I discovered this incredibly powerful 11-minute short film yesterday. It's directed by Éléonore Pourriat and it "shows men how it feels to be subjected to sexism and sexual violence". You can watch it here:
I think this is a remarkable video that tackles sexism in an intense and effective way. It describes an alternative society where it is the women who enjoy all the privileges and the men who are oppressed, discriminated and harassed - a 'matriarchy' instead of the 'patriarchy' we are more familiar with in most societies. In this matriarchal society, the women hold the positions of power and lead professional lives while the men are seen taking care of the children and working as assistants. While women are seen freely jogging and walking in the streets bare-chested, male harassment and abuse is all too frequent. In addition to that, the law and religion states that men should wear a balaclava/head-covering to stay modestly dressed and submitted to their wives. A man wearing bermudas and a short-sleeved shirt is deemed provocative and prone to be assaulted.
-IMPORTANT: The English subtitles mistranslate the original when saying "I can't take this fucking feminist society anymore!" "Feminist" is not the same as "matriarchal", which is how the line should have been translated. Feminism fights for women's rights in a patriarchal society and, by extent, it fights for equality for both women and men (in the film, the word "masculinist" is used as the equivalent of "feminist" in a matriarchal society). Feminism, real feminism (unlike what so many people, brainwashed, confused and prejudiced by patriarchal influences, think), doesn't want women's superiority or the creation of a matriarchal society where women would rule, hold all privileges and, by extent, oppress the "opposite sex", in this case the men. A matriarchal society is inherently anti-feminist. ie. anti equality, same as a patriarchal society. The (very low amount, MRAs) of women who want to have dominion over men and oppress them, and call themselves 'feminists', are using the wrong term (there are extremists and fanatics in practically every group, but still, wrong usage, they're "pro-matriarchy", not "feminists").
As a feminist, I am always at the side of the oppressed in a group. In a patriarchal-based society, as is this one, I side with the women and fight for women's rights, not only because I myself can be oppressed, but because I'm also an INFJ and an activist at heart, and I don't like that other women be oppressed as well (and I do not try to oppress men or take rights from them, nor do I hate the men who mean well). But in a hypothetical matriarchy as this one, I would totally side with the men - because this time they're the ones who are being oppressed and treated in an unfair way. I completely empathise with the male character, a man who's being oppressed in a female-dominated society and who tries to be himself and fight for his rights. How is that "pro-women's superiority" and "man-hating"? I'm just pro-equality.
So, no matter what the mistranslated subtitle may suggest, this video is nothing but incredibly feminist because it helps address sexism and oppression. By no means does it exalt a society where women oppress men. The gender-reversed alternative society serves as a powerful way to show men (and the women who have bought into the patriarchy's lies) how it feels to be oppressed by the opposite sex and how it is to suffer intense sexism and harassment virtually on a daily basis. Hopefully by seeing it with themselves as the oppressed, they'll be able to begin to realize just how wrong and unfair it is to oppress and harass anyone.
This is by no means unimportant. I'm not saying that every man harasses and/or oppresses women, but it's frightening how so many people seem to take for granted so many mysoginistic aspects of our patriarcal-based modern societies. Practically everything - harassment, sexual assault, obligatory body coverings, and so many other things -are not taken seriously or given some sort of excuse or explanation. "Boys will be boys/men can't control themselves". "Look what she was wearing, she was asking for it!". "You can't take compliments!". "You don't have any sense of humour". "But it's religious freedom, she's covering herself because she chooses to!". "They have to cover themselves so that men aren't tempted, it's for their protection, that way they won't get assaulted". So many excuses. Too many.
