From actions to words: FEMEN’s fourth-wave manifestos

Abstract

Since its creation in 2008 in Ukraine, FEMEN has fascinated mainstream audiences and scholars alike. Yet few studies have dealt with FEMEN’s writings in French. While the lack of translations may partially explain this critical gap, the overall dismissal of FEMEN and its impact on contemporary feminisms participates in the historic marginalisation of women’s contributions to the arts, the sciences, or society at large. Recognising the organisation’s problematic standpoints, this article demonstrates how, going from action to words, FEMEN’s collective book publications, Manifeste FEMEN and Rébellion, contribute to, and complicate, contemporary feminist thought and debates. Inscribing themselves in the feminist manifesto tradition, both books articulate a fourth-wave feminist standpoint, and through FEMEN’s assessment of their actions, the organisation unveils Western democracies’ tartufferies regarding secularism and equal rights. FEMEN’s manifestos also generate a reflection on the (im)possibility of a universal, global approach to feminism, namely, due to their Islamophobic stances.

Keywords

democracy FEMEN fourth-wave feminism global feminism intersectionality manifestos women’s rights

Since its creation in 2008 in Ukraine, FEMEN has fascinated, and repulsed, mainstream audiences and scholars alike. This transnational feminist organisation has been the object of countless press and magazine articles, academic studies, blog entries, books, and documentaries in Europe, America, Oceania, Northern Africa, and the Middle East. FEMEN’s street actions – consisting in topless protests, chanting of slogans, and displays of writings on their exposed upper bodies – have especially triggered antagonistic reactions. Lauded as revolutionary or as a new feminist wave by some, FEMEN has also been decried – if not altogether dismissed – as useless, apolitical, Islamophobic, imperialist, fame-seeking, or as an accomplice to patriarchy due to its members’ toplessness, whiteness, and (hetero)normative bodies. In France, too, feminist authors, scholars, and journalists such as Christine Bard, Mona Chollet, Chloé Delaume, Christine Fauré, and Geneviève Fraisse have either supported, rejected, or otherwise expressed mixed feelings about the organisation.¹

Thus far, studies published on FEMEN have primarily examined the group’s street protests, body politics, and Islamophobic or imperialist anticlerical stances. Yet writing has been essential to the movement from the beginning. Fauré (2013), for example, underlines that if members ‘peignent leur corps de slogans . . . elles n’en abandonnent pas pour autant la pédagogie du message écrit sur papiers, cartons, tissus, qui reste la pièce maîtresse de leur art de propagande’ (p. 385). Diffusing their perspectives through writing became even more crucial to FEMEN when it turned into a transnational organisation in the 2010s and staged actions in Europe, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, the United States, or Tunisia.² As early as 2013, Inna Shevchenko, FEMEN’s current leader, held a blog on The Huffington Post in English and French and went on to publish two other books: Héroïques (2019), dedicated to the strong women who inspired her, and Anatomie de l’oppression (2017), co-written with Pauline Hillier, one of the French FEMEN members, on the dangers religions pose to women, namely, through the appropriation and regulation of their bodies. Since 2019, Shevchenko writes columns for Charlie Hebdo, one of the earliest supporters of the organisation in France. Worldwide, members of FEMEN have also used social media to comment on their actions or current events. As an organisation, it published three books, FEMEN with journalist Galia Ackerman (2013), Manifeste FEMEN (2015), and Rébellion (2017), all charting and explaining their feminist standpoints, actions, objectives, and the issues women (still) face globally. While the members’ bodies as texts during protests have been amply examined,³ FEMEN’s books or writings remain understudied, chiefly quoted to illustrate or criticise its standpoints, especially on Islam. Only Marie-Joseph Bertini and Andrea C. Valente have examined FEMEN’s 2013 eponymous publication. This critical gap may partially stem from the absence of translations in the Anglophone world.⁴ Nonetheless, how its writings partake in contemporary feminisms remains unaddressed in Valente’s and Bertini’s studies.⁵

Recognising the organisation’s problematic standpoints, including Islamophobia and imperialism,⁶ this article demonstrates how, going from action to words, FEMEN’s collective book publications nonetheless reflect, contribute to, and complicate contemporary feminist thought and debates. However, and except for some parenthetical factual references, FEMEN’s first publication with Ackerman will not be considered as it frames the founding members’ standpoints in several problematic manners.⁷ Conversely, Manifeste FEMEN and Rébellion are written directly and collectively by global FEMEN activists. After a brief discussion of what makes a feminist manifesto and how both books inscribe themselves in this tradition, their articulation of a fourth-wave feminist standpoint will be examined. How FEMEN’s assessment of their actions unveils Western democracies’ tartufferies regarding secularism and equal rights will be considered next. Finally, the organisation’s manifestos generate a reflection on the (im)possibility of a universal, global approach to feminism.

What makes a (feminist) manifesto?

