Translation of the Swedish article by Maria Sveland “#MeToo and the Backlash”: https://www.etc.se/kronika/metoo-och-bakslaget
If there is one thing feminists can be certain of, it’s that all their successes will face resistance.
The setbacks can vary in form and effectiveness, but attempts to hinder progress are as guaranteed as the fact that the so-called “Kulturprofilene” linked to the Swedish Academy has stretched the definition of the term ‘gentleman’.
Therefore, in the liberating revolution initiated by #MeToo, it is interesting to examine all the fabricated objections now being raised.
First came the criticism of naming perpetrators. There was a supposed concern that the media would act like a courtroom, where any random angry woman could name anyone as a form of revenge for minor or major grievances.
This argument was scarcely credible, considering that out of the thousands of testimonies that have emerged in recent weeks, only three or four individuals have been named (not by a single woman, but by a series of women who stood behind the accusations against these individuals). Three or four named men out of thousands of perpetrators. Does anyone really worry that this will erode journalistic ethics? We have witnessed far more serious instances of speculative naming in the past year.
The second type of criticism now emerging is that #MeToo conflates everything, small and large. That accounts of mild sexual harassment are mixed with stories of outright rape and other more violent acts, diluting the significance of the “real” assaults.
The unwillingness to see how sexist jargon is connected to sexual harassment, and even its most extreme form, rape, is fascinating. As if all the men who have assaulted women for years got the idea out of nowhere. As if it wasn’t an act encouraged and emboldened by others’ sexist jokes and unwelcome, insensitive hands on women’s bodies. As if rape and other abuses weren’t a product of the sexist culture we all grow up in.
Once again, it is quite surreal to see how the concern is directed in the opposite direction. Instead of worrying about the fact that almost all girls and women have experienced sexual harassment and violence, commentators, columnists, and other opinion makers express concern over men who become silent and no longer know how to flirt or approach women. They are worried that “rational conversation will collapse due to a culture of censorship” (Lena Andersson on P1 Studio One, 28/11). They worry that some people now feel forced to listen instead of being able to question and discuss.
Hanne Kjöller touched on the same topic in ‘Aktuelt’ (30/11) and expressed concern that the easily offended are now setting the tone and fail to distinguish between minor and significant issues.
“It is part of adult life to be asked questions one doesn’t want to answer, and in some cases, to have to say no to them. It is part of adult life to hear bad jokes. It is part of adult life that there are columnists who express opinions you don’t agree with.”
Uh. Yes. As if that’s what #metoo is about. This must be one of the funniest, most hostile misinterpretations I’ve heard. So far.
We have much to learn from history, and many years ago, one of the modern era’s greatest setbacks for feminists occurred in Sweden. Women were again endeavouring to highlight the violence present in the intimate surroundings of most women. This time, it concerned Roks and researcher Eva Lundgren’s report “Slagen Dame.” It faced the same hostile interpretations of research as we see today and the same “concern” that the perpetrator could be anyone.
Critics were outraged that “Slagen Dame” mixed entirely different statements about violence and that the study, instead of asking general questions about experiences of abuse, posed specific and detailed questions:
“Have you experienced being kicked, slapped with an open hand, or having your hair pulled?”
Among the 7,000 women who responded to the survey, 56% reported having been sexually harassed. Critics (including Hanne Kjöller) argued that the respondents trivialised the violence, claiming the findings were entirely misleading.
“They portrayed it as though we were describing clumsy jokes and not ‘real’ violence, asserting that we should focus on genuine violence. But our point was, you will never see the severe violence unless you understand where it begins. The context where violence gradually gains acceptance and tolerance,” said Jenny Westerstrand, one of the contributing researchers to the study, whom I interviewed for my book “Hatred – a book about antifeminism.”
Back then, the backlash had devastating consequences for all involved. A lifetime’s research work by Eva Lundgren on men’s violence against women was obliterated.
We know there will be pushback, but this time let’s stand together, ready to address all the assertive arguments and objections. Let’s support each other so no one feels alone in the harsh wind (as has often been the case before). Let the “critics” return with their fake concerns to their fancy, closed spaces and secret societies, achieving nothing.
#MeToo is one of the most rational and relevant conversations this country has ever had.