I wonder if people, watching this video, would have thought that the main character was "asking for it" when he was being harassed repeatedly and assaulted. For having the nerve to go out in a pair of bermudas and short-sleeved shirt! I wonder if they would have thought that it wasn't weird or shocking to see the women to be running bare-chested without opposition (because in a patriarchy we're certainly not accustomed to that). I wonder if they would have thought that the men covering themselves because the law and religion and their wives ordered them to were choosing freely, that this had any logical basis, that this wasn't oppressive. Somehow, I highly doubt it. Then, why so many people think otherwise when it is the women being forced to cover themselves up, or being assaulted when happening to wear a short skirt and tank top? When men run or bathe bare-chested, do we see this as weird, as a provocation and an excuse to assault them? I don't think so.
Oppression is wrong in these two paralell societies, in exactly the same way. And by seeing this paralell comparisons, hopefully this film will help more people realize just how unfair, illogical and wrong our patriarchal mysoginistic problems are.
I wonder if people, watching this video, would have thought that the main character was "asking for it" when he was being harassed repeatedly and assaulted. For having the nerve to go out in a pair of bermudas and short-sleeved shirt! I wonder if they would have thought that it wasn't weird or shocking to see the women to be running bare-chested without opposition (because in a patriarchy we're certainly not accustomed to that). I wonder if they would have thought that the men covering themselves because the law and religion and their wives ordered them to were choosing freely, that this had any logical basis, that this wasn't oppressive. Somehow, I highly doubt it. Then, why so many people think otherwise when it is the women being forced to cover themselves up, or being assaulted when happening to wear a short skirt and tank top? When men run or bathe bare-chested, do we see this as weird, as a provocation and an excuse to assault them? I don't think so.
Oppression is wrong in these two paralell societies, in exactly the same way. And by seeing this paralell comparisons, hopefully this film will help more people realize just how unfair, illogical and wrong our patriarchal mysoginistic problems are.
-About the "controversial" issue of head and body coverings: I wouldn't have a say about someone covering themselves up if they really did it because they wanted to, as a pure fashion statement, or because of the weather, or what have you. Same as I wear scarves in Winter and only wear my arms and legs bare when it's reasonably hot. And same as I don't always choose to wear deep necklines. Same as someone might choose to wear a turban one day and their hair loose the next day. Even if they wanted to wear a turban/covering every day, but for reasons that weren't gendered or compulsory. Because people seem to forget that, in this case, there is the belief that women's bodies are inherently shameful and have to be modestly covered, and that they are the property of men and have to be kept as "wrapped candy", only to be unwrapped by their 'rightful owner'. Ew.
I generally defend everyone's right to wear what they like, but these reasons and beliefs, these are so inherently mysoginistic and oppressive, I am very openly against gendered and enforced body coverings. Sue me. I do not see it as a 'freedom of choice'. I do not see it as 'religious freedom'. I only see oppression and misogyny.
I generally defend everyone's right to wear what they like, but these reasons and beliefs, these are so inherently mysoginistic and oppressive, I am very openly against gendered and enforced body coverings. Sue me. I do not see it as a 'freedom of choice'. I do not see it as 'religious freedom'. I only see oppression and misogyny.
Very well, very well expressed and explained. Good for you, Ríona. I totally agree with you!
ReplyDeleteThank you, glad you agree :)
DeleteOooh, I also found it weird that they would say "feminist" when I first watched it, but since I don't know French I didn't know it was just a mistranslation! Good to know :)
ReplyDeleteAlso, the image you link to in the bonus comment doesn't seem to work. Was it this one?
I found it interesting that when I went to Egypt in 2006, you could see the women in the cities in a very European style with few of them covered, but in the rural areas it was more common, especially the elder ones. The guide told us that in the past, the women who were uncovered were the concubines, dancers and sex slaves, so being covered meant you were a respected woman who could afford to show your body only to your husband instead of being forced to display it in front of everyone. It was an interesting twist to the story that I had never heard before, and maybe it adds an extra cultural baggage to the "choice" of being covered that we don't usually take into consideration here. Maybe for some of them having the head uncovered is like going around bare-chested.