Before delving into FEMEN’s publications, it is crucial to define what a (feminist) manifesto is or does. If Bertini (2014: 19−38) and Valente (2015: 144) label the publication with Ackerman a manifesto, they never explain how the book belongs to the genre. FEMEN’s first manifesto appears as a pre-text and explains why the book has been primarily read as such. Nevertheless, the remainder of the narrative includes the founding members’ biographies and actions, prompting both scholars to interpret FEMEN also as a form of life writing or an epic narrative (Bertini, 2014: 19; Valente, 2015: 144−145). Manifeste FEMEN and Rébellion also lay out the organisation’s goals and visions, the issues addressed, and institutions targeted. While Rébellion features testimonies from global members, those tackle their experiences during specific actions, not their private lives. But what makes these two books feminist manifestos specifically?

According to Janet Lyon (1999), the genre ‘declares a position; the manifesto refuses dialogue or discussion; the manifesto fosters antagonism and scorns conciliation. It is univocal, unilateral, single-minded. It conveys resolute oppositionality and indulges no tolerance for the fainthearted’ (p. 9). In 2018, Penny Weiss released Feminist Manifestos, an unprecedented collection of 150 collective, global texts from the seventeenth to the twenty-first century. For Weiss (2018), in addition to reiterating its blunt tone, a feminist manifesto is antipatriarchal, ‘reveals and criticizes an unjust status quo;/offers visions of more egalitarian, respectful, democratic communities; and/ addresses strategies for bringing about change’, as well as being accessible and confronting challenges beyond ‘women’s issues’ such as neoliberalism, racism, or homophobia (pp. 3−4, 7−9, 14, 17).⁸

In Manifeste FEMEN (2015), members declare,

Les femmes n’ont pas besoin de réformes, elles ont besoin d’une révolution./On ne réforme pas un système vicié, on le détruit./Le patriarcat qui contrôle notre chair et oppresse nos esprits a désormais trouvé dans nos corps nus et combattants le moyen de son anéantissement. En son sein, un nouvel ennemi est né, son nom: FEMEN./Par ses mots FEMEN se constitue comme rempart et arme de destruction de la plus haute et la plus profonde forme d’oppression que les femmes aient à subir: le système patriarcal. (p. 23)

And, in Rébellion (2017), they claim that

la religion tue plus que la cigarette, et pourtant toujours pas d’image choc sur la couverture de la Bible, de la Torah ou du Coran . . . FEMEN ne se préoccupe pas des choix religieux de chacun, mais appelle à une prise de conscience internationale autour de l’un des plus grands dangers totalitaires du XXI^e siècle qu’est le retour en force du religieux et son sentiment de toute-puissance! (p. 119)

Straightforward, irreverent, provocative, refusing dialog, identifying patriarchy and religion as the enemy, and positing the destruction of such a system as the solution, FEMEN’s 2015 and 2017 publications bear the markers of feminist manifesto writing. With such a ‘take-no-prisoners’ approach, especially in the excerpt from Rébellion, FEMEN has understandably been attacked for its anticlerical stances.

Yet why the need to write manifestos or books in addition to their activism, especially since the organisation initially rejected any kind of theory, deeming it inferior to direct action if not utterly superfluous? (FEMEN and Ackerman, 2013: 195−196, 256).⁹ One of FEMEN’s first slogans was (and remains) ‘my body is my manifesto’; they define their toplessness as political, as a way to convey a message, including through the slogans written on their bare chests, backs, and arms (FEMEN, 2015: 38−39, 44−47, 50−52; 2017: 8−9, 57, 179; FEMEN and Ackerman, 2013: 8−11, 112−113). As members explain in Manifeste FEMEN (2015), they felt compelled to go from action to words as a response to criticism, paternalising approaches, and appropriations of their message, a defence that activism alone cannot convey (pp. 5−7). Their book constitutes a ‘droit de réponse politique, ressource idéologique et manuel d’instruction . . . nous avons voulu exposer la pensée qui anime nos actes. . . . nous sommes bel et bien animées d’une idéologie absolue, constante et incorruptible’ (FEMEN, 2015: 5−6). This justification, and both books, further pertains to feminist manifesto writing since these texts ‘not only inspire political action but also are the outcome of, or reflect feminist action’ (Weiss, 2018: 2)¹⁰. The statement also reveals a need and will to assert a specific feminist standpoint, an ideology that was, even prior to writing, denied to them.

