-
Articles récents
- Le pouvoir magique de l’argent des hommes en matière de viol.
- Quand c’est pas OUI, c’est NON. Et si le OUI est vicié, c’est aussi du viol.
- DWL Dégage !
- Leur domination : pour eux, un sport comme un autre.
- A tyranny that is part of our everyday life.
- The Need for Revolutionary Feminism
- Postmodernism : lies & death of our movement
- Postmodernism : lies & death of our movement (2)
- Forcer le siège ou continuer à mourir
- BDSM, not about consent (2)
- Soutenir la PPL de l’AVFT sur le harcèlement sexuel
- Si porter plainte contre nos agresseurs est impossible …
- Vous « féministes », réponse au manifeste d’Elsa Dorlin & Eleni Varikas (2)
- Protégé : Marches à l’ombre des sex-positiv.
- Violences masculines, entretien avec Christine Delphy & Patrizia Romito.
- BIG Porn INC. La Nausée.
- Pornographie : terrorisme public et privé, une plaidoirie magistrale de Andrea Dworkin
- Entrisme viril dans les Take Back The night à l’université de Comlumbia
- Une loi digne pour les victimes d’inceste
- French feminists protest abrogation of anti-sexual harassment law
- Réédition des Questions féministes
- Protégé : Tenons à bout de bras nos rêves jusqu’à juillet ….
- Vous « féministes » … réponse au manifeste sex-positiv d’Elsa Dorlin et Eleni Varikas
- Women, Human ? Are You kidding ?
- Nous portons plainte contre le Conseil Constitutionnel pour mise en danger des victimes
- Quand les agresseurs brament, la clique virile se mobilise.
- si Playboy de papa se fait vieux, ses fils ont de la vigueur, et nous sommes toutes sur leur liste
- L’anatomie politique des damnées du sexe in Pornoland
- BDSM : not about consent, but about rape !
- Are Women Human ? – 2
- Ils agressent, puis ils dénoncent la loi qui les condamne !
- Leurs fleurs pour acheter notre silence, jusqu’à la tombe.
- Protégé : de mémoires et de lumière.
- Mémorial pour les mortes … Pour mémoire, les combats de survivantes.
- Contrainte à l’hétérosexualité et syndrome de Stockholm sociétal
- Leur haine n’a rien de personnel, disent-ils. Ou comment les dominants construisent l’objectivité pour nous imposer leur réalité
- Pourquoi demande-t-on aux victimes de parler plutôt qu’aux coupables d’arrêter ?
- Les Cents Voix ! Pas de justice, pas de paix !
- Liberté d’expression ? Qui parle ? De qui ? Et en quels termes ?!
- Un espoir pour les victimes de torture domestique
Liens
- A Radical Feminist collective Blog
- Against Pornography
- Andrea Dworkin audio & video
- Andrea Dworkin Web Site, library
- AVFT, contre les violences sexuelles et sexistes au travail
- bibliothèque féministe
- Blog A dire d'elles
- Blog d'une survivante de la prostitution
- blog féministe radical, FR-EN
- Christine Delphy, blog
- Coalition Against Trafficking in Women – CATW
- Coalition for a Feminist Agenda
- Collectif Féministe contre le viol. Accueil téléphonique.
- Les Entrailles de Mademoiselle
- Lieux d'accueil & centres d'hébergements
- London Feminist Network
- Marie Victoire Louis. Textes féministes historiques et textes de l'auteure.
- Mémoire Traumatique et Victimologie
- Oeuvres d'Andrea Dworkin
- Outils théoriques et pratiques de lutte féministe
- Poppy Project
- Pour construire une société sans prostitution
- Prostitution & Child Labor Abolitionnist
- Prostitution Research
- radicalhub
- Reclaim The Night, in London
- Sisyphe, un regard féministe sur le monde
- SOS Femmes
- Survivre à la prostitution et à l'addiction
- VIOL : Pas de justice, Pas de paix !
Pages
- À propos
- Actualités
- Are Women Human ?
- Bibliothèque
- outils d’actions féministes contre les violences masculines
- Psychâneries & autres opiums
- Radical Voices
- Remember, Resist, Do not comply
- Solidarités
- Articule mieux, j’entends pas que t’es féministe !
- Briser tous les écrans que forment les hommes en nous et entre nous.
- Le féminisme est possible
- RadFem Blogs
- Solidarité avec les abolitionnistes
- Solidarité avec les féministes-1
- Solidarité avec les témoignages bouleversants de la campagne Pas de justice Pas de paix
- Solidarité avec Sheila Jeffreys, victime du front activiste sex-positiv.
- The men’s rape code.
- Songes du lendemain
- Subaltern tools
Catégories
- AFP (4)
- arnaque (23)
- couple (9)
- crime contre l'humanité (9)
- féminisme (16)
- industries (24)
- masculinité (34)
- mensonges pro-sexe (22)
- Non classé (4)
- sex-positiv (17)
- viol (27)
Mots-clefs
abolitionnisme AFP arnaque consentement conspiration des oreilles bouchées crime contre l'humanité discours de haine droits minoritaires industries liberté sexuelle mariage masculinité oppression pressions industrielles prostitution PTSD réglementarisme silence de mortes stratégie de l'agresseur travail utopie violMéta
Soutenir la PPL de l’AVFT sur le harcèlement sexuel
Publié dans féminisme, viol
Marqué avec conspiration des oreilles bouchées, droits minoritaires, travail, viol
Laisser un commentaire
Si porter plainte contre nos agresseurs est impossible …
… alors portons plainte pour complicité contre toutes leurs institutions : famille, système scolaire, couple, police, armées (légitimes ou parallèles), justice, marchés (du commerce, du travail et du « sexe »), état, nation, unions nationales, religion, etc.
__________
__________
___
__________
__________
Publié dans arnaque, féminisme, masculinité, viol
Marqué avec conspiration des oreilles bouchées, droits minoritaires, mariage, silence de mortes, stratégie de l'agresseur, travail, viol
Laisser un commentaire
Vous « féministes », réponse au manifeste d’Elsa Dorlin & Eleni Varikas (2)
Victim. The term is not moral: who is to blame or to be pitied or condemned or held responsible. It is not prescriptive: what we should do next. It is not strategic: how to construe the situation so it can be changed. It is not emotional: what one feels better thinking. It is descriptive: who does what to whom and gets away with it.
Catharine MacKinnon (1989) « Toward a Feminist Theory of the State », H .U.P., p.138
___
Qui sommes »nous féministes », Femmes en résistance
Publié dans arnaque, féminisme, industries, masculinité, mensonges pro-sexe, sex-positiv, viol
Marqué avec arnaque, conspiration des oreilles bouchées, pressions industrielles, stratégie de l'agresseur, viol
Laisser un commentaire
Protégé : Marches à l’ombre des sex-positiv.
Publié dans arnaque, industries, mensonges pro-sexe, sex-positiv
Marqué avec liberté sexuelle, pressions industrielles, stratégie de l'agresseur
Saisissez votre mot de passe pour accéder aux commentaires.
