Instead of #metoo: for more indecency between women and men

Instead of #metoo: for more indecency between women and men

La proposition (1872), william-adolphe bouguereau (1825-1905) / public domain

France: 100 women, including catherine deneuve and catherine millet, defend the freedom to be intrusive

Of course, the weinstein affair has led to very similar debates in france as well. #balancetonporc is the counterpart to #metoo and the ublen experiences that women describe under this keyword are not much different from those of american or german women.

Nevertheless, one expects something different from the discussion in france. There is a rumor that france understands more about the good life than anywhere else, especially when it comes to love or seduction. Verfuhrung is a word that is actually hardly used in everyday life in this country any more. Where against "seduction", among the first terms used by a french journalist colleague when i asked him about the hundred women’s contribution to the debate.

The debate article appeared today in le monde. Among the hundred women who signed it, actress catherine deneuve will probably have the highest profile in germany. Of the other signatories, one or the other writer may be known to interested people in this country, as for example.B. Catherine millet.

There is also a german signatory among the hundred: the actress and writer ingrid caven. A former porn actress, brigitte lahaie, is about to join the boss of the rather wayward magazine le causeur, elisabeth levy ("always good for trouble"), and peggy sastre, a feminist with some potential for irritation.

"We defend the freedom to be intrusive"

The hundred signatories are an unusual collective, who even with the title of their contribution to the discussion create the expectation that they want to say something different than the usual. To put it in a short, sharp condensation: the women advocate for more openness in the relationships between men and women and reject the "mannerhass" in certain parts of feminism. They attack a puritanism that has taken root there and once again assigns women a victim role.

"We defend the freedom to be intrusive, because this is indispensably linked to sexual freedom", is written as a maxim in the headline. It is a central basic statement, which is then explained in more detail in the text:

As women, we do not recognize ourselves in feminism, which, beyond denouncing the abuse of power, takes on the face of a hatred of men and sexuality. We think that freedom, "no" to say to a sexual offer, does not work without the freedom to fall someone lasciviously. We look at it this way: you have to know how to respond or react to this freedom to fall in someone’s way without pupating into the role of prey or victim.

Collectif de 100 femmes

Obviously it’s about subtleties, not about brute force, but still about obscenity and finally about an understanding of roles. The women’s writing unmistakably distances itself from sexual violence with the first sentence: "the rape is a crime". But this is immediately followed in the next sentence by a distinction that, in her opinion, obviously needs to be made in the debate: "but the pickup or the hitting on (i.O. La drague), which is insistent or clumsy, is not an offense, just as gallantry is not a macho aggression."

It all depends on the differences

A lot depends on the terms, but they should not be given too much weight either. About the "gallantry" i am not sure whether the term "aggressive sexual harassment" was used in the above paragraphs "importuner" with "be pushy" in fact the best way to express it is. The internet dictionary leo helps with "to be a burden to someone", "to the burden fall", but also "tract", "behelligen" or just "get on your nerves".

What matters is the difference between this and aggressive sexual harassment, which puts the person being harassed in a completely different predicament than the person being harassed "intrusive". The debate contribution of the 100 women implies that one is aware of these differences. It may not always be clear with words on paper or in a legal text, but in the situation itself the difference is very clear for someone who has a sense for his counterpart.

Leave a Comment