Finally, Felicity Colman (2010) underlines that since the manifesto is ‘a process of epistemology engaged to shock’, its author(s) have often been rejected, even more so if they belonged to underrepresented groups (pp. 382, 375−376). This negative treatment perpetuates a long history of misogynist and sexist rejection of women and feminist voices, actions, or publications (Bosco, 1980: 121, 124; Weiss, 2018: 1−2). Lyon (1999) stresses that no manifesto written by a woman has ever been highlighted as an example of the genre (p. 51). Weiss explains that collective manifestos, especially if feminist, have been historically dismissed since they are not considered theoretical enough, ‘result[ing] in a loss of knowledge of the continuous tradition of feminist praxis around the world, and render[ing] invisible the theory embedded in most’ of them (Weiss, 2018: 1). For Monique Bosco (1980), the manifesto, as a genre, remains essentially masculine because, historically, women have been assigned to and relied on ‘la manifestation’, or physical protest, instead of an intellectual contribution (pp. 119−121). Considering Weiss’, Lyon’s, and Bosco’s reflections, the critical lack or dismissal of FEMEN’s writings appears even more problematic. Even if unintentionally, they participate in the historical marginalisation of women’s and feminists’ contributions to society, activism, and theory. Yet FEMEN’s 2015 and 2017 manifestos clearly posit, echo, and contradict fourth-wave feminist stances.

A fourth-wave feminist standpoint

In 2011, sociologist and iconic French second-wave feminist Josette Trat published an anthology of tributes to the journal Les Cahiers du féminisme. In her piece titled ‘De nouveaux défis pour les féministes’, she identified patriarchy, capitalism, the rise of far-right movements and racism, the 2008 financial crisis and how it impacted women specifically, the challenging of equal rights, the lack of formal equality, and gender-based violence, as among the many obstacles women and feminists faced in the twenty-first century (Trat, 2011: 325−338). The year 2011 also marked a renewed visibility of feminism in France due to the ‘Affaire DSK’, a revived presence reinforced 6 years later with the global #MeToo movement and its French avatar #BalanceTonPorc initiated by journalist Sandra Muller. As Michèle A. Schaal (2017) underlines, ‘depuis, le féminisme – décrié ou revendiqué – n’a plus quitté le devant de la scène’ in France (p. 289). A global resurgence of feminism over the past 10 years has prompted scholars, activists, and journalists to speak of a fourth wave of feminism.¹¹ American third-wave feminist Jennifer Baumgardner (2011) offers 2008 as the year of its beginnings when social media became an essential vector open to younger feminists, to diffuse knowledge and organise (pp. 250−251).¹² From that year on, many campaigns, blogs, and organisations were created primarily by a younger generation of activists, such as Les TumulTueuses, La Barbe, Osez le féminisme!, FiÈres, le Collectif 8 mars pour Tou.t.es, Georgette Sand, or #NousToutes in France; The Twitter Youth Feminist Army, No More Page 3, or Everyday Sexism Projects in the United Kingdom; the Ovarian Psycos and Women’s March in the United States; the Slutwalk in Canada; Se Non Ora Cuando (If Not Now When) in Italy; Ni Una Menos (Not One Less [Woman]) in Latin America; Ratujmy Kobiety (Let’s Save Women) in Poland; and Pussy Riot in Russia.

Despite cultural specificities, scholars have identified a number of issues addressed and ideologies embraced by fourth-wave feminists globally – standpoints that echo Trat’s analysis: fighting economic inequality and precarity generated by the global neoliberal system; using a feminist intersectional lens for social critique; being inclusive of all perspectives, especially those of women of colour or LGBTIQA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, and asexual etc.) communities; challenging patriarchy; denouncing oppressive gender and sexual norms; developing global solidarity; addressing endemic gender-based violence and its many manifestations; countering cultural and political backlashes against feminism and women’s or equal rights; combating white supremacy and far-right movements; championing and defending reproductive rights; and upholding or implementing democracy.¹³

FEMEN undeniably participates in and reflects this renewed wave of feminism, especially through its manifestos (Cochrane, 2013: Chapter 1; Rivers, 2017: 79−106; Schaal, 2017: 288, 291). The organisation was created in 2008, and 2011 marked its emergence on the international scene with a multiplication of their international actions and an increased sense of global solidarity for women’s, equal and democratic rights. That year, they performed their first European tour (including an action against DSK in France and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy), and they raised awareness about the increase of sex trafficking and prostitution in Ukraine resulting from the upcoming EURO 2012 football cup; during their protest in Belarus, three of its members (Shevchenko, Oksana Shachko, and Alexandra Nemchinova) were nearly killed by the dictatorial regime.

Going from action to words further enables FEMEN to claim the current embodiments of patriarchy as the root of all gender-based discriminations or violence (FEMEN, 2015: 22−47): ‘les dictatures, les institutions religieuses, les mouvements populistes d’extrême droite et l’industrie du sexe mais aussi toute forme de violences faites aux femmes, sont notre combat d’aujourd’hui et de demain’ on a global level (FEMEN, 2017: 9). Similar to fourth wavers, FEMEN explains, among other things, that women continue to face gender-based violence and misogyny, that poverty caused by globalisation impacts women more than men, that equal sexual rights continue to be a battleground, and that theocracies remain profoundly misogynistic (FEMEN, 2017: 75−132). The organisation has also developed an intersectional approach to all these issues. For example, FEMEN sees sex trafficking and prostitution as interconnected: in Ukraine, extreme and endemic poverty since the collapse of the Soviet Union have driven, and sometimes entrapped, young women in this business. The intersectionality of gender, class, patriarchy, and globalisation (most clients are foreigners), clearly is at stake in this context. It is not just a matter of the economy, choice, victimhood, sexism, or gender identity: all intersections lead some Ukrainian women into the sex industry (FEMEN, 2017: 56−58; FEMEN and Ackerman, 2013: 90−96).