BIG Porn INC. La Nausée.
have read too much about pornography. I have read too much and I am crying as I am writing this. I shouldn’t have to read about pornography. I shouldn’t need to know, I shouldn’t need to care, because there are things that should not ever happen to any woman or girl in this world. I shouldn’t be sitting here at midnight crying about a little 2 year old girl, the images of her rape, and wondering about her fate. Wondering how many men masturbated to the video of her rape, felt pleasure at the sound of her pelvic bone cracking.
am scared of reading about pornography. I have images burned into my mind after reading Pornland by Gail Dines. I cannot erase these images. They are seared there and I will live with them for life, and I simply cannot imagine surviving that kind of abuse. I read and hear about the heart-breaking, soul-crushing tortures that so many girls and women are subjected to and we call it porn. Porn. As if that word can even begin to describe the horror that is pornography. [lire la suite]
______
are here because of an emergency. You all know that. We’re here wanting to speak about the progress we’ve made, but knowing that women are not any safer from rape now than when we started out. I’m glad that the Canadian Mental Health Association is concerned with our health. Because I, for one, am sick to death. I am sick from the numbers of women who are being brutalized and raped and sodomized. Who are being killed, who are missing. Who in a women’s culture of non-violence don’t hurt the people who are hurting us. We do take our own lives. We do commit suicide. So many women I have known have spent every day of their lives fighting to stay alive, because of the despair they carry around with them from the sexual abuse that they have experienced in their lives. And these are brave women. And these are strong women. And these are creative women. These are women who thought that they had a right to dignity, to individuality, to freedom, to creativity, and in fact, they couldn’t even walk down a city block in freedom. Many of them were raped as children in their own homes, by relatives. By their fathers, by their uncles, by their brothers, before they were, quote, women. Many of them were beaten by the men who loved them. Their husbands, by lovers. Many of them were tortured by those men and when you look at what happened to these women, you say Amnesty International where are you? Where are you? Because the prisons for women are our homes. We live under martial law. We live in places in which a rape culture exists. That is a women’s home, where she lives. Men have to be sent to prison, to live in a culture that is as rapist as the normal home in North America. We live under what amounts to a military curfew. Enforced by rapists. And we say usually that we’re free citizens in a free society. We lie. We lie, we lie everyday about it.
survive through amnesia. By not remembering what happened to us. By being unable to remember the name of the woman who was in the newspaper yesterday. Who was walking somewhere and was missing. What was her name? I am sick to death of not being able to remember the names. There are too many of them. I can’t remember them. There’s one name especially I can never remember. The woman who was raped, gang raped on the pool table in New Bedford, Massachusetts. By four men while everyone in the bar stood and watched and cheered and so on. That woman died in an accident. The kind of accident the police will always call suicide, within one year after the trial for rape. It wasn’t news to anyone. Three months before this woman was raped on that pool table, Hustler ran a spread of a woman being gang raped on a pool table. Everything that was done to the woman in the pornography was done to that woman, in that bar, that night. After the New Bedford gang rape, Hustler ran a photograph of a woman in a pornographic pose, made like a greeting card, sitting on a pool table, saying Welcome to New Bedford. The rape trial was televised in the United States. The ratings beat out the soap operas. In the United States, people watched it as entertainment every day. The woman was driven out of town. Even though the rapists were convicted. And within one year she was dead and I can’t remember her name, no matter how hard I try. Hollywood made a movie, called « The Accused. » A brilliant movie, an incredible movie, in which Jodie Foster, through her artistry and creativity, shows us that a woman is a human being. And it takes two hours to establish for a main stream audience that in fact, that’s true, so that at the point, when we reach the gang rape, we understand that someone, someone, someone has been hurt in a way that goes beyond the sum of the physical brutalities that were done to her. The Hollywood version had a happy ending. The voyeurs were convicted of having incited the rape. And the woman triumphed. And I sat in the theatre thinking, « But she’s dead. What’s her name? Why can’t I remember her name?«
______
Féminisme Radical
Andrea DWORKIN, Woman Hating- A Radical Look at Sexuality 1974
Andrea DWORKIN, Pornography, Men Possessing Women 1981
Andrea Dworkin, Heartbreak- The Political Memoir of a Feminist Militant. 2002. 2007
Andrea DWORKIN, Catharine MacKINNON. In Harm’s Way, The Pornography Civil Rights Hearings, 1997
Catharine MacKinnon, not a moral issue
Catharine MacKinnon Feminism Unmodified. Discourses on life and law
MacKinnon, Sexuality, Pornography, and Method – Pleasure under Patriarchy
Betty McLellan, Pornography and the Myth of Free Speech
Diana Russell & alii Making Violence Sexy. Feminist Views on Pornography
_______________
Critiques anti-sexistes.
Richard Poulin La violence pornographique industrie du fantasme et réalités
Richard Poulin Pornographisation et sexualisation précoce
Richard POULIN, La pornographie, les jeunes, l’adocentrisme.
Richard POULIN 50 ans après la naissance de PlayBoy, La tyrannie du nouvel ordre sexuel
Publié dans arnaque, féminisme, industries, masculinité, mensonges pro-sexe, sex-positiv, viol
Marqué avec abolitionnisme, discours de haine, liberté sexuelle, masculinité, pressions industrielles, prostitution, PTSD, silence de mortes, stratégie de l'agresseur, utopie, viol
Un commentaire
Pornographie : terrorisme public et privé, une plaidoirie magistrale de Andrea Dworkin
une magnifique conférence :
Andrea Dworkin’s Keynote Speech at a January 1985 Pornography Awareness conference at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. (1 hour, 128 Kbps, mp3).
transcription : Andrea Dworkin, Keynote Speech, 1985
(homepage : http://andreadworkin.com/index.html )
Elle aborde :
- le contenu des films pornographiques ;
- ce qu’est la pornographie en terme politique : une attaque de nos droits fondamentaux protégée par des principes constitutionnels (toute image d’humiliation et de maltraitance, jusqu’à la torture, commises contre une femme, est protégée par les deux labels légaux du « divertissement » et du « free speech ») ;
- l’indécence sexiste qui motive les recherches sur l’impact de la pornographie sur « les gens » (ie sur les hommes) ;
- la non pertinence de la notion de consentement pour qualifier le préjudice subi par la victime ;
- définition claire et simple de la subordination ; du silence politique ; de la censure ;
- rappel historique sur le premier amendement, et son but : protéger les droits de propriété esclavagiste qu’avaient ses pères fondateurs ;
- dénonciation de l’incompatibilité radicale qui existe entre existence de la pornographie et garantie de droits fondamentaux ;
- explication rapide de l’intérêt politique, du contenu et des limites de l’amendemant de la loi, définissant la pornographie comme une forme de discrimination sexiste, et donnant la possiblité de poursuivre les pornographes qui auraient obtenu leurs images par la contrainte – les images du viol font désormais partie du viol et ne relèvent plus de la liberté d’expression des pornographes.
Cet amendement est un exemple à suivre si nous voulons contrer la machine de guerre armée et dressée contre nous par les pornographes.
