May 13, 2025 • 34 mins
It’s been 30 years since the Beijing Declaration on Women, a landmark agreement to empower women and girls.
“The Beijing declaration was such an incredible moment to say that enough is enough. Women are half of humanity and we have to be better,” says Lata Narayanaswamy, associate professor at the School of Politics and International Studies at the University of Leeds.
But now, some governments are rolling back women’s rights. Humanitarian programmes that help women and girls are being cut.
“During his first presidential term, Trump vetoed a new resolution proposed under the UN Women, Peace and Security agenda because it enshrined the right of women to their reproductive rights,” says Leandra Bias from the Institute of Political Science at the University of Bern.
What’s happening? Support for vulnerable women is being cut, and toxic masculinity is growing. The UN is worried.
“I am concerned about the resurgence in some quarters of toxic ideas about masculinity and efforts to glorify gender stereotypes, especially among young men,” said UN human rights commissioner Volker Türk.
This week Inside Geneva asks what toxic masculinity actually means. Is it even new?
“What worries me about the language of toxic masculinity is that it’s like, ‘Oh my God, we didn’t know this was coming.’ But it’s actually just a continuity of how violence and patriarchy combine,” says Narayanaswamy.
Is there a connection between toxic masculinity and the repression of women? Are both now identifiers for authoritarian regimes?
“‘We are the tough guys, we are actually the proper nations, while look at Europe, they have been completely emasculated and therefore they are not a model to aspire to.’ Therefore, democracy is also not a model to aspire to,” says Bias.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva to listen to the full episode.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's program… Beijing1995.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
program.
In 1995 the world gathered inBeijing to take bold action for
women and girls rights.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
These voices unified into the Beijing Declaration and
.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Platform for Action.
If there is one message thatechoes forth from this
conference, let it be that humanrights are women's rights and
women's rights are human rights,once and for all, the Beijing
declaration.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
That was such an incredible moment in 1995 to say
that actually enough is enough,because actually, you know,
women are half of humanity andwe have to be better.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Planned Parenthood should absolutely be defunded.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or
no?
As a principle, there has to besome form of punishment For the
woman.
Yeah Trump, already in hisfirst presidential term, with
the UN Women Peace and Securityagenda, there was a new
resolution proposed and hevetoed that because it had
enshrined the right for women totheir reproductive rights.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
I'm concerned about the resurgence in some quarters
of toxic ideas about masculinityand efforts to glorify gender
stereotypes, especially amongyoung men.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
What worries me about the language of toxic
masculinity.
It's like, oh my god, we didn'tknow this was coming.
But it's actually just acontinuity of how violence and
patriarchy combine to justifythen certain expressions of
masculinity.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
The Orthodox Church and President Vladimir Putin are
new best friends.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
The new Russia religious, conservative and
deeply patriotic.
Speaker 4 (02:03):
I call this competing masculinities.
So we are the tough guys, weare actually the proper nations,
while look at Europe, they havebeen completely emasculated and
therefore they are not a modelto aspire to.
Therefore, democracy is alsonot a model to be aspiring to.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes and intoday's programme we're going to
talk about toxic masculinity.
And already I can hear youthinking why are we talking
about that here in Geneva?
Well, a number of reasons.
First, just in the last fewweeks, the UN Human Rights
(02:44):
Commissioner, Volker Tuerck, haswarned about what he called a
resurgence of toxic ideas aboutmasculinity and efforts to
glorify gender stereotypes,especially among young men.
He blamed misogynisticinfluencers with millions of
followers on social media whoare hailed as heroes.
(03:06):
At the same time, we are seeingdeep cuts by the United States
and indeed other traditionaldonors like Germany, Switzerland
, the United Kingdom, to theUN's humanitarian programs.
But the United States inparticular has singled out
programs focusing on women, ongender, on diversity and on
(03:28):
reproductive rights.
We're also history check here,marking 30 years since the
Beijing Declaration on Women.
It set out a landmark globalagenda for achieving gender
equality and empowering womenand girls.
For achieving gender equalityand empowering women and girls.
(03:50):
So is there a connection betweenan apparent rise in what's been
called toxic masculinity and arollback of gender equality, and
even a connection with a risein authoritarian politics?
To try to unpick this debate,I'm joined by two incredibly
smart women.
Lata Narayanaswamy, AssociateProfessor at the University of
(04:11):
Leeds School of Politics andInternational Studies.
She has just co-authored areport as part of Oxfam
International's gender justicecampaign.
It's called Personal toPowerful, holding the line for
gender justice in the face ofgrowing anti-rights movements,
(04:31):
and we're also joined by LeandraBias.
She's an advanced postdoctoralresearcher at the University of
Bairn's Institute of PoliticalScience.
She's done a lot of research ongender equality, the
suppression of equality and howthat perhaps connects with the
rise of authoritarianism, with aspecial focus on Russia.
(04:52):
Welcome to you both.
Now, first of all, let's lookat the term toxic masculinity,
because it has become a bit of abuzzword, or buzzwords, if you
like.
How would you both define it?
Leandra, in Bern, I'll come toyou first.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
All right.
Thanks so much, imogen, for theintroduction, and that might be
actually a little bit of aspoiler, because personally I
don't use toxic masculinity inmy research, but I think it is
intimately connected to what inmy field we describe more a rise
of traditional values and howthat shapes actually entire
(05:30):
government's policy, both withinand without.
So, interestingly, I tend toalways say phenomena like
bloggers, like Andrew Tate, areincredibly important, but it
might be at least equallyimportant to point out the
entire states, entiregovernments, have now programs
both within their countries andnow explicitly in terms of their
(05:53):
foreign policy, which are builton an idea of very traditional,
patriarchal and heteronormativeway of life in which what I
think popular opinion would thenunderstand under toxic
masculinity is glorified andpromoted.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Lata what about you?
Yeah, I think obviously thereis, just as Leandra said.
I couldn't agree more with whatshe set out there, and I think,
in a way, toxic masculinity isa buzzword that is trying to
tell us something importantabout trends that are emerging
that we're now seeing beingescalated within state
(06:31):
structures as well.
So it's not just aboutindividuals or groups of young
boys or men.
Other terms that are comingaround this are things like
manosphere, right?
So social media enabling sortof hyper-masculine influencers
like Andrew Tate that promotemisogyny, oppose feminism.
(07:02):
But it's really important forthis idea of a gender binary and
leading people to fall backinto the trap of thinking that
there is something innate orbiological to gender that's
linked, in particular, tobehavior that's creating this
toxicity.
