Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Femen scandal shows how muddled we are about men and feminism
If only men ran feminism, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. We wouldn't have to worry about offending them or arguing among ourselves. We would simply take instruction from consultants on gender struggle. Only the prettiest would be allowed to fight the gender jihad. And we would have to do it topless.
You can't make this stuff up. And I am not. It turns out that that Femen, the Ukrainian feminist group known for semi-naked media stunts, slogan "Our mission is protest, our weapons are bare breasts" was actually founded by a man, Victor Svyatski. It gets weirder. This man hand picked attractive women knowing they would make the front pages – and they did. Many feminists were disturbed by the imperialist implications, that these stereotypical blondes had no relationship with the culture or ethnicity of those they choose to bare their breasts to. They have caused offence in many ways and indeed have been a disappointment to their great leader. "These girls are weak. They don't have the strength of character … Instead they show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists." Yes, women are so useless we can't even get out tops off in the right way. Who knows how we ever got the vote?
This whole ridiculous tale is symptomatic of the huge muddle around men's relationship to feminism. Obviously men can be feminists, as I often say. They can walk alongside us, just not ahead and take charge of the whole shebang. Increasingly, though, to talk about gender-specific issues invokes cries of "misandry" from the What About The Men brigade. According to some, anyone who mentions breast cancer therefore doesn't care about prostate cancer, anyone who mentions "domestic violence" doesn't care that men are victims of violence too. Female genital mutilation? What about circumcision? And so it goes ludicrously on, as though any woman speaking about these issues does not have sons, fathers, lovers.
To be accused of misandry – hating all men – when sometimes one is merely trying to stick up for some women is really tedious. I don't hate all men. Give me time!
Of course men suffer, and men who hit women are likely to hit other men. Women who are violent to men are likely to hit their children. None of this exists in isolation; it's the links that matter. This week, for example, activists who amazingly kept their clothes on were asking whether there is a connection between trolling, online stalking and actual violence against women. Women's Aid workers are reporting that there is. Immediately the What About The Men brigade suggests that somehow this means we don't care when men are killed.
The battering ram of misandry is another attempt to silence debate. It is misguided. It operates from the assumption that we are all on a level playing field. I say tomato. You say to-mate-oh. I say misogyny. You say misandry. What is missing here is any analysis of patriarchy. Or, indeed, global reality.
One may argue that the construction of patriarchy is just "natural" – women are weaker and have babies – or that it is cultural, and therefore changes as technology and contraception alters what is purely natural. Either way, it produces a multi-faceted system in which men at the top are the most advantaged. The spectrum of privilege is huge. There is a world of difference between not being able to get a buggy on to a bus and being raped and then stoned to death
You can't make this stuff up. And I am not. It turns out that that Femen, the Ukrainian feminist group known for semi-naked media stunts, slogan "Our mission is protest, our weapons are bare breasts" was actually founded by a man, Victor Svyatski. It gets weirder. This man hand picked attractive women knowing they would make the front pages – and they did. Many feminists were disturbed by the imperialist implications, that these stereotypical blondes had no relationship with the culture or ethnicity of those they choose to bare their breasts to. They have caused offence in many ways and indeed have been a disappointment to their great leader. "These girls are weak. They don't have the strength of character … Instead they show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists." Yes, women are so useless we can't even get out tops off in the right way. Who knows how we ever got the vote?
This whole ridiculous tale is symptomatic of the huge muddle around men's relationship to feminism. Obviously men can be feminists, as I often say. They can walk alongside us, just not ahead and take charge of the whole shebang. Increasingly, though, to talk about gender-specific issues invokes cries of "misandry" from the What About The Men brigade. According to some, anyone who mentions breast cancer therefore doesn't care about prostate cancer, anyone who mentions "domestic violence" doesn't care that men are victims of violence too. Female genital mutilation? What about circumcision? And so it goes ludicrously on, as though any woman speaking about these issues does not have sons, fathers, lovers.
To be accused of misandry – hating all men – when sometimes one is merely trying to stick up for some women is really tedious. I don't hate all men. Give me time!
Of course men suffer, and men who hit women are likely to hit other men. Women who are violent to men are likely to hit their children. None of this exists in isolation; it's the links that matter. This week, for example, activists who amazingly kept their clothes on were asking whether there is a connection between trolling, online stalking and actual violence against women. Women's Aid workers are reporting that there is. Immediately the What About The Men brigade suggests that somehow this means we don't care when men are killed.
The battering ram of misandry is another attempt to silence debate. It is misguided. It operates from the assumption that we are all on a level playing field. I say tomato. You say to-mate-oh. I say misogyny. You say misandry. What is missing here is any analysis of patriarchy. Or, indeed, global reality.
One may argue that the construction of patriarchy is just "natural" – women are weaker and have babies – or that it is cultural, and therefore changes as technology and contraception alters what is purely natural. Either way, it produces a multi-faceted system in which men at the top are the most advantaged. The spectrum of privilege is huge. There is a world of difference between not being able to get a buggy on to a bus and being raped and then stoned to death
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/04/femen-men-feminism-victor-svyatski
Really good read!
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