In Rébellion, we see how FEMEN reflects a similar fourth-wave perspective through its intersectional assessment of current challenges or rejections of equal rights for all:

Pour beaucoup d’entre nous, il n’y a dictature que s’il y a répression sanglante. Mais les atteintes aux droits des femmes et des minorités, toujours plus sournoises, sont des signes qui doivent être pris très au sérieux. . . . l’opposition fanatique à l’acquisition de nouveaux droits pour les minorités sont des symptômes qu’il ne faut pas prendre à la légère. Les crises politiques et économiques sont des alibis confortables pour justifier la restriction des libertés de certaines catégories de personnes./La cause féministe n’est pas une cause périphérique. Il n’y a pas d’un côté les grandes luttes et de l’autre la lutte pour les droits des femmes. (FEMEN, 2017: 31−32)

This assessment clearly draws a connection between gender and other intersections such as the economy (financial crises) and political regression (taking away or denying further equal rights). Just as importantly, they establish feminism as not solely a movement for women’s rights but as a political stance that fights for all and ensures that all social problems or inequalities are addressed. Typical of feminist manifesto writing as well, the organisation offers ‘a sound explanation of major ills from which we suffer, a dynamic account of the internalization of domination, an accurate description of intersecting systems of oppression, a pragmatic understanding of the forces that resist equality’ (Weiss, 2018: 12). Finally, FEMEN asserts, as such texts do, that women’s rights do not constitute ‘“special interest” politics’ yet are intrinsic to any democracy (Weiss, 2018: 8). Hence, while FEMEN’s modus operandi may trigger scepticism or rejection, their manifestos clearly articulate a fourth-wave feminist standpoint and politics. They provide acute, even if blunt, assessments of women’s and other equal rights statuses in a variety of settings and attempt to remedy any issues. Therefore, as Weiss underlines in her introduction, they contribute to producing feminist knowledge based on their actions and, as FEMEN underlines, the experience garnered by activists (FEMEN, 2015: 5−6, 2017: 8−10).

Exposing democratic tartufferies

In many manifestos, and for contemporary global activists, democracy and feminism inherently work together. Gender equality, equal rights for underrepresented groups, and inclusiveness cannot be divorced from democratic societies or projects (Schaal, 2017: 291; Weiss, 2018: 7, 16). By the same token, feminist organisations and manifestos embrace democratic structures and goals (Weiss, 2018: 4, 15−16). Such is the case for FEMEN in both Manifeste FEMEN and Rébellion (FEMEN, 2015: 19, 32−33, 47, 54−55; FEMEN, 2017: 12, 21, 159−160, 173, 176). Their commitment to democracy transpires especially in their global fight against dictatorships since ‘la destruction du patriarcat est une condition indispensable à un véritable renversement démocratique’ (FEMEN, 2015: 32). Nonetheless, going from action to word also offers a most interesting feminist insight on contemporary Western democracies.

Both manifestos assess the reactions triggered by FEMEN’s actions. As members describe almost exhaustively, their protests have nearly systematically met with violence – violence perpetrated either by individuals, organisations, or states (FEMEN, 2015: 46−47, 2017: 11−13, 42, 49, 177). They were arrested countless times in Ukraine and, once their actions targeted Viktor Yanukovych’s corrupt government, they were harassed by the secret police, leading them to eventually seek asylum in France. Once there, FEMEN staged an action titled ‘In Gay We Trust’ to support marriage equality in 2012. During the protest, they were brutally attacked by Civitas, a far-right, Catholic organisation, and many activists ended up injured. For FEMEN (2017), ruthless repression is inevitable when targeting dictatorial or corrupt regimes, as they did in Belarus, Russia, Turkey, or Ukraine (pp. 15−34). Yet, pondering their actions in Manifeste FEMEN and Rébellion, FEMEN reveals how violence, including legal violence, has also been inflicted upon its members in Western democracies. For FEMEN, this hostility, particularly generated by their anticlerical and antifascist protests, testifies to the latter nations’ tartufferies regarding secularism, women’s, equal, and democratic rights.