So, in relation to masculinity,that violence in particular is
necessarily an intrinsicexpression of that.
(07:23):
So I think there's sort ofsomething we need to tease out
around here, because we live ina system that does have a
tendency to produce thesebehaviors, right?
So when we are invested in agender binary as part of the
relationship with what we mightcall in the jargon we call this
heteronormative patriarchy, sowe sort of center the idea that
heterosexuality is normal andthen within that we have
patriarchy.
(07:43):
So we sort of center the ideathat heterosexuality is normal
and then within that we havepatriarchy, so sort of the
systems that are designed toprivilege male power, and then
capitalism that then reinforcesthat male power, right.
So there's a danger that we seethis as something new, and I
think that's what worries meabout the language of toxic
masculinity.
It's like, oh my God, we didn'tknow this was coming.
(08:04):
And it's a bit like me aboutthe language of toxic
masculinity.
It's like, oh my God, we didn'tknow this was coming, and it's
a bit like you know, but it'sactually just a continuity of
how violence and patriarchycombine to justify then certain
expressions of masculinity, andI think that is something that
we just need to keep.
We need to hold that alongsidethe worry that has been
expressed by Volker Turk, Ithink not unreasonably.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
I mean I think that's really interesting.
This was one of my questionsalso is you know, how new is
this?
And I do take your point, lata,it's not new.
We've had thousands of years ofpatriarchy.
We women know this.
But what is kind of frustratingis we also had from the UN, the
Beijing Declaration on Womenand we have seen some really
(08:43):
great progress and then in thelast few years I do think things
have changed.
I report from the UN in Geneva.
I saw Russian Foreign MinisterSergei Lavrov go to the Human
Rights Council I mean, it is afew years ago now before he got
banned and sanctioned and talkabout family values, which
(09:05):
basically he meant was returningto this traditional, very
traditional view of what is aman, what is a woman and what is
an acceptable family.
Now this year we have seen thePresident of the United States
welcoming a man who has beenconvicted of violence against
women.
The Irish martial arts guy,conor McGregory, has been
(09:25):
convicted in a civil court forrape.
To me, that says something haschanged.
Or what was being in theprocess of denormalized is being
normalized again.
Leandra, do you have anythoughts on that?
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Yes, of course.
I mean, I have, on the one hand, many thoughts on Russia, but
in a way it's not so surprisingthat this is now being promoted
and supported by the US.
And even there I would fullyagree, by the way, with Lata
that it's really important thatwe historicize a phenomenon and
that different ways of thatphenomenon have existed before
(10:00):
and for some a backlash wasexisting throughout this time
because their rights were notgranted ever.
But with the US it is very muchbecause the two countries have
been at the forefront throughdifferent means of promoting
that if we want to stick withthe term, that toxic masculinity
in an institutionalized way.
(10:21):
Because while Russia waspromoting it through the UN, we
might remember, for example,trump already in his first
presidential term, with the UNWomen, peace and Security Agenda
, there was a new resolutionproposed and he vetoed that
because it had enshrined theright for women to their
(10:42):
reproductive rights.
So we were already seeing thattrend before, and so therefore
it is not so surprising,especially when we then look at
the organizations behind thatagenda, and here I really mean
they go by different names.
It can be traditional values,it can be pro-family values, but
if we look at the movement andit is a network.
(11:04):
It is highly financed by bothUS evangelical organizations
they make the biggest chunk offunding but also by Russian
oligarchs.
So in a way the two really gohand in hand.
And that might be also a segueto show well, it kind of is
innate to authoritarianworldviews.
It kind of is innate toauthoritarian worldviews.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Lata, I see you nodding quite energetically
there at what Leandra had to say.
I mean, honestly, how have wegot here?
An alliance of evangelicalgroups and Russian oligarchs
combining to oppress genderequality and women's rights?
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Yes, yeah, I mean, that is the question, isn't it?
We are in quite anextraordinary place and I'm sure
Leandra, you're also, andImogen having these
conversations where we're allsort of going.
I don't understand how we'veended up here.
But again, I think it is worthjust sort of pausing to reflect
on what it is that we'reexperiencing and observing.
(12:09):
I would say that there'sprobably still some continuity
that's worthwhile reflecting on.
I totally hear what you'resaying, imogen, in terms of the
Beijing declaration.
That was such an incrediblemoment, years and years in the
making, in terms of the kinds ofmovements that were coming
together to make this case atthe UN in 1995.
(12:30):
To say that actually enough isenough, we need to make
commitments because actually youknow, women are half of
humanity and we have to bebetter right, otherwise we're
all kind of doomed.
And that was absolutely rightand really important promises
were made at that time and itdid unleash a lot of resource,
and that is really important torecognize.
But there is again here a noteof caution, I guess, for me,
(12:53):
which is that some of the signswere kind of already there and
maybe what we're seeing is alsojust an extension to a wider
group of people, because thequestion here also has to be
which women are we talking about?
So, leandra, you know you madethe point that for some women
there's never a rollback right,and I would totally agree.
So this question of which women?
So, when we consider how beinga woman intersects with class
(13:15):
and race, for instance, we cansee that poorer and racialized
women have been harder hit byausterity or, more recently, in
the COVID pandemic, and thatdiminishing the resources they
have to survive in turn leads todiminished capacities to access
their rights and entitlements.
We also know that as peoplemove, rights also diminish.
(13:36):
So people who are classed asmigrants, whether they're deemed
legal or illegal, have fewerrights than so-called settled
populations.
And this actually link iscrucial because the instability
unleashed by the 2007 and 2008financial crisis is in fact a
key pivot point for the morebold articulations of further
and further right wing,ethno-nationalist agendas,
(13:58):
because it kind of becomes anexcuse to make what you were
talking about Imogen thesetraditional family values as the
sort of go-to solution torestore that sense of the lost
stability, and that then tendsto center on strengthening the
heteronormative family unit asthe common sense response to all
this instability.
If we could just get the basicsright.
(14:19):
If we could just go back tobeing regular, normal and for
those of you who are listening,I'm doing inverted air commas
normal families, actually,everything will be fine.
I think that kind of everydaysort of tonal messaging actually
resonates with lots of people.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Leandra, as we said, you look particularly at the
suppression of women's rightsfor gender equality, and that
you see it as a tool in thetoolbox of authoritarianism.
