FEMEN is a movement that confronts patriarchy with nudity.
“Femen is our attempt at rethinking the history of feminism in its entirety. We believe that if women are left with little more than satisfying sexual desires as a life purpose, then our sexuality must become politicised. We are not denying our potential to be treated as sex objects. On the contrary, we are taking our sexuality into our own hands, turning it against our enemy. We are transforming female sexual subordination into aggression, and thereby starting the real war.” -Inna Shevchenko
I need some education here. I am an old school feminist, maybe even a dinosaur at this point of my life. I confess I am uncomfortable when protest movements use women’s bodies as objects to attack patriarchy. I instantly think of Audre Lordes’ famous dictim, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” But I am also male; so, in the most important sense, what I think doesn’t matter. Still, as an ally, I would deeply appreciate learning from a discussion on the question whether such tactics as “naked jihad” and “slut walks” are expressions of empowerment or internalized oppression.
I realize the most helpful answer probably will not be a “yes” or a “no,” but an analysis of how such tactics help and hurt the movement. As I say, my initial response was skepticism to such tactics, but when I saw that the Femen confrontation of Putin hit such a nerve, and how young Amina Tyler, a 19 year old Tunisian was imprisioned simply for writing a message on her own nude body, I began to suspect that I have some learning to do.
I am saddened when I try to follow this conversation online because male voices quickly crowd out the space for women to reflect on these strategies. So I am requesting a conversation by women only. We males can follow the conversation, but only to respectfully listen and learn. It would be particularly helpful to hear from Muslim women about what this tactic means from their perspective, as much of the protest has focused on Islamic practices.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/10-0
I don’t see that we should self-objectify in order to fight objectification. To me, the point is to stop seeing women only for their bodies. I’d like women to be heard because of the value of their humanity, not their bodies.
This is a helpful conversation. Thank you Katrina.
I believe Audre Lorde’s statement is so true. We see its validity in reform movements and idealistic efforts to change the status quo all the time. People become involved, trying with the best of intentions to work within the system; but the system’s tools are cleverly designed to maintain the system. It takes a lot of imagination, creativity and courage to confront systems without being co-opted, intimidated, or tricked into spending a lot of time and effort thinking you may be involved in making change only to find that your reliance upon the traditional tools has rendered you ineffective.
But, I am not sure FEMEN is necessarily using the master’s tools. Patriarchy is about control and some of its tools involve defining what is fitting and appropriate, what is good and proper, what provides approval and safety. A great deal of patriarchy’s power depends upon submission to its values and definitions. One point to consider is in you headline question about empowerment or internalized oppression. Patriarchy depends upon internalized oppression.
So, this is really complicated. Sometimes rebellion manifest in outrageous behavior is a tactic that still gives the power to the oppressor to the extent that one hurts one’s self and one’s cause. This can leave the oppressor still in control of the definitions.
In this situation, though, it is worth considering that patriarchy requires, for its power, that women submit. The tactics of FEMEN as shouts of refusal to submit, to be “acceptable”, as shaking off control as exercised through definitions of appropriate and “good” behavior confront patriarchy’s greatest fear…loss of control, especially loss of control of women’s sexuality and their bodies.
But, I don’t know whether these tactics end up doing more harm than good. We are all caught in this terrible web that patriarchy has woven. You admit as a man that there are limits to your perception of this that are conditioned by your reality. I admit that, as a woman, I am not free of the definitions of a society conditioned by patriarchy of what might be too outrageous or discrediting in the way of tactics. So, when I tend to question these tactics, I also have to question my own conditioning. Maybe, that in itself is part of their value. That questioning … That struggle itself… That never leaves us in quite the same place….Maybe that in itself is worth a lot.
Great points Ginny, thank you.
I not sure what it adds to the discussion, but I am reminded of two things, one I read a few years ago, and the other I saw on Facebook just today.
In “Reading Lolita in Tehran” by Azar Nafisi, she talks about the change in laws in Iran which mandated that Muslim women wear the full burqa, including the facial veil, so that only their eyes are visible. Some women were outraged by the law because it was forcing them to wear the veil, of course. But others were upset because they saw the veil as an outward expression of their faithfulness. By removing the choice, they felt the true personal meaning of wearing the veil was taken away as well. I think a similar analogy might be Jewish men who we see wearing a yarmulke in a public place — not all of them do, but when I come upon a man who does, my thought is that he is a man whose faith is very important to him, so much so that he “wears it publicly.” If the law said all Jewish men must do so, however, then there would be no such delineation.
On Facebook today, I saw a photo of one of the FEMEN women that had previously been removed for violating policy, so it was edited and reposted. The picture was not taken down because the young woman had an expletive written across her chest, nor was it removed because it showed an older, balding man in the act of kicking the young woman. The violence and the language were apparently perfectly acceptable. The problem was the young woman’s nipples were exposed. I just think that speaks volumes (and not necessarily in a good way) about what we prioritize.
Wonderful words Janine. I am grateful.
This is a tough one and I can truly say I have no idea. Because, really, women’s bodies are controlled both ways. Our bodies are sexualized by taking clothes off and … I don’t know what word to use to describe being expected to put more clothes on.
I think the slut walks are trying to tackle the problem of women being described by what we wear at all. We’re “good” if we cover up and “bad” if we don’t. It’s easy to say that the patriarchy encourages us to be “bad” to titillate men but it also encourages us to be “good” to be worthy companions for men.
Is that good/bad dichotomy really worth while? Does it really make us better, stronger people if we’re just meeting expectations either way?
Suzanne, I have really appreciated hearing women wrestle with a very tough question. obviously there is no simple answer, but I really appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
I’m not a woman, and I apologize for that since you asked for the rest of us to keep quiet, but how can you say that our opinions don’t matter? We’re the point! The main intended recipient of the message! As I see it, they’re flagrantly violating a cultural norm to make traditional, sexist minds uncomfortable, some of those minds belong to women who encourage sexism, but most of those minds belong to men. The men not only benefit from the sexism in increased job availability, pay, and reputation; they’re also the ones more likely to be discomfited by female nudity, and in general they have better positions of power to continue the sexism.
I didn’t mean to imply that men’s opinions don’t matter. Obviously I am one. I kept seeing men come onto discussion sites and taking over the conversation. I wanted to hear what the issue meant to women, so I could be a better ally as a man. I thought all the comments were helpful.