to flow. The idea of establishing anti-feminism as a social danger and ultimately also as a criminal offence is a clever move to vitalize the feminist scene in politics, administrations and the media.
What still unites feminisms is the external enemy image, the old, white man. What to do if it dies out? Or when you remember that the old, white men were and still are supporters of equality in the 1960s?
Radical feminism, which motivated the founding of the registration office, is close to post-Marxism, but no longer has any references to humanism. Therefore, it is not acceptable for him to make himself untouchable, uncriticizable, through reporting portals and media dominance.
The hysteria surrounding the anti-feminism reporting office is a reflection of the inner dynamics of the queer feminist scene. Again and again agitations, exaggerations and enemy images. This does not help the potential victims any more than it does the necessary social discourse on radical feminism today.
Violence must be combated in all its forms. This applies to transsexual and intersex people as well as to discriminated old, white men.
Why should one be against misogyny (hatred of women) and at the same time against misandry (hatred of men)? Because you are a humanist and human rights are indivisible! Why should one be critical of the Antifeminism Reporting Office? Because you believe in democracy and consider semi-anonymous denunciations to be dangerous! Why be critical of today's feminism? Because it has become a radical ideology that excludes people, avoids democratically legitimate discourses and suppresses critical thinking!
Scroll down to join the discussion
Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.
Like our articles?
Click here to subscribe to our FREE newsletter and be first
to hear about news, events, and publications.
Have you got something to say?
Check out our submissions page to find out how to write for us.
.