Tell us a bit about that,because for some of us it's
quite hard to see how genderequality should be a threat.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
Yes, and if I may just add to what Lata pointed
out at the beginning, I am quiteinsistent on saying it's not
just which type of women but Ireally use the term of Russia
but also with a lot of the rightwing movements we're seeing in
the US, but also in Europe, itis very much a targeting of even
(15:20):
more marginalized communities.
So in terms of their sexualityor gender identity also, why is
that a tool and how did thathappen?
It is really what we see nowbeing emulated by other
countries.
I make the case that Russia isan extreme case that has
(15:44):
foregrounded this toolbox andwent, and I call it an extreme
case because it is a countrythat unleashed a war of
aggression in the name ofdefending traditional values,
and so what we see there is anescalation in the sense that I
really say it's a toolbox for anauthoritarian government in
different ways, because it helpsyou embolden, really enshrine
(16:07):
an authoritarian regime in manyways.
I will just pick up two.
One is really you manage to, inRussia's case, discredit
democracy, and so the way itworks is that they view the
international system in what Icall this competing
masculinities.
So we are the tough guys, weare actually the proper nations,
while look at Europe, they havebeen completely emasculated and
(16:30):
therefore they are not a modelto aspire to.
Therefore, democracy is alsonot a model to be aspiring to,
and what is left then is theantithesis.
So authoritarianism, that's one,but in addition to that, they
also promote nihilism in thesense of saying well, look,
(16:51):
gender equality is not actuallya human right, it is just a tool
of power the West has used.
What Russia does is really aninstrumentalization of the term
neocolonialism, which helps alot to build alliances in the
global South, where thesegrievances are real.
And what plays in favor here isthat we don't acknowledge
(17:11):
Russia's imperialism.
But so they say this is just atool of the West to import into
other native nations to make usimplode from within, and
therefore nothing here is reallyvalid, neither gender equality
but, by extension, alsodemocracy.
So it really helps to then saywell, by consequence, the only
(17:33):
thing again that is left is anauthoritarian regime, and if you
want your apparently innatetraditional values to survive,
you obviously need a strongleader, and maybe we'll get to
that.
But it goes as far as evenjustifying aggression.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
This narrative is actually having some success,
isn't it, I mean, andparticularly around the issue of
gender.
Having some success, isn't it,I mean, and particularly around
the issue of gender?
I mean, I have heard, on evensome of the most respectable
news programmes, analysts saying, oh well, we need to address
the unhappiness of young men, asif it's kind of all our faults,
(18:09):
and frankly, I have to say, ona very personal note, this makes
me quite angry and I don'treally see that there's
something that we have done aswomen, that gender equality is
what is responsible for theirso-called misery and their
desire to have their rights andI'm using inverted commas but
(18:30):
now their rights back.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
Yeah, no, no, I was going to say.
I mean, I think you know thereis a sense that there is
something existential happeningfor masculinity, which is where
I think the toxic masculinitycomes from.
But I think one of thechallenges of gender equality
and one of the ways in which theright will frame this argument
to kind of go back to your point, imogen is I think there is a
(18:53):
tendency to kind of play this asa zero-sum game, and I can't
remember who said it, so pleasecome jump in if you remember,
but that, whoever said it was, Ithink, very clever in that, you
know, if you're always used tobeing on top or used to being
the beneficiary of inequality,then equality feels like
oppression, right.
And so then you take thatalongside the sense that
(19:14):
everything feels like we'recompeting for everything, right,
resources, attention, and thenit's, you know, statistically
it's like, oh, you know, womenare outperforming men or getting
meh, and so then equalitystarts to feel a little bit like
something is being taken awayfrom me.
And then, when you're trying toreassert this gender binary,
then gender equality anddiversity become existential
(19:37):
threats.
But one of the reasons for thatis, of course, the system that
you want to preserve relies on ahighly unequal gender division
of labor.
It relies on this gender binarythat is premised on the idea
that men do paid work.
And it's interesting when Ithink about, you know, the way
that Trump has been talkingabout, you know, bringing all
the factories back into the US.
(19:58):
It's part of painting thispicture of a kind of
re-industrialized US, where realmen go out and do real work
with their hands, with big powertools and make cars and dig oil
wells or whatever he thinks,even though actually, a there's
no plan for that and they don'teven know what that means.
But B if you look at the modernfactory, actually so much is
(20:19):
automated the kinds of jobs thatthose used to be.
They may have been dangerous,but they were unionized,
historically reasonably wellpaid.
We can have our critiques aboutthe breadwinner family,
obviously, but you could atleast in principle, say that
families in whatever, whateverway they were formed, could
probably live on one wage.
Like some of that, it's lost.
In whatever way, they'reharking back to a traditional
past.
You couldn't reproduce it,whether you wanted to or not.
(20:42):
So that doesn't even make senseon its own terms.
But the reality is you havethis nostalgia for this.
You know, real men doing realpaid work and women who are
undertaking the unpaid andundervalued reproductive work.
So then anything that talksabout gender equality and
diversity is just a kind of afoundational existential threat
to the way the world works.
(21:02):
And so you can see whyattacking that, when you
understand it in those systemicterms, you can see why attacking
that becomes really, reallyimportant.
I mean, it was astonishing tome that that was literally the
very first executive order Iknew about the anti-wook, but it
really caught me off guard.
I mean, leandra, I'm sure youhave lots of thoughts about that
, but I was genuinely takenaback that that was the very,
(21:24):
very first thing that he did.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
If I may just add on your question of you know, are
they tapping into like genuinefears and all of that?
And I think that's alwaysthat's such a double edged sword
because on the one hand, thatfear stems from an unjustified
entitlement, as Lata justbrilliantly spelled out right,
and on the other hand, of coursewe should be addressing it
because it's to some degreeperhaps still real.
(21:48):
But when we address it, we mustnot be reinforcing that
hierarchy that lies behind it.
Like you can talk about thosefears and how it may be
destabilizing and how, indeed,masculinities should be in
plural, and all you have beentaught is that one form, the
hegemonic form, the one thatactually gets your reputation,
the one that gets you up theladder and the one that is based
(22:11):
on toxicity.
But there are other ways andempower men and boys to, yeah,
well, embrace other forms whichare just as it should be, should
be also valued more valid.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
That I want to come on to, just as our closing
remarks, because our listenersalways do like to hear what they
could do about the things thatwe discuss.