One of FEMEN’s most (in)famous anticlerical actions was sawing down a massive Christian cross in Kiev in support of Pussy Riot.¹⁴ While repressed in Ukraine, the activists drew support from most Western countries, including in France where Shevchenko, who took down the cross, was granted political asylum (Khrebtan-Hörhager and Kononenko, 2015: 243). If FEMEN was criticised there, and especially globally, for its 2013 ‘Naked’ or ‘Topless Jihad’ campaign,¹⁵ the action was still strongly supported by some.¹⁶ However, things radically changed once the organisation staged the ‘Pope No More’ action in Notre Dame, celebrating the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI in 2013:

nous tombons aussitôt en déréliction. La majorité des acteurs politiques et médiatiques font passer les activistes pour des ‘irresponsables’ qui ne ‘respectent rien’. Ces deux actions [à Kiev et à Notre Dame] . . . sont qualifiées de ‘violentes’ par nos détracteurs pour mieux dépolitiser leur message, pour mieux masquer leur propre et réelle violence . . . À l’ère de la mondialisation, la religion fait l’actualité, arme les hommes, s’insère dans les discours politiques, favorise les replis identitaires, fait couler le sang, influence les institutions internationales’. (FEMEN, 2017: 101−102)

This passage further stresses the marginalisation, condemnation, and erasure of women’s contributions to society or knowledge. Even though FEMEN’s actions reveal, albeit in a hyperbolic manner, threats against equal rights, its concerns are dismissed and depoliticised. The excerpt also demonstrates the French state’s, and French society’s, democratic tartufferie and Islamophobia: when FEMEN targeted Islamic institutions or practices, politicians, journalists, and the public were either silent or supportive. FEMEN was even, in some instances, hailed as a champion of the Republic (FEMEN, 2017: 145). Yet all defences or discussions of secularism were forgotten once FEMEN directed its criticism at Christianity (Fauré, 2013: 383). This includes not only their action in Notre Dame but also their pro-abortion protest, in December 2013, at the Église de la Madeleine. There, Éloïse Bouton incarnated Mary having just had an abortion, hence ‘Christmas [was] cancelled’ – the slogan for the action in addition to ‘La 344^e salope’, a nod to the iconic 1971 feminist pro-abortion manifesto and its nickname granted by Charlie Hebdo (343 femmes, 1971: 6−7; FEMEN, 2017: 128, 180−183). Bouton was later convicted for ‘exhibition sexuelle’, a sentencing that had not occurred in France since 1965 (FEMEN, 2015: 20−21, 2017: 183).

As FEMEN also explains in Rébellion, ‘C’est ainsi que nous avons découvert le lien solide qui existe encore en France entre l’Église et l’État’ (FEMEN, 2017: 171). France is not as secular a state as it claims to be, just as FEMEN unveils the religious double standard at stake in the country: targeting Islam is more tolerated than challenging Christianity. In addition, during both actions in France, FEMEN did not solely assert their anticlerical standpoint. In Notre Dame, they condemned Pope Benedict XVI’s homophobic stances and rejection of abortion. Hence, and in addition to the ‘In Gay We Trust’ action, they include and demonstrate solidarity with LGBTIQA+ communities as fourth wavers do globally. As for the Madeleine protest, it was in support of abortion laws, threatened in Spain, and as a reaction to the rising of the Front National, whose leader, Marine Le Pen, had asserted her anti-abortion views (a year prior to the action) in her infamous declaration on ‘IVG de confort’ (Zimmermann, 2012).

FEMEN’s antifascist stances and actions further unmask Western democratic tartufferies. More specifically, they force the latter societies to acknowledge normalised or conveniently ignored discriminations, such as xenophobia, racism, or sexism. Pondering, in Rébellion, their action against the Front National in 2015, they stress that, at that time, FEMEN (2017) was one of the few organisations challenging the party’s ‘dédiabolisation’ while it has remained profoundly racist and hostile to women’s rights (pp. 40−46): ‘Comment se fait-il que . . . les millions de citoyennes et de citoyens que nous sommes ne parviennent pas à s’élever en masse contre ce fléau qui dévore non seulement la France mais l’ensemble de notre société?’ (FEMEN, 2017: 47). And, indeed, by the time of the 2017 presidential elections, apathy had reached its height since the Front National was expected to make it to the ‘second tour’.

Despite the organisation’s undeniably problematic anticlerical protests or stances, its assessments, in their manifestos, of their dismissal or condemnation once they target religious institutions or symbols exposes how, even in secular countries, religion continues to possess an influence politically and culturally. Similarly, their actions against far-right movements demonstrate how their anti-egalitarian and racist ideologies have permeated democratic countries. The organisation even deems that it has become a ‘véritable indicateur et test du niveau de démocratie et de laïcité d’un état’ (FEMEN, 2015: 19). Unveiling democratic tartufferies thus participates in the global fourth-wave championing of equal and democratic rights for women and all. It also reflects feminist manifestos, as the latter texts unmask how oppressive or exclusive norms are ‘deeply ingrained in social structures and practices, internalized in every individual to some extent or another, naturalized by religions and science, and enforced by governments and public opinion’ (Weiss, 2018: 3−4). FEMEN, to a certain extent, has become a whistle-blower that holds Western democracies accountable for their double standards and dangerous tolerance of fascist principles.

Women’s rights as universal rights(?)

