Meagan Murphy demolishes the idea that naked activism is feministI was grateful to have been invited to join a conversation about the future of feminism that looked specifically at the tactics of Ukrainian protest group, FEMEN on Al Jazeera English‘s show The Stream last week.
Inna Shevchenko, the leader of Femen International and Chloe Angyal of Feministing.com were guests on the show and the producers invited feminist bloggers Chrissy D, Ariana Tobin, Sara Yasin, (who are all the best, fyi), and myself to bring in critical perspectives and questions.
The show was pretty packed, discussion-wise, and the producers did a great job of trying to include a wide variety of perspectives on FEMEN’s tactics. That said, there is A LOT more that could be said around some of the issues that came up and comments that made on the show. I personally spent much of my time on the show silently fuming over the, frankly, crazy things Shevchenko was saying.
I’ve written about Femen before, noting that the group seems generally clueless about feminism, past and present, based on statements such as: “We’re the new face of feminism…Classical feminism is dead.” Shevchenko seems to think that FEMEN invented both feminism in the Ukraine as well as the incredibly original, never-been-done-before tactic of women using their naked bodies in order to get people to look at them. They call it ‘sextremism’, I call it the same old shit. What I’ve noted elsewhere is that nude protest, when it comes to women, is a great tactic if your priority is to get media attention, but can be problematic because, often, that is the only way the media will pay attention to women — i.e. if we are performing for the male gaze. Read entire article here.
7 Responses
If Shevchenko’s motive is to gain fully human status for women, she’s going about it in a very strange way.
But I don’t believe that is her motive at all. Like so many other famous “feminists”, I think she’s a rogue ally. She wants to appeal to oppressed women only to lead them straight back into the arms of a (disguised, re-branded) patriarchy.
Want to know the difference between a real feminist and a fake feminist? Here’s a litmus test: The real ones don’t try to trash radical feminism. The fake ones do, because they know the radical feminists will see through their shit and call them on it.
I wrote about naked activism here: http://exiledstardust.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/nakedness-isnt-activism-heres-why/
From a man’s perspective – this group is taking feminism way too far. Surely women can present their cause with modesty, with respect for the cause of anti-sexism and anti-violence, and respect for censorship. What’s more is that the group pushes their political cause to some kind of religousity with the clear statement “our god is woman”. Is this a cult? (Why should “god” even come in to the discussion?”)
If you ask me, extremism need not be the issue. Surely the group can be extreme, and still use some common sense with regard to where they apply it. After all, a feminist with a cause will almost always seem “extreme” to the common conservative irrespective of how she/he voices their cause/opinion.
Not knowing the conditions or reasons that these women stand naked and appearing militant, it is groups like these that cause me to question the integrity of the cause which they fight for.
I suppose the group claims they also thought up the idea to burn their bras in public?
“From a man’s perspective..” AND I stopped reading right there. Mansplaining ALWAYS follows. And, look: I was right. You know nothing about feminism or women’s’ lives. That is blatantly obvious. Yeah… the bra burning thing? A myth.
Ignorant men sure like to comment on things they know nothing about…
… oh, and as if you don’t (along with ALL men) “question the integrity” or anything–namely, feminism–that’s not about YOU.
I liked this article a lot. It is nice to read something that reminds you that not EVERYONE is blind.
Feminists should use methods of communication in keeping with their philosophy. If women are just as intellectually capable as men and worth listening to, then we should demonstrate this by articulate argumentation. Stripping off to get attention is the refuge of those who have no voice – women should not be communicating to the world that they have no voice.
M.K. Hajdin, I enjoyed your piece too.
Xiao Mao,
I know plenty of men (and I am one of them) who defend the rights and abilities of women. I am apposed to women using their bare breasts as a means of defending feminism. It’s provoking sexism. It’s unneccesary. That is my point.
On the unrelated subject of my “mansplaining”. Men who speak up for the rights of women do exist. Of which I would say is the whole reason feminism exists; to sway the minds of the population as a whole to defend the rights of women.
However, I won’t defend FEMEN’s action to protest with nudity.
Xiao Mao: it’s sad to me that you didn’t even want to entertain his opinion exclusively because he’s male. Men can and should be involved with feminist discussions, I feel, and excluding them heightens the supposed “war of the sexes” that only inhibits our cause. It’s generally a bad thing to jump to conclusions like that.
Mark, thanks for weighing in. I also worry that FEMEN’s topless tactics are ultimately distracting from their message, which isn’t strictly linked to a woman’s bodily rights. Contrast this with SlutWalk marches, and how (in my opinion) women walking in next-to-nothing was actually illustrative of their point about rape culture and sexual assault toward women. Of course, for both, the same conversation takes place as to how valid their messages are by illustrating them with the nearly-or-semi-naked female body. I think that’s something to be investigated by us in general–why does the naked female body cheapen those messages?
Maybe those questions are exactly what FEMEN wants us to consider. That may be what they’re actively fighting. But again, I’m not sure how effective it is, as a tactic, for their more specific campaigns.