But before we come to that Iwant to, because we are coming
from Geneva and we talk aboutthe United Nations I want both
of your thoughts on what the UNcan do, because we know the UN
(22:44):
is flawed.
But people do sometimes say ifwe didn't have the UN, if we got
rid of it, we'd have toreinvent it.
And if we look at some of theachievements slow but still
since the Beijing Declaration in95, maternal mortality has
reduced quite substantially.
There are more girls ineducation, and it's precisely
(23:08):
these programs now which arehaving their funding ripped away
.
Have you got any thoughts whatthe UN can do to defend these
programs, because I sense fearand panic in Geneva at the
moment.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Yeah, no, it's a great question.
I couldn't agree more Imogenabout.
You know, if the UN didn'texist, we'd have to create it,
and I think it's alwaysdangerous to say, well,
something's imperfect, so youknow, we're just going to get
rid of it.
I think that's one of thosebabies in bathwater problems,
and we're better off trying topreserve what works and fix what
isn't rather than just sayingthat actually, this is not worth
(23:45):
saving.
I think the difficulty is and Ithink it goes back to Leandra
the way that you were settingout some of the challenges in
this space.
The fact is, this escalation tothese particular ideas and
movements being expressedthrough state power is the big
challenge, I think, within theUN.
Because, obviously, if whatwe're saying is the UN is the
(24:06):
multilateral space and everybodyhas a voice, the fact is there
are some states that areexpressing these ideas.
So what, as the UN, are youmeant to do?
Because it would also be unfairto say, well, we're going to
only talk about these issues inthis way and sort of negate the
ways in which other actors mightwant to talk about it, as
unpleasant and unhelpful andregressive as we might find them
(24:29):
.
So my response to thatgenerally is that we have to use
the multilateral spaces tobuild those alliances, to make
our voices stronger.
The UN has to offer thatopenness to make our voices
stronger.
The UN has to offer thatopenness.
But I also think there has to besomething about reflecting on
whether the UN itself is part ofcreating some of the economic
(24:49):
consensus that underpins whythese movements are able to
exist in the way that they do.
Right, we have to think in amuch more creative way about why
are things feeling so unstable.
To think in a much morecreative way about why are
things feeling so unstable.
How do we as a global societyrespond to things like economic
crisis, war, conflict, and whatwe can see with all the
conflicts going on in the worldright now is actually the
authority of the UN, in whateverlimited way it exists, being
(25:12):
severely undermined, systems ofinternational law that are just
being systematically ignored.
So we need to come together asa global society and demand that
the UN does at least sayactually we have made some rules
, we do have some norms, we haveresolutions, we have these in
place and we're actually goingto insist that they are followed
, because otherwise, actually,we lose the capacity to use that
(25:34):
multilateral space as a kind ofglobal commons where we can
share ideas and work out how wesolve problems together.
So I think the UN does have arole, but we do have to think
carefully about what role we dowant it to play.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
What about you, Leandra?
I mean, I do see the supportfor multilateralism and the idea
that the UN can do anythingdiminishing fast.
Speaker 4 (25:57):
Well, I was just going to say.
It's always like we speak aboutthe UN, but behind that, at the
end of the day, it's memberstates.
So my first point would be andthat's where I'm scared about it
is that those who do claim tobe liberal democracies are very
much also going down the path ofespousing some of those values
and saying well, we aredefunding those programs as well
(26:20):
, or at least no longerattributing them the same
priority.
And since we are now in aspiral of militarization, well,
gender equality can once againwait.
So it should start from memberstates making that commitment
real, and that, in my view,would then translate in the UN
in two ways On the one hand,fund those advocacy groups,
(26:40):
because those are the ones thatin the end actually draft those
resolutions, or at least thefirst draft, and help lobbying,
fund the programs and then atleast and I can only speak for
the European context starthaving broader alliances and, if
that commitment is actuallyreal, go away from shying away
(27:01):
to still push for progressivechanges.
We are in a time where it'sbarely fighting for the status
quo.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Very finally, as I said, because our listeners do
always want to know this, when Iwas young, if you talked about
women's rights, you used to getthis cliched answer oh, you
don't really like men, you knowand I really feel that this is
coming back a little bit.
Women don't want to be on thedefensive.
So what can we do, young andold, to say you know what, you
(27:31):
guys, you're going in the wrongdirection.
Speaker 4 (27:33):
Yeah, I would agree, that hasn't changed.
And we see that in differentforms.
People are always defensive,mean we call here.
We could call this malefragility or white fragility.
It comes in different shapesand forms and I think part of
the resistance is one grow athick skin and then choose
different times in differentspaces.
There are spaces where I atleast specifically tone down, I
(27:55):
choose a different language, I,yeah, I show empathy because,
because it's not just fake.
And then there are other spaceswhere we are with, I don't know
, sisters in arms and we don'thave to justify, and I think
that's my power bank.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Lata, what's your power bank?
Speaker 3 (28:14):
Oh gosh, I'm not sure about a power bank, but
certainly like whether it'scoming on to your podcast,
imogen, or just any otheropportunity.
I just think we need to tellbetter stories, just genuinely.
I feel like you know, whetheryou're in academia or you're in
civil society, there's lots ofpressure to we've got to be
evidence based and I kind ofthink sometimes maybe you know
(28:36):
part of, I think, the appeal ofthe right or to the traditional
family is they're trying to tella much more holistic,
common-sense story about howthey think the world should work
.
It's that sort of rose-tintednostalgia, but actually you
don't have to dig that far toknow that that's just not how
the world works and it's neverworked that way, even within
that rose-tinted nostalgia.
But I want to tell a differentstory.
(28:57):
I want to live on a planetthat's not on fire.
I want everyone to live thebest life that they feel happy
in, where they're respected andvalued and loved, and I just
want to do whatever it takes tolive in that world.
And I want to live, you know,with people, not just as an
individual but as part ofcommunities and societies, and
not just my own family but otherfamilies.
These aren't hard things to sell, but we need to have an
(29:20):
opportunity and that's, I think,this, you know, the point about
even the UN is that's partlywhere we can do that, because
those groups are coming together.
They're coming together intheir family rights caucus and
this grouping and that grouping,and coming along to make these
big picture appeals to likefamily and rights and we need to
tell those stories as well.
We need to use those spaces tocome together, not in our silos,
(29:41):
but together and say actuallythis is the world I envision and
gender equality is good foreverybody.
It doesn't just make my life orwomen or LGBTQ people's, it
makes everybody's life better.