If FEMEN’s anticlerical actions and stances in its manifestos undeniably unveil democratic hypocrisies regarding equal rights, they also echo a question at stake in the third and fourth waves of feminism in France and globally: can the notion of women’s rights transcend cultural and political borders? For Trat (2011), feminism may only resolve current issues ‘à condition de se situer dans [une] perspective universalisante’ (p. 333). In her analysis of the fourth wave, Nicola Rivers (2017) also underlines the necessity, for some feminist scholars, to not fully abandon any notion of universality to foster global solidarity (p. 148). A similar trend runs in manifestos. Lyon (1999) explains that even when championing the interests of a particular group, manifestos nonetheless ‘hono[r] the idea of a universal political subject’ (pp. 9, 2−3). For Weiss (2018), feminist iterations highlight the many commonalities between actions, demands, and goals across time and borders (p. 23).

Once again, going from action to words, FEMEN reflects, and contradicts, both feminist manifesto traditions and the aspirations of contemporary feminisms. In both books studied here, it asserts repeatedly its position as a universal feminist organisation and posits women’s rights, and equal rights for all, as inalienable global human rights. In Manifeste FEMEN (2015), members claim ‘l’idée ferme de droits universels pour les femmes doit être défendue avec le plus grand acharnement, dans le refus catégorique de la moindre négociation à la baisse’ (p. 58). In Rébellion, FEMEN explains meticulously why LGBTIQA+ rights participate in ‘l’égalité sociale’ and sadly observes that

si les droits de l’homme sont universels, les droits des femmes sont soumis à des variations géographiques, culturelles et traditionnelles. FEMEN est un mouvement universaliste. Les femmes doivent avoir les mêmes droits et protections quel que soit leur pays de naissance. (FEMEN, 2017: 131−142, 134−135)

In addition to being inclusive of LGBTIQA+ communities, these statements mirror the fourth-wave feminist goal not only to develop a global consciousness but also to challenge the notion of women’s and equal rights as secondary or trivial as compared to universal human rights. They also further stress the existence of double standards and that women should not be subjected to a differential treatment when it comes to equality.

The latter citation from Rébellion is a response to the organisation being accused of, at best, an insensitivity to cultural differences and, at worst, Islamophobia and imperialism. FEMEN’s actions against and writings about Islamic nations, institutions, and practices remain undeniably exclusive. For example, in their first book with Ackerman, members state ‘par ces actions, nous avons voulu pousser le monde civilisé à boycotter les pays qui pratiquent des traditions islamiques barbares’ (FEMEN and Ackerman, 2013: 141, emphasis added). In this passage, FEMEN unequivocally holds a Euro- and ethnocentric, Islamophobic, as well as racist view. As mentioned earlier, their ‘Naked Jihad’ action drew a lot of criticism from Muslim women and feminists worldwide who deemed FEMEN neo-colonialist and imperialist, a criticism relayed by many scholars.¹⁷ Finally, the third and fourth waves of feminism (including in France) have been particularly wary of claiming a universal subject of feminism (i.e. Woman). Historically, to them, this subject has stood for the experiences and demands of white, straight, privileged, able-bodied Western women (Cochrane, 2013: Chapters 2, 6; Rivers, 2017: 149−152; Schaal, 2017: 21−25, 291). Hence the necessity not only to consider intersectionality but also to acknowledge and highlight the contributions and lived experiences of BIWOC (Black/Indigenous/Women of Colour), working-class and disabled women, as well as LGBTIQA+ communities, among other marginalised groups. As Rivers (2017) stresses, FEMEN’s ‘commitment to an apparently “colourblind” approach to feminism’ unquestionably ‘place[s] them in direct conflict with the current emphasis . . . on intersectional . . . feminist analysis and activism’ (p. 96).¹⁸

FEMEN’s universal standpoint, undeniably imbued with imperialism and Islamophobia, in Manifeste FEMEN and Rébellion, reveals a paradox at stake in contemporary global and transnational feminisms. In The Global Women’s Movement, Peggy Antrobus (2004) underlines that transnational feminism is desirable yet challenging to establish: women’s demands for equality or for being treated as fellow human beings should never be denied, yet cultural or religious differences, economic situations, and neo-colonialism, among many other issues, create different, if not conflicting conceptions of what women’s rights are on both local and global levels. Still, feminists should not abandon this international endeavour (pp. 9−27).

FEMEN became a transnational movement at the height of its visibility in the early and mid-2010s. Both manifestos stem from a collective effort between members from the American, Brazilian, Canadian, Dutch, French, German, Israeli, Mexican Spanish, Swedish, Turkish, and Ukrainian branches (FEMEN, 2015: 7, 2017: 188). One can rightfully argue that the books remain situated in predominantly white, Western countries. Africa, Asia, the Middle East, or Oceania are conspicuously absent.¹⁹ However, many Western countries have multicultural populations, especially in North America and Western Europe, including France. In addition, not all Western members are white as the photos in Rébellion demonstrate, even if the majority undeniably is. Furthermore, Sboui in Tunisia and Egyptian blogger Aliaa Magda Elmahdy initiated and partook in some of FEMEN’s campaigns (FEMEN, 2017: 104−107).²⁰ Hence, the multiplicity of branches and the organisation’s (few) diverse members reveal the global appeal of FEMEN’s universal standpoint, at least to some global activists.

