Some time ago I came across the umpteenth FEMEN protest and I posted the news on my Facebook wall without commenting on it specifically to try to figure out how my friends and acquaintances would react to this “Ukrainian feminist protest movement founded in Kiev in 2008”.
Virtually all the comments to the post were along the lines of “I am not convinced that this is the most appropriate way to protest”, “I can’t make myself like them.” Starting from a position overall quite similar to theirs, yet motivated to learn more about the movement, I wanted to watch the documentary “FEMEN. Ukraine Is Not a Brothel” filmed by Kitty Green.
The documentary is now quite dated: released in 2013, it ends with the possibility for one of the girls to go to France to break free from the paternalistic figure that is linked to the movement that will be discussed in more detail below, which is in effect what then occurred.
This documentary highlighted the lights and shadows of the movement by going to interview members of the organization with simple questions that revealed interesting elements and points that in my opinion are quite controversial:
– The bare-breasted protests: the documentary shows a photograph of a FEMEN demonstration in its beginnings, in which the girls were all dressed. But now one of the characteristics is the display of their naked breasts to reiterate that in Ukraine “naked girls protest and do not sell themselves.” I continue to be of the view that it is possible to demonstrate and fight for one’s ideas without necessarily having to more or less partially undress.
– The funding: quoting the documentary, “we do not know exactly where the money comes from. Especially by men, not only because we are so beautiful but because most of the money in the world belongs to men.” There is something in this statement that I am not convinced about.
– The person at the head of the movement: at the head of FEMEN, whose militant protest “against the patriarchal system in all its forms, against all that violates the human rights of women” was a man, Viktor Sviatsky. Throughout the documentary, Sviatsky defines girls as “submissive and invertebrate, unable to become political activists”. When asked about the possible inconsistency of his patriarchal influence, he refers to the bourgeois origins of Marx and Lenin to justify his role in the organization.
The part of the documentary that shocked me the most was one in which one of the activists described this situation as “Stockholm syndrome” and as psychological addiction, admitting that at least initially the organization needed a male figure that could create a path for the movement “because the world works this way”, and she compares herself and the other militants to a “wife who is dependent on her husband who drinks and beats her.” The situation is quite confusing: on the one hand, the militants claim to fight the patriarchy in its three manifestations: the sexual exploitation of women, dictatorship and religion, on the other hand, they still seem to be daughters of a strongly manly culture when they justify the presence of Viktor in the organization.
On several occasions, the collective movement has resolved this contradiction by stating that the documentary is a past situation, and it doesn’t correspond to the current one and that the help of a male figure was essential at least initially, in addition to having made them understand the reality against which they would have had to fight. As for the discussion regarding the funding, this type of argument convinces me very little and actually makes me even more sceptical of the movement.
– An aspect that is only partially discussed in the documentary is that of communication. While at the time of the documentary it was Viktor who decided how the girls were to present themselves at events, what slogan they were to shout and what was to be written on their bodies, making it seem as if the militants were simply executing his orders, now I think that a fairly significant issue is that of the website. I don’t have much experience in the field, but a little common sense and a degree in communications make me think that even the best and most innovative ideas are not always well transmitted through a website which in my opinion is old-fashioned in terms of graphic and structure.
Overall, the documentary shows the image of a movement that does not seem to be based on a strong idea that is shared by all its members. When asked directly “Is FEMEN feminist?”, none of the girls seem to have a clear-cut answer: they all seem confused, superficial, unconvinced of their ideas and what they are doing. One of the answers was, for example: “Yes, why not?”. Not enough for a “feminist protest movement”, in my opinion.
As mentioned earlier, the movement has currently moved in France and “evolved” by eliminating the figure of Viktor from its ranks as shown in a slightly more recent Vice documentary; we’ll see what happens next.