It makes the world better andI'll take any opportunity to
tell that to anybody who'lllisten, because I do believe it,
not just from an evidence pointof view, but in my heart, if
I'm allowed to say that.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Well, I would actually go along with both of
you there.
I have to thank you becausewe're just almost at the end.
Lata and Leandra, thank youvery much to our listeners.
Write to us inside Geneva atswissinfoch to comment on this
programme if you like.
I'll leave my final thought.
As I said, I agree with youboth.
I think we do need to tell ourstories, and one of the things
(30:26):
we need to reclaim is what theidea of a happy family is.
It's not necessarily a man, awoman and two children.
It can be all sorts of things,all equally good.
Somebody can work, somebodycan't work equally valid.
On that note, thank you all forlistening.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
(30:55):
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
(31:15):
.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's program… Beijing1995.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
program.
In 1995 the world gathered inBeijing to take bold action for
women and girls rights.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
These voices unified into the Beijing Declaration and
.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Platform for Action.
If there is one message thatechoes forth from this
conference, let it be that humanrights are women's rights and
women's rights are human rights,once and for all, the Beijing
declaration.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
That was such an incredible moment in 1995 to say
that actually enough is enough,because actually, you know,
women are half of humanity andwe have to be better.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Planned Parenthood should absolutely be defunded.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or
no?
As a principle, there has to besome form of punishment For the
woman.
Yeah Trump, already in hisfirst presidential term, with
the UN Women Peace and Securityagenda, there was a new
resolution proposed and hevetoed that because it had
enshrined the right for women totheir reproductive rights.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
I'm concerned about the resurgence in some quarters
of toxic ideas about masculinityand efforts to glorify gender
stereotypes, especially amongyoung men.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
What worries me about the language of toxic
masculinity.
It's like, oh my god, we didn'tknow this was coming.
But it's actually just acontinuity of how violence and
patriarchy combine to justifythen certain expressions of
masculinity.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
The Orthodox Church and President Vladimir Putin are
new best friends.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
The new Russia religious, conservative and
deeply patriotic.
Speaker 4 (02:03):
I call this competing masculinities.
So we are the tough guys, weare actually the proper nations,
while look at Europe, they havebeen completely emasculated and
therefore they are not a modelto aspire to.
Therefore, democracy is alsonot a model to be aspiring to.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes and intoday's programme we're going to
talk about toxic masculinity.
And already I can hear youthinking why are we talking
about that here in Geneva?
Well, a number of reasons.
First, just in the last fewweeks, the UN Human Rights
(02:44):
Commissioner, Volker Tuerck, haswarned about what he called a
resurgence of toxic ideas aboutmasculinity and efforts to
glorify gender stereotypes,especially among young men.
He blamed misogynisticinfluencers with millions of
followers on social media whoare hailed as heroes.
(03:06):
At the same time, we are seeingdeep cuts by the United States
and indeed other traditionaldonors like Germany, Switzerland
, the United Kingdom, to theUN's humanitarian programs.
But the United States inparticular has singled out
programs focusing on women, ongender, on diversity and on
(03:28):
reproductive rights.
We're also history check here,marking 30 years since the
Beijing Declaration on Women.
It set out a landmark globalagenda for achieving gender
equality and empowering womenand girls.
For achieving gender equalityand empowering women and girls.
(03:50):
So is there a connection betweenan apparent rise in what's been
called toxic masculinity and arollback of gender equality, and
even a connection with a risein authoritarian politics?
To try to unpick this debate,I'm joined by two incredibly
smart women.
Lata Narayanaswamy, AssociateProfessor at the University of
(04:11):
Leeds School of Politics andInternational Studies.
She has just co-authored areport as part of Oxfam
International's gender justicecampaign.
It's called Personal toPowerful, holding the line for
gender justice in the face ofgrowing anti-rights movements,
(04:31):
and we're also joined by LeandraBias.
She's an advanced postdoctoralresearcher at the University of
Bairn's Institute of PoliticalScience.
She's done a lot of research ongender equality, the
suppression of equality and howthat perhaps connects with the
rise of authoritarianism, with aspecial focus on Russia.
(04:52):
Welcome to you both.
Now, first of all, let's lookat the term toxic masculinity,
because it has become a bit of abuzzword, or buzzwords, if you
like.
How would you both define it?
Leandra, in Bern, I'll come toyou first.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
All right.
Thanks so much, imogen, for theintroduction, and that might be
actually a little bit of aspoiler, because personally I
don't use toxic masculinity inmy research, but I think it is
intimately connected to what inmy field we describe more a rise
of traditional values and howthat shapes actually entire
(05:30):
government's policy, both withinand without.
So, interestingly, I tend toalways say phenomena like
bloggers, like Andrew Tate, areincredibly important, but it
might be at least equallyimportant to point out the
entire states, entiregovernments, have now programs
both within their countries andnow explicitly in terms of their
(05:53):
foreign policy, which are builton an idea of very traditional,
patriarchal and heteronormativeway of life in which what I
think popular opinion would thenunderstand under toxic
masculinity is glorified andpromoted.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Lata what about you?
Yeah, I think obviously thereis, just as Leandra said.
I couldn't agree more with whatshe set out there, and I think,
in a way, toxic masculinity isa buzzword that is trying to
tell us something importantabout trends that are emerging
that we're now seeing beingescalated within state
(06:31):
structures as well.
So it's not just aboutindividuals or groups of young
boys or men.
Other terms that are comingaround this are things like
manosphere, right?
So social media enabling sortof hyper-masculine influencers
like Andrew Tate that promotemisogyny, oppose feminism.
(07:02):
But it's really important forthis idea of a gender binary and
leading people to fall backinto the trap of thinking that
there is something innate orbiological to gender that's
linked, in particular, tobehavior that's creating this
toxicity.
So, in relation to masculinity,that violence in particular is
necessarily an intrinsicexpression of that.
(07:23):
So I think there's sort ofsomething we need to tease out
around here, because we live ina system that does have a
tendency to produce thesebehaviors, right?
So when we are invested in agender binary as part of the
relationship with what we mightcall in the jargon we call this
heteronormative patriarchy, sowe sort of center the idea that
heterosexuality is normal andthen within that we have
patriarchy.
(07:43):
So we sort of center the ideathat heterosexuality is normal
and then within that we havepatriarchy, so sort of the
systems that are designed toprivilege male power, and then
capitalism that then reinforcesthat male power, right.
