Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Women of FEMEN Crash "Gangsters Party in Davos"
The Associated Press reports:
Three topless Ukrainian protesters were detained Saturday while trying to break into an invitation-only gathering of international CEOs and political leaders to call attention to the needs of the world's poor. Separately, demonstrators from the Occupy movement marched to the edge of the gathering.
After a complicated journey to reach the heavily guarded Swiss resort town of Davos, the Ukrainians arrived at the entrance to the complex where the World Economic Forum takes place every year.
With temperatures around freezing in the snow-filled town, they took off their tops and tried to climb a fence before being detained. "Crisis! Made in Davos," read one message painted across a protester's torso, while others held banners that said "Poor, because of you" and "Gangsters party in Davos." [...]
The activists are from the group FEMEN, which has become popular in Ukraine for staging small, half-naked protests to highlight a range of issues including oppression of political opposition. They have also conducted protests in some other countries.
"We came here to Switzerland to Davos to explain the position of all poor people of the world, to explain that we are poor because of these rich people who now sit in the building," said Inna Schewcenko.
# # #
119 Comments so far
Show All*rolls eyes*
"To suggest feminists who oppose the pornification of society are stirring up a moral panic is to confuse a politically progressive movement with rightwing attempts to police sexual behaviour. We can, of course, identify just such a conservative strand in current debates in Britain: interventions of the coalition government include calls for girls to be given lessons in how to practise abstinence and attacks on abortion rights. But feminists who organise against pornification are not arguing that sexualised images of women cause moral decay; rather that they perpetuate myths of women's unconditional sexual availability and object status, and thus undermine women's rights to sexual autonomy, physical safety and economic and social equality. The harm done to women is not a moral harm but a political one, and any analysis must be grounded in a critique of the corporate control of our visual landscape." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/01/feminists-pornificat...
What about females? FEMEM is a group of women. Feminists. Feminists who do not subscribe to your or Gail Dines simplistic reductionist view of feminism. And linking Dines piss poor article proves what? The part that you are excerpted here is a piss poor argument.
i agree. it's encouraging that these activists made it to davos to participate in the demonstrations; i hope they make it to the g8 later this year. i believe that their message makes political expression more accessible to young people or people who are saturated by msm culture. code pink also effectively uses similar gotcha tactics.
i appreciate CD for bringing these young women to our attention (i can tell i'm getting old b/c i haven't heard of femen before). and it seems that they are receiving attention, here in america. i quickly found links to the ap story at fox, cbs, abc, msn and yahoo news (who placed the article in the entertainment section). at first kids (and adults) who see this might think it's just a joke (satire like spinal tap), but for those who look beyond the photo - people will discover other people fighting for rights. is it a novelty, yes. does it matter if more people listen and see the message (you make us poor) ? it was interesting that their slogans were written in english (for an international audience).
...peace...
Your post is BS. Murdoch's Daily Mail "second page nude spread" ring any bells?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/01/feminists-pornificat...
You responded to that with this: "As far as I can tell, the substance of your complaint is that they are good looking."
Then. try. to. comprehend. this:
"...feminists who organise against pornification are not arguing that sexualised images of women cause moral decay; rather that they perpetuate myths of women's unconditional sexual availability and object status, and thus undermine women's rights to sexual autonomy, physical safety and economic and social equality. The harm done to women is not a moral harm but a political one, and any analysis must be grounded in a critique of the corporate control of our visual landscape." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/01/feminists-pornificat...
You responded to that with this: "As far as I can tell, the substance of your complaint is that they are good looking."
Then. try. to. comprehend. this:
"...feminists who organise against pornification are not arguing that sexualised images of women cause moral decay; rather that they perpetuate myths of women's unconditional sexual availability and object status, and thus undermine women's rights to sexual autonomy, physical safety and economic and social equality. The harm done to women is not a moral harm but a political one, and any analysis must be grounded in a critique of the corporate control of our visual landscape." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/01/feminists-pornificat...
Found this to respond to this question: "...consisting mainly of female university students?" College is not free BTW: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/feb/15/lap-dancing-students-fun...
Yes college is not free. Take that up with capitalism. Since you are oh so concerned about women university students who work as lap dancers, surely you should also be concerned about those who have to work as waitresses, cashiers, stacking shelfs in supermarkets, or who have to rack up huge loans?
I just remembered Chris Hedges, a well-known Occupy supporter, wrote a book about the pornography industry. Here it is, in Alternet: http://www.alternet.org/media/141675/the_rise_of_gonzo_porn_is_the_latest_sign_of_america's_cultural_apocalypse_/. I wonder what he would think of this?
Point: it hasn't made the military less violent, less armored, less inhumane, even since the 50s.