The feminist movement is divided, differences of opinion divide the camps. Author Julia Korbik explains why it is still worth being a feminist in her new book – and in an interview with BRIGITTE.
Julia Korbik is an author specializing in feminism, politics and pop culture. Her book “Sisters. The Power of the Female Collective” is about sisterhood as a radical political practice. Feminist solidarity and cohesion are values that are often denied to women in patriarchy. For one simple reason: We all grew up with powerful stereotypes about women. We are bitchy, jealous, in competition with each other. In an interview with BRIGITTE, Julia Korbik dispels these role models. Because even if the feminist movement cannot do without internal struggles: sisterhood does exist.
Julia Korbik in the BRIGITTE interview
BRIGITTE: Ms. Korbik, what inspired you to write your book “Sisters”?
Julia Korbik: I have long wanted to write a book about sisterhood in the sense of solidarity among women. What was really crucial was a visit to Buenos Aires in 2019. At that time, abortions were still illegal in Argentina, which is why there was a very active fight for the right to abortion there. The Argentines were on the streets and they were loud. This act of community made a lasting impression on me.
Nevertheless, the feminist movement has been notable for its lack of unity in recent years – racism, anti-Semitism and transphobia divide the camps. For example, Alice Schwarzer has fallen into disrepute due to transphobic comments. Is feminism out?
People approach feminism with great expectations. It should be as united as possible, and ideally have one spokesperson who represents the entire movement. But feminism consists of many different feminists who work on different subject areas. There are feminists who are committed to women on boards and more women in leadership positions. Others find it more important to take action against the complex discrimination against women of color or queer women. Despite the internal struggles and disagreements, this contributes to the overarching feminist themes such as equality, emancipation and freedom.
Feminism has many faces and many voices. Putting one person at the head of a movement as a spokesperson doesn’t work. Even if some people would wish that.
In “Sisters” you propagate sisterhood as a radical political practice. To what extent is this radical and political?
To me, sisterhood is political and radical because individuals come together to fight a perceived oppression or injustice. Sisterhood is the decision to put individual power at the service of a collective force – the feminist movement – and to actively participate in relationships of solidarity. What unites us is not the goal, but the starting point on which joint feminist and solidarity action is based.
Bitchy, bitchy, pick me girl and, and, and. There are many terms that devalue women. Are these sexist clichés – or do women really fight against each other rather than with each other?
I don’t think women naturally fight other women. But we all grow up in a misogynistic society. So I can still be a convinced feminist, but I was still shown certain clichés and role models that I have internalized over the years and that shape me. Actively breaking away from these is difficult.
But it does happen that women, for example, extend their elbows at work. How do you explain this behavior?
Women who achieved leadership positions had to compete against men and most likely adapt to a very masculine corporate culture. Once you get to the top, you understandably want to stay there. Especially when it is also suggested to you that there are only a few places for women at the top. Then it becomes even more difficult to show female solidarity and stand up for other women – for fear of being replaced. That’s why we need the famous critical mass of women – which is 30 percent – to bring in more women and thus fundamentally change the corporate culture.
Constantly questioning socialization, structures and yourself is work and also the goal of feminism.
Why do many women still believe that we no longer need the women’s quota?
When I was still studying, I was also against the women’s quota. I always thought to myself, “I’ll prevail, I can do something.” In my opinion, the reluctance about the quota comes from the fact that we have all internalized exactly the same idea of performance that I had back then. Women are persuaded that, as quota women, they are actually not sufficiently qualified for the job. But that’s not true. Quotas apply for equal qualifications.
Because of #Metoo and the like, it sometimes seems to me as if we are moving in the direction of “men against women”. The “evil, abusive” men are put in a drawer and the “poor” women are put in the role of victims.
Many still think that feminism is a sign of weakness and that #Metoo builds on this victimhood. I loved how many women – and not just women – shared their experiences and experiences. For me that was a sign of strength. It takes courage to stand up there and be loud. I feel like a lot of men’s eyes were really opened for the first time.
Nevertheless, some men felt attacked, prompting the hashtag #notallmen to be created.
#Metoo was a choir of many voices that showed how diverse experiences with sexism, abuse of power and sexual violence are and how much strength it can give you to share these experiences with others. This scared a lot of men. It quickly became clear that all these angry and loud women could really make a difference and that the men might then suffer as a result. After all, some men in Hollywood have lost their jobs.
Is that why the bar for #Metoo was set so high at some point?
Something like that. Unless you were personally harassed by Harvey Weinstein, you had no right to share your experience and speak out about #Metoo. This is a pity. Because the movement is actually not about denigrating anyone, but rather about drawing attention to a problem and changing something. And of course solidarity.