So there's a danger that we seethis as something new, and I
think that's what worries meabout the language of toxic
masculinity.
It's like, oh my God, we didn'tknow this was coming.
(08:04):
And it's a bit like me aboutthe language of toxic
masculinity.
It's like, oh my God, we didn'tknow this was coming, and it's
a bit like you know, but it'sactually just a continuity of
how violence and patriarchycombine to justify then certain
expressions of masculinity, andI think that is something that
we just need to keep.
We need to hold that alongsidethe worry that has been
expressed by Volker Turk, Ithink not unreasonably.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
I mean I think that's really interesting.
This was one of my questionsalso is you know, how new is
this?
And I do take your point, lata,it's not new.
We've had thousands of years ofpatriarchy.
We women know this.
But what is kind of frustratingis we also had from the UN, the
Beijing Declaration on Womenand we have seen some really
(08:43):
great progress and then in thelast few years I do think things
have changed.
I report from the UN in Geneva.
I saw Russian Foreign MinisterSergei Lavrov go to the Human
Rights Council I mean, it is afew years ago now before he got
banned and sanctioned and talkabout family values, which
(09:05):
basically he meant was returningto this traditional, very
traditional view of what is aman, what is a woman and what is
an acceptable family.
Now this year we have seen thePresident of the United States
welcoming a man who has beenconvicted of violence against
women.
The Irish martial arts guy,conor McGregory, has been
(09:25):
convicted in a civil court forrape.
To me, that says something haschanged.
Or what was being in theprocess of denormalized is being
normalized again.
Leandra, do you have anythoughts on that?
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Yes, of course.
I mean, I have, on the one hand, many thoughts on Russia, but
in a way it's not so surprisingthat this is now being promoted
and supported by the US.
And even there I would fullyagree, by the way, with Lata
that it's really important thatwe historicize a phenomenon and
that different ways of thatphenomenon have existed before
(10:00):
and for some a backlash wasexisting throughout this time
because their rights were notgranted ever.
But with the US it is very muchbecause the two countries have
been at the forefront throughdifferent means of promoting
that if we want to stick withthe term, that toxic masculinity
in an institutionalized way.
(10:21):
Because while Russia waspromoting it through the UN, we
might remember, for example,trump already in his first
presidential term, with the UNWomen, peace and Security Agenda
, there was a new resolutionproposed and he vetoed that
because it had enshrined theright for women to their
(10:42):
reproductive rights.
So we were already seeing thattrend before, and so therefore
it is not so surprising,especially when we then look at
the organizations behind thatagenda, and here I really mean
they go by different names.
It can be traditional values,it can be pro-family values, but
if we look at the movement andit is a network.
(11:04):
It is highly financed by bothUS evangelical organizations
they make the biggest chunk offunding but also by Russian
oligarchs.
So in a way the two really gohand in hand.
And that might be also a segueto show well, it kind of is
innate to authoritarianworldviews.
It kind of is innate toauthoritarian worldviews.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Lata, I see you nodding quite energetically
there at what Leandra had to say.
I mean, honestly, how have wegot here?
An alliance of evangelicalgroups and Russian oligarchs
combining to oppress genderequality and women's rights?
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Yes, yeah, I mean, that is the question, isn't it?
We are in quite anextraordinary place and I'm sure
Leandra, you're also, andImogen having these
conversations where we're allsort of going.
I don't understand how we'veended up here.
But again, I think it is worthjust sort of pausing to reflect
on what it is that we'reexperiencing and observing.
(12:09):
I would say that there'sprobably still some continuity
that's worthwhile reflecting on.
I totally hear what you'resaying, imogen, in terms of the
Beijing declaration.
That was such an incrediblemoment, years and years in the
making, in terms of the kinds ofmovements that were coming
together to make this case atthe UN in 1995.
(12:30):
To say that actually enough isenough, we need to make
commitments because actually youknow, women are half of
humanity and we have to bebetter right, otherwise we're
all kind of doomed.
And that was absolutely rightand really important promises
were made at that time and itdid unleash a lot of resource,
and that is really important torecognize.
But there is again here a noteof caution, I guess, for me,
(12:53):
which is that some of the signswere kind of already there and
maybe what we're seeing is alsojust an extension to a wider
group of people, because thequestion here also has to be
which women are we talking about?
So, leandra, you know you madethe point that for some women
there's never a rollback right,and I would totally agree.
So this question of which women?
So, when we consider how beinga woman intersects with class
(13:15):
and race, for instance, we cansee that poorer and racialized
women have been harder hit byausterity or, more recently, in
the COVID pandemic, and thatdiminishing the resources they
have to survive in turn leads todiminished capacities to access
their rights and entitlements.
We also know that as peoplemove, rights also diminish.
(13:36):
So people who are classed asmigrants, whether they're deemed
legal or illegal, have fewerrights than so-called settled
populations.
And this actually link iscrucial because the instability
unleashed by the 2007 and 2008financial crisis is in fact a
key pivot point for the morebold articulations of further
and further right wing,ethno-nationalist agendas,
(13:58):
because it kind of becomes anexcuse to make what you were
talking about Imogen thesetraditional family values as the
sort of go-to solution torestore that sense of the lost
stability, and that then tendsto center on strengthening the
heteronormative family unit asthe common sense response to all
this instability.
If we could just get the basicsright.
(14:19):
If we could just go back tobeing regular, normal and for
those of you who are listening,I'm doing inverted air commas
normal families, actually,everything will be fine.
I think that kind of everydaysort of tonal messaging actually
resonates with lots of people.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Leandra, as we said, you look particularly at the
suppression of women's rightsfor gender equality, and that
you see it as a tool in thetoolbox of authoritarianism.
Tell us a bit about that,because for some of us it's
quite hard to see how genderequality should be a threat.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
Yes, and if I may just add to what Lata pointed
out at the beginning, I am quiteinsistent on saying it's not
just which type of women but Ireally use the term of Russia
but also with a lot of the rightwing movements we're seeing in
the US, but also in Europe, itis very much a targeting of even
(15:20):
more marginalized communities.
So in terms of their sexualityor gender identity also, why is
that a tool and how did thathappen?
It is really what we see nowbeing emulated by other
countries.
I make the case that Russia isan extreme case that has
(15:44):
foregrounded this toolbox andwent, and I call it an extreme
case because it is a countrythat unleashed a war of
aggression in the name ofdefending traditional values,
and so what we see there is anescalation in the sense that I
really say it's a toolbox for anauthoritarian government in
different ways, because it helpsyou embolden, really enshrine
(16:07):
an authoritarian regime in manyways.