Publié dans féminisme, industries, masculinité, mensonges pro-sexe, viol
Marqué avec abolitionnisme, arnaque, crime contre l'humanité, discours de haine, droits minoritaires, masculinité, oppression, pressions industrielles, prostitution, silence de mortes, stratégie de l'agresseur, utopie, viol
Laisser un commentaire
Entrisme viril dans les Take Back The night à l’université de Comlumbia
L’infiltration « queer » est démodée, maintenant des hommes, pur boeuf, réclament de participer à nos marches TBTN !! A lire les arguties psychologisantes qu’avancent désormais les organisatrices au lieu d’argumenter politiquement sur la non-mixité !
En France par contre, l’infiltration queer sex-positiv bât son plein ; voici deux tracts édifiants sur leur rhétorique : action politique réduite à des actes de nommination de soi (identités politiques vidées de leur sens, jugements moraux ou insulte) ou d’adversaires(jugements moraux et insultes) ; solidarité identitaire fédérée aussi bien par des insultes que par des attitudes ou choix vestimentaires, que par des séquelles de violences politiques ; le tout formant un inventaire irréaliste ; absence totale de dénonciation des violences sexuelles, ou sinon, noyées comme dans la soupe, à côté de l’obligation de jouer à la poupée et accusation des hétérosexuelles.
_________________
Pour contraste, voici « Reclaim the Night Speech » prononcé le 30 octobre 2011, par Allecto.
This is a speech I gave at Reclaim the Night Perth, 28th October 2011.
Women are a colonised people. Under male supremacy, our original selves are forcibly buried and we are reshaped, our Selves conditioned for use and abuse by the men who occupy us. And this is a truly encompassing occupation. They not only occupy our time and energy, they infiltrate and invade, they alter what it is we believe about ourselves, they construct our identities from birth into being for them.
Under male supremacy, rape and sexual violence is the fabric of the culture in which we live. Women’s purpose is shaped according to what men value about us. We are valued in accordance with our fuckability, our submissiveness, our conformity to their value system which posits women as whores. We are vulnerable, we are penetrable, we are for use and abuse, we are colonised and we are for men.
Men construct the world around this value system. They buy and sell women and girls as sex and call it prostitution. They create degraded images of women being hurt and fucked and raped and call it pornography. Women and girls survive this occupation. We see ourselves starving and trussed up in shop windows, on the sides of buses, on newsstands and in the grocery store. And we survive this. We see little girls wearing Playboy bracelets, young women and girls being branded by the sex industry, stamped as whores, stamped as being owned. And we are still surviving this.
Tonight we are reclaiming more than the night. We are reclaiming ourselves. We are saying, loudly and clearly, “no woman is a whore”. And we are standing with every woman who has been beaten, every woman who has been raped and we are reclaiming ourselves. Men have shaped our realities for far too long, it is time we take back what is ours.
see that no matter what you have done i am still here. and it has made me dangerous, and wise. and brother, you cannot whore, perfume, and suppress me anymore. i have my own business in this skin and on this planet. Gail Murray
___________________________
Pour rappel, les deux magnifiques allocutions de Andrea Dworkin.
The Night and Danger
1979
The Night and Danger was written as a Take Back the Night speech. In New Haven, Connecticut, 2000 women marched. Street prostitutes joined the March and old women in old age homes came out on balconies with lit candles. In Old Dominion, Virginia, blacks and whites, women and men, gays and straights, in the hundreds, joined together in the first political march ever held in Old Dominion, an oligarchal, conservative stronghold, as the name suggests. People marched fourteen miles, as if they didn’t want to miss a footpath, under threat of losing their jobs and with the threat of police violence. In Calgary, Canada, women were arrested for demonstrating without a permit, the irony that a March is the safest way (arrests notwithstanding) for women to go out at night lost on the police but not on the women. In Los Angeles, California, the tail end of a double line of 2000 women walking on sidewalks was attacked by men in cars. I don’t know how many times I gave this speech, but in giving it I have seen North America and met some of the bravest people around. The Night and Danger has never been published before.
A Take Back the Night March goes right to our emotional core. We women are especially supposed to be afraid of the night. The night promises harm to women. For a woman to walk on the street at night is not only to risk abuse, but also–according to the values of male domination–to ask for it. The woman who transgresses the boundaries of night is an outlaw who breaks an elementary rule of civilized behavior: a decent woman does not go out–certainly not alone, certainly not onlywith other women–at night. A woman out in the night, not on a leash, is thought to be a slut or an uppity bitch who does not know her place. The policemen of the night–rapists and other prowling men–have the right to enforce the laws of the night: to stalk the female and to punish her. We have all been chased, and many of us have been caught. A woman who knows the rules of civilized society knows that she must hide from the night. But even when the woman, like a good girl, locks herself up and in, night threatens to intrude. Outside are the predators who will crawl in the windows, climb down drainpipes, pick the locks, descend from skylights, to bring the night with them. These predators are romanticized in, for instance, vampire movies. The predators become mist and curl through barely visible cracks. They bring with them sex and death. Their victims recoil, resist sex, resist death, until, overcome by the thrill of it all, they spread their legs and bare their necks and fall in love. Once the victim has fully submitted, the night holds no more terror, because the victim is dead. She is very lovely, very feminine, and very dead. This is the essence of so-called romance, which is rape embellished with meaningful looks.
Night is the time of romance. Men, like their adored vampires, go a-courting. Men, like vampires, hunt. Night licenses so-called romance and romance boils down to rape: forced entry into the domicile which is sometimes the home, always the body and what some call the soul. The female is solitary and/or sleeping. The male drinks from her until he is sated or until she is dead. The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used. All distinctions of will and personality are obliterated and we are supposed to believe that the night, not the rapist, does the obliterating.
Men use the night to erase us. It was Casanova, whom men reckon an authority, who wrote that « when the lamp is taken away, all women are alike. » 1The annihilation of a woman’s personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality, and so the night is the sacred time of male sexual celebration because it is dark and in the dark it is easier not to see: not to see who she is. Male sexuality, drunk on its intrinsic contempt for all life, but especially for women’s lives, can run wild, hunt down random victims, use the dark for cover, find in the dark solace, sanction, and sanctuary.
Night is magical for men. They look for prostitutes and pick-ups at night. They do their so-called lovemaking at night. They get drunk and roam the streets in packs at night. They fuck their wives at night. They have their fraternity parties at night. They commit their so-called seductions at night. They dress up in white sheets and burn crosses at night. The infamous Crystal Night, when German Nazis firebombed and vandalized and broke the windows of Jewish shops and homes throughout Germany–the Crystal Night, named after the broken glass that covered Germany when the night had ended–the Crystal Night, when the Nazis beat up or killed all the Jews they could find, all the Jews who had not locked themselves in securely enough–the Crystal Night that foreshadowed the slaughter to come–is the emblematic night. The values of the day become the obsessions of the night. Any hated group fears the night, because in the night all the despised are treated as women are treated: as prey, targeted to be beaten or murdered or sexually violated. We fear the night because men become more dangerous in the night.