In her critical study of Elmahdy’s involvement with the group, Karina Eileraas (2014) aptly casts FEMEN as ‘a lightning rod in the debate over how to craft global feminist solidarity’ (p. 47). Despite controversial actions and statements, they are still attempting to assert the inalienable nature of women’s and equal rights on a global level. By doing so, their writings highlight the difficulty, for fourth wavers and any other feminists, to reconcile this universal goal, as Antrobus stresses, with local specificities. If FEMEN’s manifestos do not provide answers or, due to their straightforward nature, categorically refuse to renounce an exclusive universal perspective, they nonetheless participate in the current debates on the necessity of establishing transnational feminist movements in order to successfully combat gender-based issues and other forms of oppression globally.

Conclusion

Over the past few years, FEMEN has become less visible than in the early and mid-2010s, a demise many (enthusiastically) anticipated. The organisation stages less frequent although still dramatic actions; global activists quit and disavowed FEMEN, and three of the founding members, Shachko,²¹ Sasha Shevchenko, and Anna Hutsol, left the movement.²² Its 2019 protests included a sober march to denounce feminicides in France and a forceful demonstration against Vladimir Putin ahead of the Ukraine summit in Paris. In 2020, FEMEN vigorously denounced the ‘patriarcavirus’ as the main social illness on International Women’s Rights Day, and international members staged online awareness campaigns regarding the rise of domestic violence during the ‘confinement’ (YahooActu, 2020). Writing also remains key to current and former members. Bouton (2015) and Sboui (with Glorion, 2014) released disparaging autobiographies about the organisation. In addition to her books and column, Inna Shevchenko regularly participates in collective petitions or manifestos such as ‘Les féminicides ne sont pas une fatalité’ published in Le Monde in July 2019 (Amsellem et al., 2019: 30). She also became a member of the Conseil pour l’égalité des femmes, leading to accusations of selling out to mainstream politics (Bensaid, 2019). For Shevchenko, ‘FEMEN évolue et grandit. [Il] a déjà dépassé le mouvement lui-même’ (Bensaid, 2019). Already in 2015 in Rébellion, the organisation underlines that the expression ‘ne fais pas ta FEMEN’ is used against teenage girls standing up for themselves (FEMEN, 2017: 187). Members consider it a recognition and successful diffusion of their feminist politics and thought in mainstream society.

FEMEN was and remains an important voice within and for fourth-wave feminism. Before the latter term was coined, its actions and later manifestos reflected, and also contradicted, many of the issues contemporary feminist challenge or the politics they champion. Going from action to words partakes in the feminist manifesto tradition since activism feeds FEMEN’s writing. It also seeks to destroy patriarchy and denounces the précarisation of women by a global neoliberal system; members stand in solidarity with women worldwide and LGBTIQA+ communities, just as they examine some current problems through an intersectional lens, albeit while still perpetrating racism and Islamophobia. Pondering its anticlerical and antifascist actions specifically, it exposes democratic tartufferies: there are dangerous double standards for equal rights, and Western democracies become dangerously unresponsive to, if not supportive of, far-right politics. Finally, their universal standpoint, as well as anticlerical actions and statements, raises the question of the (im)possibility of transnational feminism and whether or not women’s rights can ever be considered human rights. If FEMEN has and remains undeniably a sensationalist organisation, going from action to words still demonstrates how it has enriched, and complicated, contemporary feminist thought and activism.

Footnotes

Notes

Author biography

Michèle Schaal is Associate Professor of French and Women’s and Gender Studies at Iowa State University. She specializes in 21st century French women writers and feminisms, as well as in contemporary French feminist manifestos and essays. She is the author of Une Troisième vague féministe et littéraire (Brill, 2017) and co-editor, with Dr. Arline Cravens (Saint Louis University), of the first scholarly volume dedicated to Virginie Despentes (Rocky Mountain Review, 2018). Dr. Schaal is currently working on her second monograph, The Art of Genre- and Genderbending: Virginie Despentes’s Authorial Politics (Peter Lang, 2023).

References

343 Femmes (1971) Notre ventre nous appartient. Le Nouvel Observateur, 5 April, pp. 6–7.

Ackerman

(2013) Un Mouvement de femmes libres. Préface (ed. FEMEN and Ackerman

). Paris: Calmann-Lévy, pp. 15–27.

Amsellem

Bagieu

Bah

, et al. (2019) Les féminicides ne sont pas une fatalité. Le Monde, 6 July, p. 30.

Antrobus

(2004) The Global Women’s Movement. London; New York: Zed Books.

Bard

(2014) ‘Mon corps est une arme’, des suffragettes aux Femen. Les Temps Modernes 678(2): 213–240.