I will just pick up two.
One is really you manage to, inRussia's case, discredit
democracy, and so the way itworks is that they view the
international system in what Icall this competing
masculinities.
So we are the tough guys, weare actually the proper nations,
while look at Europe, they havebeen completely emasculated and
(16:30):
therefore they are not a modelto aspire to.
Therefore, democracy is alsonot a model to be aspiring to,
and what is left then is theantithesis.
So authoritarianism, that's one,but in addition to that, they
also promote nihilism in thesense of saying well, look,
(16:51):
gender equality is not actuallya human right, it is just a tool
of power the West has used.
What Russia does is really aninstrumentalization of the term
neocolonialism, which helps alot to build alliances in the
global South, where thesegrievances are real.
And what plays in favor here isthat we don't acknowledge
(17:11):
Russia's imperialism.
But so they say this is just atool of the West to import into
other native nations to make usimplode from within, and
therefore nothing here is reallyvalid, neither gender equality
but, by extension, alsodemocracy.
So it really helps to then saywell, by consequence, the only
(17:33):
thing again that is left is anauthoritarian regime, and if you
want your apparently innatetraditional values to survive,
you obviously need a strongleader, and maybe we'll get to
that.
But it goes as far as evenjustifying aggression.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
This narrative is actually having some success,
isn't it, I mean, andparticularly around the issue of
gender.
Having some success, isn't it,I mean, and particularly around
the issue of gender?
I mean, I have heard, on evensome of the most respectable
news programmes, analysts saying, oh well, we need to address
the unhappiness of young men, asif it's kind of all our faults,
(18:09):
and frankly, I have to say, ona very personal note, this makes
me quite angry and I don'treally see that there's
something that we have done aswomen, that gender equality is
what is responsible for theirso-called misery and their
desire to have their rights andI'm using inverted commas but
(18:30):
now their rights back.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
Yeah, no, no, I was going to say.
I mean, I think you know thereis a sense that there is
something existential happeningfor masculinity, which is where
I think the toxic masculinitycomes from.
But I think one of thechallenges of gender equality
and one of the ways in which theright will frame this argument
to kind of go back to your point, imogen is I think there is a
(18:53):
tendency to kind of play this asa zero-sum game, and I can't
remember who said it, so pleasecome jump in if you remember,
but that, whoever said it was, Ithink, very clever in that, you
know, if you're always used tobeing on top or used to being
the beneficiary of inequality,then equality feels like
oppression, right.
And so then you take thatalongside the sense that
(19:14):
everything feels like we'recompeting for everything, right,
resources, attention, and thenit's, you know, statistically
it's like, oh, you know, womenare outperforming men or getting
meh, and so then equalitystarts to feel a little bit like
something is being taken awayfrom me.
And then, when you're trying toreassert this gender binary,
then gender equality anddiversity become existential
(19:37):
threats.
But one of the reasons for thatis, of course, the system that
you want to preserve relies on ahighly unequal gender division
of labor.
It relies on this gender binarythat is premised on the idea
that men do paid work.
And it's interesting when Ithink about, you know, the way
that Trump has been talkingabout, you know, bringing all
the factories back into the US.
(19:58):
It's part of painting thispicture of a kind of
re-industrialized US, where realmen go out and do real work
with their hands, with big powertools and make cars and dig oil
wells or whatever he thinks,even though actually, a there's
no plan for that and they don'teven know what that means.
But B if you look at the modernfactory, actually so much is
(20:19):
automated the kinds of jobs thatthose used to be.
They may have been dangerous,but they were unionized,
historically reasonably wellpaid.
We can have our critiques aboutthe breadwinner family,
obviously, but you could atleast in principle, say that
families in whatever, whateverway they were formed, could
probably live on one wage.
Like some of that, it's lost.
In whatever way, they'reharking back to a traditional
past.
You couldn't reproduce it,whether you wanted to or not.
(20:42):
So that doesn't even make senseon its own terms.
But the reality is you havethis nostalgia for this.
You know, real men doing realpaid work and women who are
undertaking the unpaid andundervalued reproductive work.
So then anything that talksabout gender equality and
diversity is just a kind of afoundational existential threat
to the way the world works.
(21:02):
And so you can see whyattacking that, when you
understand it in those systemicterms, you can see why attacking
that becomes really, reallyimportant.
I mean, it was astonishing tome that that was literally the
very first executive order Iknew about the anti-wook, but it
really caught me off guard.
I mean, leandra, I'm sure youhave lots of thoughts about that
, but I was genuinely takenaback that that was the very,
(21:24):
very first thing that he did.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
If I may just add on your question of you know, are
they tapping into like genuinefears and all of that?
And I think that's alwaysthat's such a double edged sword
because on the one hand, thatfear stems from an unjustified
entitlement, as Lata justbrilliantly spelled out right,
and on the other hand, of coursewe should be addressing it
because it's to some degreeperhaps still real.
(21:48):
But when we address it, we mustnot be reinforcing that
hierarchy that lies behind it.
Like you can talk about thosefears and how it may be
destabilizing and how, indeed,masculinities should be in
plural, and all you have beentaught is that one form, the
hegemonic form, the one thatactually gets your reputation,
the one that gets you up theladder and the one that is based
(22:11):
on toxicity.
But there are other ways andempower men and boys to, yeah,
well, embrace other forms whichare just as it should be, should
be also valued more valid.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
That I want to come on to, just as our closing
remarks, because our listenersalways do like to hear what they
could do about the things thatwe discuss.
But before we come to that Iwant to, because we are coming
from Geneva and we talk aboutthe United Nations I want both
of your thoughts on what the UNcan do, because we know the UN
(22:44):
is flawed.
But people do sometimes say ifwe didn't have the UN, if we got
rid of it, we'd have toreinvent it.
And if we look at some of theachievements slow but still
since the Beijing Declaration in95, maternal mortality has
reduced quite substantially.
There are more girls ineducation, and it's precisely
(23:08):
these programs now which arehaving their funding ripped away
.
Have you got any thoughts whatthe UN can do to defend these
programs, because I sense fearand panic in Geneva at the
moment.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Yeah, no, it's a great question.
I couldn't agree more Imogenabout.
You know, if the UN didn'texist, we'd have to create it,
and I think it's alwaysdangerous to say, well,
something's imperfect, so youknow, we're just going to get
rid of it.