In the United States, with its distinctly racist character, the very fear of the dark is manipulated, often subliminally, into fear of black, of black men in particular, so that the traditional association between rape and black men that is our national heritage is fortified. In this context, the imagery of black night suggests that black is inherently dangerous. In this context, the association of night, black men, and rape becomes an article of faith. Night, the time of sex, becomes also the time of race–racial fear and racial hatred. The black male, in the South hunted at night to be castrated and/or lynched, becomes in the racist United States the carrier of danger, the carrier of rape. The use of a racially despised type of male as a scapegoat, a symbolic figure embodying the sexuality of all men, is a common male-supremacist strategy. Hitler did the same to the Jewish male. In the urban United States, the prostitute population is disproportionately made up of black women, streetwalkers who inhabit the night, prototypical female figures, again scapegoats, symbols carrying the burden of male-defined female sexuality, of woman as commodity. And so, among the women, night is the time of sex and also of race: racial exploitation and sexual exploitation are fused, indivisible. Night and black: sex and race: the black men are blamed for what all men do; the black women are used as all women are used, but they are singularly and intensely punished by law and social mores; and to untangle this cruel knot, so much a part of each and every night, we will have to take back the night so that it cannot be used to destroy us by race or by sex.
Night means, for all women, a choice: danger or confinement. Confinement is most often dangerous too–battered women are confined, a woman raped in marriage is likely to be raped in her own home. But in confinement, we are promised a lessening of danger, and in confinement we try to avoid danger. The herstory of women has been one of confinement: physical limitation, binding, movement forbidden, action punished. Now, again, everywhere we turn, the feet of women are bound. A woman tied up is the literal emblem of our condition, and everywhere we turn, we see our condition celebrated: women in bondage, tied and bound. Actor George Hamilton, one of the new Count Draculae, asserts that « [e]very woman fantasizes about a dark stranger who manacles her. Women don’t have fantasies about marching with Vanessa Redgrave. » 2 He doesn’t seem to realize that we do have fantasies about Vanessa Redgrave marching with us. The erotic celebration of women in bondage is the religion of our time; and sacred literature and devotional films, like the bound foot, are everywhere. The significance of bondage is that it forbids freedom of movement. Hannah Arendt wrote that « [o]f all the specific liberties which may come into our minds when we hear the word ‘freedom,’ freedom of movement is historically the oldest and also the most elementary. Being able to depart for where we will is the prototypal gesture of being free, as limitation of freedom of movement has from time immemorial been the precondition for enslavement. Freedom of movement is also the indispensable condition for action, and it is in action that men primarily experience freedom in the world. » 3 The truth is that men do experience freedom of movement and freedom in action and that women do not. We must recognize that freedom of movement is a precondition for freedom of anything else. It comes before freedom of speech in importance because without it freedom of speech cannot in fact exist. So when we women struggle for freedom, we must begin at the beginning and fight for freedom of movement, which we have not had and do not now have. In reality, we are not allowed out after dark. In some parts of the world, women are not allowed out at all but we, in this exemplary democracy, are permitted to totter around, half crippled, during the day, and for this, of course, we must be grateful. Especially we must be grateful because jobs and safety depend on the expression of gratitude through cheerful conformity, sweet passivity, and submission artfully designed to meet the particular tastes of the males we must please. We must be grateful–unless we are prepared to resist confinement–to resist being locked in and tied up–to resist being bound and gagged and used and kept and kept in and pinned down and conquered and taken and possessed and decked out like toy dolls that have to be wound up to move at all. We must be grateful–unless we are prepared to resist the images of women tied and bound and humiliated and used. We must be grateful unless we are prepared to demand–no, to take–freedom of movement for ourselves because we know it to be a precondition for every other freedom that we must want if we want freedom at all. We must be grateful–unless we are willing to say with the Three Marias of Portugal: « Enough./It is time to cry: Enough. And to form a barricade with our bodies. » 4
I think that we have been grateful for the small favors of men long enough. I think that we are sick to death of being grateful. lt is as if we are forced to play Russian roulette; each night, a gun is placed against our temples. Each day, we are strangely grateful to be alive. Each day we forget that one night it will be our turn, the random will no longer be random but specific and personal, it will be me or it will be you or it will be someone that we love perhaps more than we love ourselves. Each day we forget that we barter everything we have and get next to nothing in return. Each day we make do, and each night we become captive or outlaw–likely to be hurt either way. It is time to cry « Enough, » but it is not enough to cry « Enough. » We must use our bodies to say « Enough »–we must form a barricade with our bodies, but the barricade must move as the ocean moves and be formidable as the ocean is formidable. We must use our collective strength and passion and endurance to take back this night and every night so that life will be worth living and so that human dignity will be a reality. What we do here tonight is that simple, that difficult, and that important.
__________
1. Giacomo Casanova, History of My Life, trans. Willard R. Trask (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971), Vol. 11, p. 15. 2. Jean Cox Penn and Jill Barber, « The New Draculas Become the Kinkiest Sex Symbols Ever, » Us, Vol. III, No. 7, p. 27. 3. Hannah Arendt, Men In Dark Times (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), p. 9. 4. Maria Isabel Barreno, Maria Teresa Horta, and Maria Velho da Costa, The Three Marias: New Portuguese Letters, trans. Helen R. Lane (New York: Bantam Books, 1976), p. 275.
___________
Part III
TAKE BACK THE DAY
I Want a Twenty-Four-Hour Truce During Which There Is
No Rape
1983
This was a speech given at the Midwest Regional Conference of the National Organization for Changing Men in the fall of 1983 in St Paul, Minnesota. One of the organizers kindly sent me a tape and a transcript of my speech. The magazine of the men’s movement, M., published it. I was teaching in Minneapolis. This was before Catharine MacKinnon and I had proposed or developed the civil rights approach to pornography as a legislative strategy. Lots of people were in the audience who later became key players in the fight for the civil rights bill. I didn’t know them then. It was an audience of about 500 men, with scattered women. I spoke from notes and was actually on my way to Idaho–an eight-hour trip each way (because of bad air connections) to give a one-hour speech on Art–fly out Saturday, come back Sunday, can’t talk more than one hour or you’ll miss the only plane leaving that day, you have to run from the podium to the car for the two-hour drive to the plane. Why would a militant feminist under this kind of pressure stop off on her way to the airport to say hi to 500 men? In a sense, this was a feminist dream-come-true. What would you say to 500 men if you could? This is what I said, how I used my chance. The men reacted with considerable love and support and also with considerable anger. Both. I hurried out to get my plane, the first hurdle for getting to Idaho. Only one man in the 500 threatened me physically. He was stopped by a woman bodyguard (and friend) who had accompanied me.
I have thought a great deal about how a feminist, like myself, addresses an audience primarily of political men who say that they are antisexist. And I thought a lot about whether there should be a qualitative difference in the kind of speech I address to you. And then I found myself incapable of pretending that I really believe that that qualitative difference exists. I have watched the men’s movement for many years. I am close with some of the people who participate in it. I can’t come here as a friend even though I might very much want to. What I would like to do is to scream: and in that scream I would have the screams of the raped, and the sobs of the battered; and even worse, in the center of that scream I would have the deafening sound of women’s silence, that silence into which we are born because we are women and in which most of us die.
And if there would be a plea or a question or a human address in that scream, it would be this: why are you so slow? Why are you so slow to understand the simplest things; not the complicated ideological things. You understand those. The simple things. The cliches. Simply that women are human to precisely the degree and quality that you are.