Baumgardner

(2011) F’em!: Goo Goo, Gaga, and Some Thoughts on Balls. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.

Bensaid

(2019) Inna Shevchenko, sur la ‘tactique Femen’: ‘Mettre le corps féminin, nu, au centre de votre combat politique’. France Inter – L’invité de 7h50. Available at: https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/l-invite-de-7h50/l-invite-de-7h50-15-mai-2019

Bertini

M-J

(2014) La geste de femen, un dispositif socio-technique de communication à haute tension. In: Biscarrat

Espineira

Thomas

M-Y

, et al. (eds) Cahiers de la transidentité. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp.19–38.

Bosco

(1980) Contrainte manifeste. Études françaises 16(3–4): 119–129.

10.

Bouton

(2015) Confession d’une ex-FEMEN. Paris: Moment.

11.

Chollet

(2013) Femen partout, féminisme nulle part. Le Monde Diplomatique.fr. Available at: http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/carnet/2013-03-12-Femen

12.

Cochrane

(2013) All the Rebel Women: The Rise of the Fourth Wave of Feminism. London: Guardian Books.

13.

Colman

(2010) Notes on the feminist manifesto: the strategic use of hope. Journal for Cultural Research 14(4): 375–392.

14.

Delaume

(2013) Les Femen: bonnets pleins, idées creuses. Vanity Fair.fr. Available at: http://www.vanityfair.fr/actualites/international/articles/femen-chloe-delaume-bonnets-pleins-idees-creuses/1739

15.

Eileraas

(2014) Sex(t)ing revolution, Femen-izing the public square: Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, nude protest, and transnational feminist body politics. Signs 40(1): 40–52.

16.

Fauré

(2013) Le planispère des Femen. Les Temps Modernes 674–675(3): 377–388.

17.

FEMEN (2015) Manifeste FEMEN. Paris: Utopia.

18.

FEMEN (2017) Rébellion. Paris: Des Femmes.

19.

FEMEN and Ackerman

(2013) FEMEN. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.

20.

FEMEN and Ackerman

(2014) FEMEN. Cambridge; Malden, MA: Polity Press.

21.

Fraisse

(2014) Les Excès du genre: Concept, image, nudité. Paris: Lignes.

22.

Goujon

(2017) Femen: Histoire d’une trahison. Paris: Max Milo.

23.

Khrebtan-Hörhager

Kononenko

(2015) Of fighters and frames: Femen’s corporeality between the old, the new, the yellow and the blue. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 44(3): 224–251.

24.

Koechlin

(2019) La Révolution féministe. Paris: Amsterdam.

25.

Lyon

(1999) Manifestoes: Provocations of the Modern. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

26.

McAlister

(2015) Conversation and commentary: FEMEN’s sextremism as (imperialist?) feminism. Women’s Studies in Communication 38(4): 357–392.

27.

Rivers

(2017) Postfeminism(s) and the Arrival of the Fourth Wave: Turning Tides. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

28.

Sboui

Glorion

(2014) Mon Corps m’appartient. Paris: Plon.

29.

Schaal

(2017) Une Troisième vague féministe et littéraire. Les femmes de lettres de la nouvelle génération. Leiden: Brill; Boston, MA: Rodopi.

30.

Shevchenko

(2019) Héroïques : amazones, pécheresses, révolutionnaires. Paris: Les Échappés.

31.

Shevchenko

Hillier

(2017) Anatomie de l’oppression. Paris: Seuil.

32.

Trat

(2011) De Nouveaux défis pour les féministes. In: Trat

(ed.) Les Cahiers du féminisme (1977-1998) : Dans le tourbillon du féminisme et de la lutte des classes. Paris: Syllepse, pp. 325−338.

33.

Valente

(2015) Can women’s bare breasts disarticulate meanings? A look into FEMEN’s street protests in Paris. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, Series IV: Philology & Cultural Studies 8(2): 143–152.

34.

Vaton

(2017) ‘Femen, histoire d’une trahison’ : le récit d’un gâchis monumental. Le Nouvel Observateur.fr. Available at: https://www.nouvelobs.com/societe/20170921.OBS4954/femen-histoire-d-une-trahison-le-recit-d-un-gachis-monumental.html

35.

Weiss

(2018) Feminist Manifestos: A Global Documentary Reader. New York: New York University Press.

36.

YahooActu (2020) Des militantes Femen décontaminent Paris du ‘patriarcavirus’. Yahoo France. Available at: https://fr.news.yahoo.com/vid%C3%A9o-militantes-femen-d%C3%A9contaminent-paris-085533367.html

37.

Zimmermann

G-M

(2012) IVG de ‘confort’: Cher Louis Aliot, prêtez-moi une aiguille à tricoter. Le Nouvel Observateur. Le Plus. Available at: http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/313897-ivg-de-confort-cher-louis-aliot-pretez-moi-une-aiguille-a-tricoter.html