I think that's one of thosebabies in bathwater problems,
and we're better off trying topreserve what works and fix what
isn't rather than just sayingthat actually, this is not worth
(23:45):
saving.
I think the difficulty is and Ithink it goes back to Leandra
the way that you were settingout some of the challenges in
this space.
The fact is, this escalation tothese particular ideas and
movements being expressedthrough state power is the big
challenge, I think, within theUN.
Because, obviously, if whatwe're saying is the UN is the
(24:06):
multilateral space and everybodyhas a voice, the fact is there
are some states that areexpressing these ideas.
So what, as the UN, are youmeant to do?
Because it would also be unfairto say, well, we're going to
only talk about these issues inthis way and sort of negate the
ways in which other actors mightwant to talk about it, as
unpleasant and unhelpful andregressive as we might find them
(24:29):
.
So my response to thatgenerally is that we have to use
the multilateral spaces tobuild those alliances, to make
our voices stronger.
The UN has to offer thatopenness to make our voices
stronger.
The UN has to offer thatopenness.
But I also think there has to besomething about reflecting on
whether the UN itself is part ofcreating some of the economic
(24:49):
consensus that underpins whythese movements are able to
exist in the way that they do.
Right, we have to think in amuch more creative way about why
are things feeling so unstable.
To think in a much morecreative way about why are
things feeling so unstable.
How do we as a global societyrespond to things like economic
crisis, war, conflict, and whatwe can see with all the
conflicts going on in the worldright now is actually the
authority of the UN, in whateverlimited way it exists, being
(25:12):
severely undermined, systems ofinternational law that are just
being systematically ignored.
So we need to come together asa global society and demand that
the UN does at least sayactually we have made some rules
, we do have some norms, we haveresolutions, we have these in
place and we're actually goingto insist that they are followed
, because otherwise, actually,we lose the capacity to use that
(25:34):
multilateral space as a kind ofglobal commons where we can
share ideas and work out how wesolve problems together.
So I think the UN does have arole, but we do have to think
carefully about what role we dowant it to play.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
What about you, Leandra?
I mean, I do see the supportfor multilateralism and the idea
that the UN can do anythingdiminishing fast.
Speaker 4 (25:57):
Well, I was just going to say.
It's always like we speak aboutthe UN, but behind that, at the
end of the day, it's memberstates.
So my first point would be andthat's where I'm scared about it
is that those who do claim tobe liberal democracies are very
much also going down the path ofespousing some of those values
and saying well, we aredefunding those programs as well
(26:20):
, or at least no longerattributing them the same
priority.
And since we are now in aspiral of militarization, well,
gender equality can once againwait.
So it should start from memberstates making that commitment
real, and that, in my view,would then translate in the UN
in two ways On the one hand,fund those advocacy groups,
(26:40):
because those are the ones thatin the end actually draft those
resolutions, or at least thefirst draft, and help lobbying,
fund the programs and then atleast and I can only speak for
the European context starthaving broader alliances and, if
that commitment is actuallyreal, go away from shying away
(27:01):
to still push for progressivechanges.
We are in a time where it'sbarely fighting for the status
quo.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Very finally, as I said, because our listeners do
always want to know this, when Iwas young, if you talked about
women's rights, you used to getthis cliched answer oh, you
don't really like men, you knowand I really feel that this is
coming back a little bit.
Women don't want to be on thedefensive.
So what can we do, young andold, to say you know what, you
(27:31):
guys, you're going in the wrongdirection.
Speaker 4 (27:33):
Yeah, I would agree, that hasn't changed.
And we see that in differentforms.
People are always defensive,mean we call here.
We could call this malefragility or white fragility.
It comes in different shapesand forms and I think part of
the resistance is one grow athick skin and then choose
different times in differentspaces.
There are spaces where I atleast specifically tone down, I
(27:55):
choose a different language, I,yeah, I show empathy because,
because it's not just fake.
And then there are other spaceswhere we are with, I don't know
, sisters in arms and we don'thave to justify, and I think
that's my power bank.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Lata, what's your power bank?
Speaker 3 (28:14):
Oh gosh, I'm not sure about a power bank, but
certainly like whether it'scoming on to your podcast,
imogen, or just any otheropportunity.
I just think we need to tellbetter stories, just genuinely.
I feel like you know, whetheryou're in academia or you're in
civil society, there's lots ofpressure to we've got to be
evidence based and I kind ofthink sometimes maybe you know
(28:36):
part of, I think, the appeal ofthe right or to the traditional
family is they're trying to tella much more holistic,
common-sense story about howthey think the world should work
.
It's that sort of rose-tintednostalgia, but actually you
don't have to dig that far toknow that that's just not how
the world works and it's neverworked that way, even within
that rose-tinted nostalgia.
But I want to tell a differentstory.
(28:57):
I want to live on a planetthat's not on fire.
I want everyone to live thebest life that they feel happy
in, where they're respected andvalued and loved, and I just
want to do whatever it takes tolive in that world.
And I want to live, you know,with people, not just as an
individual but as part ofcommunities and societies, and
not just my own family but otherfamilies.
These aren't hard things to sell, but we need to have an
(29:20):
opportunity and that's, I think,this, you know, the point about
even the UN is that's partlywhere we can do that, because
those groups are coming together.
They're coming together intheir family rights caucus and
this grouping and that grouping,and coming along to make these
big picture appeals to likefamily and rights and we need to
tell those stories as well.
We need to use those spaces tocome together, not in our silos,
(29:41):
but together and say actuallythis is the world I envision and
gender equality is good foreverybody.
It doesn't just make my life orwomen or LGBTQ people's, it
makes everybody's life better.
It makes the world better andI'll take any opportunity to
tell that to anybody who'lllisten, because I do believe it,
not just from an evidence pointof view, but in my heart, if
I'm allowed to say that.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Well, I would actually go along with both of
you there.
I have to thank you becausewe're just almost at the end.
Lata and Leandra, thank youvery much to our listeners.
Write to us inside Geneva atswissinfoch to comment on this
programme if you like.
I'll leave my final thought.
As I said, I agree with youboth.
I think we do need to tell ourstories, and one of the things
(30:26):
we need to reclaim is what theidea of a happy family is.
It's not necessarily a man, awoman and two children.
It can be all sorts of things,all equally good.
Somebody can work, somebodycan't work equally valid.
On that note, thank you all forlistening.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
(30:55):
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
(31:15):
.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.