And also: that we do not have time. We women. We don’t have forever. Some of us don’t have another week or another day to take time for you to discuss whatever it is that will enable you to go out into those streets and do something. We are very close to death. All women are. And we are very close to rape and we are very close to beating. And we are inside a system of humiliation from which there is no escape for us. We use statistics not to try to quantify the injuries, but to convince the world that those injuries even exist. Those statistics are not abstractions. It is easy to say, « Ah, the statistics, somebody writes them up one way and somebody writes them up another way. » That’s true. But I hear about the rapes one by one by one by one by one, which is also how they happen. Those statistics are not abstract to me. Every three minutes a woman is being raped. Every eighteen seconds a woman is being beaten. There is nothing abstract about it. It is happening right now as I am speaking.
And it is happening for a simple reason. There is nothing complex and difficult about the reason. Men are doing it, because of the kind of power that men have over women. That power is real, concrete, exercised from one body to another body, exercised by someone who feels he has a right to exercise it, exercised in public and exercised in private. It is the sum and substance of women’s oppression.
It is not done 5000 miles away or 3000 miles away. It is done here and it is done now and it is done by the people in this room as well as by other contemporaries: our friends, our neighbors, people that we know. Women don’t have to go to school to learn about power. We just have to be women, walking down the street or trying to get the housework done after having given one’s body in marriage and then having no rights over it.
The power exercised by men day to day in life is power that is institutionalized. It is protected by law. It is protected by religion and religious practice. It is protected by universities, which are strongholds of male supremacy. It is protected by a police force. It is protected by those whom Shelley called « the unacknowledged legislators of the world »: the poets, the artists. Against that power, we have silence.
It is an extraordinary thing to try to understand and confront why it is that men believe–and men do believe–that they have the right to rape. Men may not believe it when asked. Everybody raise your hand who believes you have the right to rape. Not too many hands will go up. It’s in life that men believe they have the right to force sex, which they don’t call rape. And it is an extraordinary thing to try to understand that men really believe that they have the right to hit and to hurt. And it is an equally extraordinary thing to try to understand that men really believe that they have the right to buy a woman’s body for the purpose of having sex: that that is a right. And it is very amazing to try to understand that men believe that the seven-billion-dollar-a-year industry that provides men with cunts is something that men have a right to.
That is the way the power of men is manifest in real life. That is what theory about male supremacy means. It means you can rape. It means you can hit. It means you can hurt. It means you can buy and sell women. It means that there is a class of people there to provide you with what you need. You stay richer than they are, so that they have to sell you sex. Not just on street corners, but in the workplace. That’s another right that you can presume to have: sexual access to any woman in your environment, when you want.
Now, the men’s movement suggests that men don’t want the kind of power I have just described. I’ve actually heard explicit whole sentences to that effect. And yet, everything is a reason not to do something about changing the fact that you do have that power.
Hiding behind guilt, that’s my favorite. I love that one. Oh, it’s horrible, yes, and I’m so sorry. You have the time to feel guilty. We don’t have the time for you to feel guilty. Your guilt is a form of acquiescence in what continues to occur. Your guilt helps keep things the way they are.
I have heard in the last several years a great deal about the suffering of men over sexism. Of course, I have heard a great deal about the suffering of men all my life. Needless to say, I have read Hamlet. I have read King Lear. I am an educated woman. I know that men suffer. This is a new wrinkle. Implicit in the idea that this is a different kind of suffering is the claim, I think, that in part you are actually suffering because of something that you know happens to someone else. That would indeed be new.
But mostly your guilt, your suffering, reduces to: gee, we really feel so bad. Everything makes men feel so bad: what you do, what you don’t do, what you want to do, what you don’t want to want to do but are going to do anyway. I think most of your distress is: gee, we really feel so bad. And I’m sorry that you feel so bad–so uselessly and stupidly bad–because there is a way in which this really is your tragedy. And I don’t mean because you can’t cry. And I don’t mean because there is no real intimacy in your lives. And I don’t mean because the armor that you have to live with as men is stultifying: and I don’t doubt that it is. But I don’t mean any of that.
I mean that there is a relationship between the way that women are raped and your socialization to rape and the war machine that grinds you up and spits you out: the war machine that you go through just like that woman went through Larry Flynt’s meat grinder on the cover of Hustler. You damn well better believe that you’re involved in this tragedy and that it’s your tragedy too. Because you’re turned into little soldier boys from the day that you are born and everything that you learn about how to avoid the humanity of women becomes part of the militarism of the country in which you live and the world in which you live. It is also part of the economy that you frequently claim to protest.
And the problem is that you think it’s out there: and it’s not out there. It’s in you. The pimps and the warmongers speak for you. Rape and war are not so different. And what the pimps and the warmongers do is that they make you so proud of being men who can get it up and give it hard. And they take that acculturated sexuality and they put you in little uniforms and they send you out to kill and to die. Now, I am not going to suggest to you that I think that’s more important than what you do to women, because I don’t.
But I think that if you want to look at what this system does to you, then that is where you should start looking: the sexual politics of aggression; the sexual politics of militarism. I think that men are very afraid of other men. That is something that you sometimes try to address in your small groups, as if if you changed your attitudes towards each other, you wouldn’t be afraid of each other.
But as long as your sexuality has to do with aggression and your sense of entitlement to humanity has to do with being superior to other people, and there is so much contempt and hostility in your attitudes towards women and children, how could you not be afraid of each other? I think that you rightly perceive–without being willing to face it politically–that men are very dangerous: because you are.
The solution of the men’s movement to make men less dangerous to each other by changing the way you touch and feel each other is not a solution. It’s a recreational break.
These conferences are also concerned with homophobia. Homophobia is very important: it is very important to the way male supremacy works. In my opinion, the prohibitions against male homosexuality exist in order to protect male power. Do it to her. That is to say: as long as men rape, it is very important that men be directed to rape women. As long as sex is full of hostility and expresses both power over and contempt for the other person, it is very important that men not be declassed, stigmatized as female, used similarly. The power of men as a class depends on keeping men sexually inviolate and women sexually used by men. Homophobia helps maintain that class power: it also helps keep you as individuals safe from each other, safe from rape. If you want to do something about homophobia, you are going to have to do something about the fact that men rape, and that forced sex is not incidental to male sexuality but is in practice paradigmatic.
Some of you are very concerned about the rise of the Right in this country, as if that is something separate from the issues of feminism or the men’s movement. There is a cartoon I saw that brought it all together nicely. It was a big picture of Ronald Reagan as a cowboy with a big hat and a gun. And it said: « A gun in every holster; a pregnant woman in every home. Make America a man again. » Those are the politics of the Right.
If you are afraid of the ascendancy of fascism in this country–and you would be very foolish not to be right now–then you had better understand that the root issue here has to do with male supremacy and the control of women; sexual access to women; women as reproductive slaves; private ownership of women. That is the program of the Right. That is the morality they talk about. That is what they mean. That is what they want. And the only opposition to them that matters is an opposition to men owning women.
