Diskussion:Jørgen Lorentzen

Liebe Benutzerin:Fiona B., ich glaube ich habe alles eingearbeitet, was ich gefunden habe, von mir aus ist der Artikel bereit für die Verschiebung in den ANR, wenn aus Deiner Sicht nichts dagegen spricht. Viele Grüße, Polibil (Diskussion) 16:29, 8. Jun. 2021 (CEST)

Abschnitt Debatten

dass er der feministischen Wissenschaft ablehnend gegenüberstehe.[15] Lorentzen veröffentlichte eine Antwort in der Zeitung Klassekampen. In welchem Zusammenhang wurde das kritisiert? Und wie lautetet die Antwort von Lorentzen? @Benutzer:Eirikdlv. --Fiona (Diskussion) 08:13, 26. Jul. 2021 (CEST)

Ein paar Anmerkungen: In der Debatte ging es wohl weniger um eine Väterquote als um die fødselspermisjon, also Elternzeit für Männer (damals gab es eine Debatte darum, die Aufteilung der Elternzeit zu ändern). Kennair und Bongard hatten biologisch (bzw. biologistisch) und psychologisch argumentiert, man solle den Müttern nicht die Kinder wegnehmen, Lorentzen hielt das (und die biologistische Argumentation über Geschlecht) recht polemisch für "biofaschismus" und verwies darauf, dass es nicht darum ginge, irgendjemandem Kinder wegzunehmen, sondern Vätern zu ermöglichen, auch Zeit mit ihren Kindern zu verbringen. Insgesamt halte ich die Debatte im Artikel für verzichtbar, eine breite Berichterstattung darüber blieb, sowie ich das sehe, auch aus. --Polibil (Diskussion) 09:58, 26. Jul. 2021 (CEST)

Wunderbar, Polibil. Mir kam auch dieser Satz seltsam vor. Leider kann ich norwegische Quellen mangels Sprachkenntnis nicht auswerten. Nach deinem Beitrag werde ich die beiden Absätze entfernen.--Fiona (Diskussion) 10:03, 26. Jul. 2021 (CEST)

There is a chapter titled „Bättre med män“ in the book Motstånd och fantasi by sv:Maud Eduards, sv:Anna Wahl, Charlotte Holgersson, Pia Höök, Sophie Linghag, Malin Rönnblom that analyses Lorentzen's project and specifically a presentation he held at a gender studies conference. As Lorentzen acknowledges in his response, the authors are some of the most prominent gender studies scholars in Sweden. The title, "Better with men" (i.e. "Men are preferable") really says it all. In Lorentzen's response article, he acknowledges that he is portrayed in the book as hostile to feminist scholarship and only concerned with promoting men, and concludes that "slik blir norsk feminisme til svensk antifeminisme" ("thus Norwegian feminism becomes Swedish anti-feminism"), and criticizes the (Swedish) gender studies community for "lammende enighet" ("stifling agreement", the title of his response). This is primarily a debate within the gender studies community and illustrates Lorentzen's standing within the Scandinavian gender studies community. As the chapter and his response illustrate, he is not really broadly respected within gender studies in Scandinavia and received little support from the broader gender studies community in Scandinavia during the Hjernevask debate.

Lorentzen has been a controversial figure not only within gender studies, but also in the broader public discourse, for several years, partly due to his aggressive form of debate. The debate he took part in in 2008 did indeed generate a lot of media coverage and illustrates why he was was perceived as controversial in Norway, also before Hjernevask. He used terms like "biofascism" and ​also called for his opponents to "abdicate as researchers" and accused them of engaging in "psycho nonsense"; some of his opponents from that debate, such as Turid Suzanne Berg Nielsen, are among the most respected child psychologists in Norway. The debate is important because it is a kind of precursor to the Hjernevask debate and to some extent explains the negative reactions he encountered also in connection with Hjernevask, as someone with a history of making very high-handed comments about other researchers and research fields in this area and who had already irritated much of the psychological research community. Law professor no:Olav Torvund discussed some of it here[1] in the context of the Hjernevask debate and pointed out that Lorentzen apparently introduced the term "biofascist" in Norwegian debate, while also pointing out Lorentzen's peculiar form of debate in other instances. (While Germany may be used to a more harsh form of debate, Norwegian academics rarely accuse each other of being fascists, which explains the strong reactions to his introduction of that term). The 2008 debate is also included in the Norwegian article.

Lately there have been reports that some foreign (Eastern European?) anti-feminists who don't know anything about Norway or the Norwegian debate (or gender studies) have discovered Hjernevask and use it (years after the fact) to attack all gender research, but the debate in Norway about Lorentzen wasn't about that, and he was broadly criticized by scholars and in the media, while receiving little support from fellow academics, for his comments about other scholars' research. The criticism of gender studies then focused on a particular kind of humanities-based, post-structuralist form of scholarship, but more importantly on Lorentzen's attitude to other research fields (as also seen in the 2008 debate). The article should distinguish more clearly between the actual Hjernevask debate (that focused very much on Lorentzen's arguments and gave him much opportunity to respond and engage with his critics) and recent reports about foreign anti-feminists' simplistic use of that debate years after the fact (who don't even appear to focus on Lorentzen in particular, only to make simplistic and ridiculous/blatantly false claims, e.g. that gender studies was closed down; probably most of them haven't even heard of Lorentzen).

Lorentzen is one of the founders of Reform, whose stated purpose is to "synliggjøre menn som kjønn i samfunnet" (make men visible as a gender in society), an organization that has been criticized several times, especially by feminists but also in the public debate in general, for its odd focus (that is regularly commented upon) and other issues, including its support for the prostitution industry[2][3][4] I think it is useful to mention this because it partially explains some of the criticism Lorentzen has received from feminist scholars in Scandinavia (as seen in Eduards' book), and also the lack of support from most gender studies scholars during the Hjernevask debate.

Lorentzen effectively left gender studies in Scandinavia around 2013 when his contract with the university ended and has focused more on his film work and democracy activism related to Turkey in the last decade. His wife is a well-respected film maker, and he has served as a producer for her films. His recent activities haven't garnered the kind of negative reactions he encountered a decade ago. --Eirikdlv (Diskussion) 12:15, 26. Jul. 2021 (CEST)

Regarding White Ribbon, I find a single article in Dagbladet[5] from 1993 that mentioned Lorentzen as "en av initiativtakerne til den norske kampanjen" (one of the initiators of the Norwegian campaign). I don't find any evidence of the campaign existing in Norway after the initial proposal in 1993. --Eirikdlv (Diskussion) 13:04, 26. Jul. 2021 (CEST)

Lorentzen was not the first scholar to comment about Breivik's anti-feminism, and hardly one of the first either. Breivik writes at length about his hatred of feminism in his manifesto, and it was instantly commented upon by many gender studies scholars and scholars in other fields in 2011 and 2012, i.e. before Lorentzen's analysis of the subject from 2013. Ellen Mortensen (gender studies, University of Bergen) and Mattias Gardell (history of religion, Uppsala University) are some of the scholars who have discussed this before him.[6][7] Breivik's anti-feminism was also widely discussed in the media in 2011 and 2012,[8] and it was an important topic during his trial in 2012[9]. Perhaps it's worthwhile to include Lorentzen's analysis of this subject here, but it's misleading to claim that he was "the first" or "one of the first" when it had been discussed extensively for two years at that time. --Eirikdlv (Diskussion) 21:18, 26. Jul. 2021 (CEST)