But on the other side, one day someone linked to a forum where Spanish Muslim girls were discussing the issue and when defending their right to have their head covered, everything they said was only how happy it made them to show submission to Allah and how the rest of people just couldn't understand… :-/
So none of the cultural factors that I saw in Egypt seemed to really matter there, just the ones you already discuss in the post…
So anyway, it was a very interesting read, and of course I agree completely. Apologies for the long comment!
Yes, it was that link, thanks for letting me know the other is faulty :)
Delete"being covered meant you were a respected woman who could afford to show your body only to your husband instead of being forced to display it in front of everyone"
In my opinion, this is in itself an extremely mysoginistic message for women, and one of the reasons why I'm firmly opposed to religious and/or cultural veiling and body coverings that don't include 'weather' or 'usefulness' into the reasons why they exist (as in covering your head, nose and mouth to travel through the desert in order to protect yourself from the Sun, the dust and the sand, for example. Plus, 'weather' and 'usefulness' reasons are never gendered). This kind of religious and 'traditional/cultural' body coverings are a product of patriarchal societies and rely heavily on the idea that 1) A woman's body is sinful and must be covered in order not to tempt males, 2) Women's bodies are objects, 3) Males OWN women's bodies, so women are only allowed to show them to their 'owner' or to certain people, always with the consent of the 'owner'. If this isn't mysoginistic, I really don't know what is! It's a very different thing to wear a turban or a head covering for utility or PURELY fashion reasons than to wear them because some males' religious book or traditions tell you that your body is sinful, belongs to men and must be covered at all times. Plus that you must be submissive to every male on earth and subject to their every whim.
Some people seem to think (not talking about you here :) ) that something such as this can be excused because of 'cultural factors' or 'reasons' that must be respected and tolerated, or because it's part of a religion, which must also be tolerated. Since last I looked, there are a lot of sick, anti-humanity stuff in cultural traditions and religious commandments! Why should we be tolerating those?
They also love to flash people the 'personal choice' card. A choice doesn't come from the void, it comes from a culture and a particular mindset. There are many women who are covered against their will, and there is also a frightening number of women who seemingly cover themselves 'because they choose to'. The fact that a woman 'chooses' something does not make that choice 'feminist' or 'pro-human rights'. Not at all. Many people and many women choose things that are potentially sexist, racist, homophobic, you name it. This particular choice to cover themselves because their culture or their religion tells them to does nothing but promote sexism and mysoginy, in my opinion, and the fact that there are women so utterly brainwashed to choose this, and happily, makes me pretty scared about humanity, to tell the truth. This is why I will never feel like I have to 'like', 'respect' or 'tolerate' a woman who's promoting the submission and cosification of women 'by choice'.
I hope I don't sound too angry. This topic does make me seethe :D!
Ah, I didn't mean it wasn't still misogynistic, of course. Just that what I understood up until that day as being "forced to cover up" might be seen by them as "free to cover up", and I didn't expect it.
DeleteBut yes, these ways of thinking still stem from sexist values like considering that the purpose of the female body is to please men, or that the right to see the body of a woman belongs to a man in some way. Choices made after being conditioning by a sexist culture can't be dismissed as "non-sexist" because they were a "personal choice", as you say :)
Yes...The sad thing about it is that they grow up brainwashed with this kind of mindset and equate 'freedom', 'choice', 'security' and 'reputation' with being covered up, thinking that they will be considered 'respectable' and 'decent' (because women who are uncovered don't respect the fact that their body belongs to an specific man or men, and because, given that their body is inherently sinful, it's 'indecent' to be uncovered anyway), and also that they will not be attacked if they're covered up because they won't be 'tempting' men (a very much used pro-veiling argument, but a complete fallacy, because women in veils and burkas DO get harassed and raped, and very often). It's scary how much patriarchy is in control in these kind of societies, making women think they're the 'indecent' and 'tempting' ones, while men are entitled to harass, rape, control, and subjugate them in any way :/. It's both frighteningly cunning and cowardly the way they blame women while getting away wth their sick mysoginy...
Delete