What’s involved in doing something about all of this? The men’s movement seems to stay stuck on two points. The first is that men don’t really feel very good about themselves. How could you? The second is that men come to me or to other feminists and say: « What you’re saying about men isn’t true. It isn’t true of me. I don’t feel that way. I’m opposed to all of this. »
And I say: don’t tell me. Tell the pornographers. Tell the pimps. Tell the warmakers. Tell the rape apologists and the rape celebrationists and the pro-rape ideologues. Tell the novelists who think that rape is wonderful. Tell Larry Flynt. Tell Hugh Hefner. There’s no point in telling me. I’m only a woman. There’s nothing I can do about it. These men presume to speak for you. They are in the public arena saying that they represent you. If they don’t, then you had better let them know.
Then there is the private world of misogyny: what you know about each other; what you say in private life; the exploitation that you see in the private sphere; the relationships called love, based on exploitation. It’s not enough to find some traveling feminist on the road and go up to her and say: « Gee, I hate it. »
Say it to your friends who are doing it. And there are streets out there on which you can say these things loud and dear, so as to affect the actual institutions that maintain these abuses. You don’t like pornography? I wish I could believe it’s true. I will believe it when I see you on the streets. I will believe it when I see an organized political opposition. I will believe it when pimps go out of business because there are no more male consumers.
You want to organize men. You don’t have to search for issues. The issues are part of the fabric of your everyday lives.
I want to talk to you about equality, what equality is and what it means. It isn’t just an idea. It’s not some insipid word that ends up being bullshit. It doesn’t have anything at all to do with all those statements like: « Oh, that happens to men too. » I name an abuse and I hear: « Oh, it happens to men too. » That is not the equality we are struggling for. We could change our strategy and say: well, okay, we want equality; we’ll stick something up the ass of a man every three minutes.
You’ve never heard that from the feminist movement, because for us equality has real dignity and importance–it’s not some dumb word that can be twisted and made to look stupid as if it had no real meaning.
As a way of practicing equality, some vague idea about giving up power is useless. Some men have vague thoughts about a future in which men are going to give up power or an individual man is going to give up some kind of privilege that he has. That is not what equality means either.
Equality is a practice. It is an action. It is a way of life. It is a social practice. It is an economic practice. It is a sexual practice. It can’t exist in a vacuum. You can’t have it in your home if, when the people leave the home, he is in a world of his supremacy based on the existence of his cock and she is in a world of humiliation and degradation because she is perceived to be inferior and because her sexuality is a curse.
This is not to say that the attempt to practice equality in the home doesn’t matter. It matters, but it is not enough. If you love equality, if you believe in it, if it is the way you want to live–not just men and women together in a home, but men and men together in a home and women and women together in a home–if equality is what you want and what you care about, then you have to fight for the institutions that will make it socially real.
It is not just a matter of your attitude. You can’t think it and make it exist. You can’t try sometimes, when it works to your advantage, and throw it out the rest of the time. Equality is a discipline. It is a way of life. It is a political necessity to create equality in institutions. And another thing about equality is that it cannot coexist with rape. It cannot. And it cannot coexist with pornography or with prostitution or with the economic degradation of women on any level, in any way. It cannot coexist, because implicit in all those things is the inferiority of women.
I want to see this men’s movement make a commitment to ending rape because that is the only meaningful commitment to equality. It is astonishing that in all our worlds of feminism and antisexism we never talk seriously about ending rape. Ending it. Stopping it. No more. No more rape. In the back of our minds, are we holding on to its inevitability as the last preserve of the biological? Do we think that it is always going to exist no matter what we do? All of our political actions are lies if we don’t make a commitment to ending the practice of rape. This commitment has to be political. It has to be serious. It has to be systematic. It has to be public. It can’t be self-indulgent.
The things the men’s movement has wanted are things worth having. Intimacy is worth having. Tenderness is worth having. Cooperation is worth having. A real emotional life is worth having. But you can’t have them in a world with rape. Ending homophobia is worth doing. But you can’t do it in a world with rape. Rape stands in the way of each and every one of those things you say you want. And by rape you know what I mean. A judge does not have to walk into this room and say that according to statute such and such these are the elements of proof. We’re talking about any kind of coerced sex, including sex coerced by poverty.
You can’t have equality or tenderness or intimacy as long as there is rape, because rape means terror. It means that part of the population lives in a state of terror and pretends–to please and pacify you–that it doesn’t. So there is no honesty. How can there be? Can you imagine what it is like to live as a woman day in and day out with the threat of rape? Or what it is like to live with the reality? I want to see you use those legendary bodies and that legendary strength and that legendary courage and the tenderness that you say you have in behalf of women; and that means against the rapists, against the pimps, and against the pornographers. It means something more than a personal renunciation. It means a systematic, political, active, public attack. And there has been very little of that.
I came here today because I don’t believe that rape is inevitable or natural. If I did, I would have no reason to be here. If I did, my political practice would be different than it is. Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It’s not because there’s a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence.
We do not want to do the work of helping you to believe in your humanity. We cannot do it anymore. We have always tried. We have been repaid with systematic exploitation and systematic abuse. You are going to have to do this yourselves from now on and you know it.
The shame of men in front of women is, I think, an appropriate response both to what men do do and to what men do not do. I think you should be ashamed. But what you do with that shame is to use it as an excuse to keep doing what you want and to keep not doing anything else; and you’ve got to stop. You’ve got to stop. Your psychology doesn’t matter. How much you hurt doesn’t matter in the end any more than how much we hurt matters. If we sat around and only talked about how much rape hurt us, do you think there would have been one of the changes that you have seen in this country in the last fifteen years? There wouldn’t have been.
It is true that we have to talk to each other. How else, after all, were we supposed to find out that each of us was not the only woman in the world not asking for it to whom rape or battery had ever happened? We couldn’t read it in the newspapers, not then. We couldn’t find a book about it. But you do know and now the question is what are you going to do; and so your shame and your guilt are very much beside the point. They don’t matter to us at all, in any way. They’re not good enough. They don’t do anything.
As a feminist, I carry the rape of all the women I’ve talked to over the last ten years personally with me. As a woman, I carry my own rape with me. Do you remember pictures that you’ve seen of European cities during the plague, when there were wheelbarrows that would go along and people would just pick up corpses and throw them in? Well, that is what it is like knowing about rape. Piles and piles and piles of bodies that have whole lives and human names and human faces.
I speak for many feminists, not only myself, when I tell you that I am tired of what I know and sad beyond any words I have about what has already been done to women up to this point, now, up to 2:24pm on this day, here in this place.
And I want one day of respite, one day off, one day in which no new bodies are piled up, one day in which no new agony is added to the old, and I am asking you to give it to me. And how could I ask you for less–it is so little. And how could you offer me less: it is so little. Even in wars, there are days of truce. Go and organize a truce. Stop your side for one day. I want a twenty-four-hour truce during which there is no rape.
I dare you to try it. I demand that you try it. I don’t mind begging you to try it. What else could you possibly be here to do? What else could this movement possibly mean? What else could matter so much?
And on that day, that day of truce, that day when not one woman is raped, we will begin the real practice of equality, because we can’t begin it before that day. Before that day it means nothing because it is nothing: it is not real; it is not true. But on that day it becomes real. And then, instead of rape we will for the first time in our lives–both men and women–begin to experience freedom.
If you have a conception of freedom that includes the existence of rape, you are wrong. You cannot change what you say you want to change. For myself, I want to experience just one day of real freedom before I die. I leave you here to do that for me and for the women whom you say you love.
__________________
Publié dans féminisme, masculinité, mensonges pro-sexe
Marqué avec droits minoritaires, stratégie de l'agresseur, utopie, viol
Laisser un commentaire
Une loi digne pour les victimes d’inceste
Reblogged from Une loi digne pour les victimes d’inceste.
Ces jours-ci nous nous sommes insurgées contre la décision du Conseil constitutionnel, non pas d’abroger la loi sur le harcèlement sexuel, mais de faire prendre effet immédiat à cette abrogation, qui laisse les victimes en rade, et les agresseurs en position d’impunité.
Nous l’avons évoqué, mais il faut le redire, ce n’était pas la première fois que le “Conseil des sages”, prend une décision qui, par souci de constitutionnalité, met en danger les victimes.
Auparavant, il y a eu la loi sur l’inceste, retoquée pour insuffisante définition de la famille, Sauf que cela fait près d’un an, et que, malgré les propositions existantes, rien n’a été fait. Voici le texte d’une pétition que vous pouvez signer pour exiger une loi et le lien pour le faire :
Le 16 septembre 2011, le Conseil Constitutionnel abrogeait l’article article 222-31-1 du Code Pénal (Les viols et les agressions sexuelles sont qualifiés d’incestueux lorsqu’ils sont commis au sein de la famille sur la personne d’un mineur par un ascendant, un frère, une sœur ou par toute autre personne, y compris s’il s’agit d’un concubin d’un membre de la famille, ayant sur la victime une autorité de droit ou de fait.) estimant que cet article était contraire à la Constitution.
Afin de revoir la loi, il fallait donc, rédiger une définition plus claire de la famille et agraver la peine encourue en cas d’inceste.
Mme Fort, instigatrice de la loi sur l’inceste, a en sa possession une proposition de définition de la famille rédigée par des associations de lutte contre l’inceste en collaboration avec les victimes. Rien n’a été fait.
L’article 6 (qui n’a pas été abrogé) de cette même loi prévoyait que « Le Gouvernement remet au Parlement, avant le 30 juin 2010, un rapport examinant les modalités d’amélioration de la prise en charge des soins, notamment psychologiques, des victimes d’infractions sexuelles au sein de la famille, en particulier dans le cadre de l’organisation de la médecine légale. Ce rapport examine les conditions de la mise en place de mesures de sensibilisation du public, et notamment des mesures d’éducation et de prévention à destination des enfants. »
Ce rapport est déterminant dans l’avancée et la finition de cette loi. Il n’a jamais été réalisé malgré les multiples fausses promesses du Gouvernement et du Ministère de la santé. Après l’inceste, les conséquences sur la santé des victimes sont pourtant lourdes !
Le Gouvernement est donc hors la loi.
Mobilisons-nous ! Exigeons des lois claires et précises pour protéger les victimes de violences sexuelles !
http://www.change.org/petitions/nous-exigeons-une-loi-digne-pour-les-victimes-d-inceste#
Encore des tortillages patriarcaux.
Le pouvoir sur les enfants est le plus grand et le plus durable qui soit avec celui sur les femmes.

Loi d’être un « tabou » universel, en tant que viol, l’inceste est une réaffirmation universelle du pouvoir des hommes sur leurs propriétés. On lira l’article de Lloyd Demause, L’universalité de l’inceste, 1993.
Comme pour l’abrogation du délit de harcèlement sexuel, c’est un agresseur condamné qui a obtenu l’abrogation du crime de viol par inceste. M. Claude X…, condamné pour un viol par inceste, a formé un pouvoir en cassation après la décision d’une cour d’assises d’appel. Il a en plus formulé une QPC motivée ainsi : « L’article 222-31-1 du code pénal est-il contraire au articles 5, 8 et 16 de la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen de 1789, 34 de la Constitution ainsi qu’aux principes de clarté de la loi, de prévisibilité juridique et de sécurité juridique en ce qu’il qualifie les viols et agressions sexuelles comme incestueux dès lors qu’ils sont commis au sein de la famille sur la personne d’un mineur par un ascendant, un frère, une soeur ou par toute autre personne, y compris s’il s’agit d’un concubin d’un membre de la famille, ayant sur la victime une autorité de droit ou de fait ? »
Dans une décision en date du 22 juin 2011, la cour de cassation a décidé de transmettre cette QPC au Conseil Constitutionnel en retenant que cette question « est sérieuse au regard du principe de légalité des délits et des peines dès lors que la famille au sein de laquelle doivent être commis les actes incestueux, dont la qualification se superpose à celles de viols et agressions sexuelles, n’est pas définie avec suffisamment de précision pour exclure l’arbitraire« .
L’arbitraire, encore. Cet arbitraire progressiste tellement délirant qui consiste à considérer qu’un rapport de pouvoir extrême (la minorité légale) et ses institutions (famille) détermine un risque majeur de violences – cf. Christine Delphy L’état d’exception : la dérogation au droit commun comme fondement de la sphère privée.
Pour finir, je cite, Michel Huyette, un Nième défenseur de la cause patriarcale, qui sous couvert de neutralité d’expert, tourne en rond dans ses explications :
Heureusement, les parlementaires n’ont pas entériné la première version de la loi.
Il y était écrit que « un mineur ne peut être consentant à un acte sexuel avec un membre de sa famille », que « le climat incestueux rend en effet caduque toute réflexion en terme de violence, menace, contrainte, ou surprise. Ici, la question du consentement ne peut donc être posée », et en conséquence que « tout acte de pénétration sexuelle incestueux, de quelque nature qu’il soit, est un viol ».
Nous avons échappé de peu à une monstruosité juridique.
En effet, et pour faire simple, puisque le viol se caractérise par l’absence de consentement, il est aberrant de considérer que cette absence de consentement découle inéluctablement du lien de parenté entre deux personnes ayant une relation sexuelle. Pourtant, une nièce de 17 ans et son oncle de 25 ans peuvent vouloir autant l’un que l’autre une relation sexuelle, même qualifiable d’incestueuse.
Ce serait une rupture totale dans notre droit pénal que de considérer que l’on peut envoyer des années en prison un homme qui n’a pas su refuser une relation sexuelle voulue par une jeune fille presque majeure.
Et pour échapper aux poursuites, cet homme devrait prouver que la jeune fille était bien consentante. Comment ? En lui faisant signer un document écrit avant l’acte sexuel ?
Quand la morale et le droit se télescopent et que l’on veut à tout prix privilégier la première, les résultats sont parfois étonnants….
Cet expert, ici, n’analyse la nouvelle définition de l’inceste (forme de viol) que dans les termes de l’ancienne loi (relation sexuelle caractérisée par le lien de parenté entre les « amants »). De fait, il ne peut que la récuser.
Et comment se fait-il que seuls les incestes commis par personne ayant « autorité » soient retenus : une mère ne peut être violée par son fils ? une tante par un neveux ?
French feminists protest abrogation of anti-sexual harassment law
French feminists protest abrogation of anti-sexual harassment law
reblogged from Radfemworldnews.
j’ai masqué les visages car les masculinistes repèrent les féministes et les victimes de violences masculines pour les harceler ou les agresser.
Men usually make the law for themselves, and apply it at their whim. They especially decide not to apply them when it comes to the laws that were written at feminists’ demand to protect us from male violence. And when they find out that they can’t skip the law so easily after all, well, one of the guys only has to lift a finger to change it or get rid of it, so to reestablish unconditional impunity.
Since a French law against sexual harassment was passed in 1992 (modeled on the US law that was pushed through by Catharine MacKinnon) the European association against sexual violence against women at work (AVFT)[1], based in Paris, has been relentlessly fighting for the past 20 years to get the law redefined because it didn’t do justice to victims and was almost useless in punishing the abusers. Cases were almost systematically dropped, the law was generally used as a way to downgrade greater crimes or offenses such as rapes or sexual assaults and the imprecision of the law allowed its application to be very restrictive, which made it difficult if not impossible to recognize most of what constituted sexual harassment in the first place (in particular verbal “propositions”, comments on body, demeaning sexualized language, non-verbal actions such as mimicking sexual acts, imposing pornographic images and physical gestures such as touching the hair, legs, waist, or imposing massages, etc.)[2]
Now, former secretary of the state and former MP, Gérard Ducray, after being condemned for sexual harassment in 2011 (in fact a sexual assault downgraded into sexual harassment by the court), unhappy about being punished for what he called “attitudes of seduction”, has appealed the decision of the court and showed up to some of his pals at the constitutional council (C.C.)[3] to demand an immediate abrogation, on the grounds that the imprecision gave way to unjustly condemning “admissible flirting”[4]. His demand was judged serious enough to be transmitted to the C.C. in February 2012.
The AVFT, which intervenes as civil party for hundreds of victims of sexual harassment every year, knows for a fact that the exact opposite is true: the law has been more helpful in protecting the harassers than the victims. Also, Marilyn Baldec, delegate for the AVFT, warned that “the immediate abrogation would result in the nullification of all procedures in course while creating a judicial void for the victims and guaranteeing total impunity for the harassers”.[5]
So, what did the constitutional council decide to do? Well, abrogate the law! The decision took force last Friday, May the 4th.
The clique (er , C.C., aka the “sages”) who stood up like one single man to support their poor persecuted pal: not many women in there.
What a highly specialized, competent judicial European-level organization never achieved in twenty years of lobbying and in the name of thousands if not millions of women, one single man, in less than a year and after being condemned for sexual harassment – managed to abrogate the law, just because he said so. No years of lobbying, no endless demonstrations needed!
Now, although this outcome may have been predictable, you can bet that many of us feminists were furious. This meant a backlash in 20 years in terms of protection of women from male violence at work and also meant sending a grand message of impunity to all harassers and abusers of France.
This is what the news represented for some of the victims who now face an abysmal judicial void: (testimonies collected by the AVFT)[6]:
“We talk about license to kill, well – this is a real license to hunt”
“What’s sage about them apart from the title?”
“What am I going to do now, I’ve lost everything. My harasser is strutting about since this morning, I’ve just understood why, it’s horrible”
“This is revolting”
“I feel emptied; I came to France because I thought women were protected here”
“I’m not revolted, I feel sick, I’ve been fighting 5 years for nothing”.
“I think there are no words to define what this judicial void means to me, we think things evolve at least a bit but then we get a massive slap in the face with this violent backlash, long live France, I’m sorry for myself and for all women”
“This judicial void makes me feel dizzy”
“I’m ashamed of my country”
“It’s as if nothing existed, everything is nullified”
“It can’t be possible!! So then what? Are we clearly saying to men, to bosses etc, come on guys grope me it’s allowed by the law”
“I have a feeling of hate and revolt, it hurts, it’s a whole part of my life that’s going to vanish, I might as well do justice by myself, I had to put up my own business and work for myself so to avoid men, I’m shocked, I don’t know what to say anymore, it really hurts”
“I’m not well, I’m panicking; he must be having fun with his friends right now”
“I was on the verge of suicide”
“All my money has gone in this trial which will be cancelled”
“I imagined him jubilating, it was unbearable”
“It was the end of one hell and the beginning of another”
Immediately after the abrogation, the AVFT and other organizations (World March of Women, Femmes Solidaires and the National Collective for Women’s Rights (CNDF)) called for a demonstration the following day, Saturday March the 5th in Paris at 11 am. Around 300 feminists gathered that morning. Just before the end of the demonstration though, the group was still so full of anger that they decided to march off to the nearest police station to file a complaint against the president of the constitutional council, Jean-Louis Debré, for the motive of deliberately putting victims in danger and disrupting public order. Four women representatives of the organizations went in the police office and meanwhile they could hear the others waiting outside, shouting slogans against rape at the entrance of the police station.
Here’s a video of the women coming out of the police station brandishing a copy of the complaint: it was all very moving (video in French):
A copy of the complaint can be found here.
While as a radical feminist, one can debate as to whether asking men to ‘please stop raping and please write laws so you could stop raping’ is an efficient way to bring down men’s dominance over women, collective acts of revolt that directly attack a powerful man in a powerful institution in the name of thousands of women and against men’s sexual violence are inspiring and invigorating. It sends the hopeful message that feminism hasn’t completely been requisitioned by men and their slutified, perverse repackaging of patriarchal ideologies they relentlessly promote to women through their media.
Perhaps more importantly, and this is where radical feminism can and should be used to inform any pro-woman political platform, the use of explicit language detailing the horrors men perpetrate on women and the consequences of this to girls and women — and eschewing euphemisms and male-centric issue framing that fail to name the agent of harm — is known to create mutual knowledge, which leads to collective power to challenge dominance.
Together we can confront male power and make it fun, and using the principles of radical feminism, specifically explicit language, we might actually be successful in challenging male supremacy.
[1] http://avft.org/index.php: Association Européenne contre les Violences faites aux Femmes dans le Travail.
[2] http://avft.org/article.php?id_article=627, “Sexual harassment, the law will change”, press release by the AVFT, May 2012
[3] Four of the members of the constitutional council were former political “colleagues”: see here http://www.feministes-radicales.org/2012/05/06/nous-portons-plainte-contre-le-conseil-constitutionnel-pour-mise-en-danger-des-victimes/ and here http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/le-conseil-constitutionnel/les-membres-du-conseil/liste-des-membres/jacques-barrot.48026.html and here http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jopdf/common/jo_pdf.jsp?numJO=0&dateJO=19740609&numTexte=&pageDebut=06179&pageFin=
[4] http://www.avft.org/article.php?id_article=623: “sexual harassment: 20 years after the law, the offense could be abrogated”, April 2012, a press release by Marilyn Baldec, delegate for the AVFT.
[5] http://www.avft.org/article.php?id_article=623: “sexual harassment: 20 years after the law, the offense could be abrogated”, April 2012, a press release by Marilyn Baldec, delegate for the AVFT.
[6] http://avft.org/article.php?id_article=631 « the judicial void makes me dizzy: reactions addressed to the AVFT », May the 5th, 2012.
Publié dans AFP, arnaque, féminisme, masculinité, viol
Marqué avec AFP, arnaque, conspiration des oreilles bouchées, droits minoritaires, silence de mortes, stratégie de l'agresseur, viol
Laisser un commentaire















