Discover Top Posts Tagged with #thea fitz-james

MEET THE FAC 2019 RESIDENCY ARTISTS: Thea Fitz-James and Shanda Bezic

A lot of the political discourse between the left and right centres around not validating the opinions of the other side (re: subtle male disparagement of some feminist discourse). What is the subversive value of performatively adopting the perspective of an ideology that you oppose, and/or that poses danger to you?

While certainly you're right about the divide between left & right, we are interested in a less divisive reading of “men" and "women”. We aren’t interested in being subversive (Is it subversive to point out violence against women? I hope not). I think we’re more interested in reclaiming the negativity put towards female-identifying folx. We’re interested in asking difficult questions and to cut through the bullshit. There’s lots of artists who have use reclamation to reframe a conversation, to speak to their oppression in powerful ways. I think your question is a reworking of Audre Lorde’s suggestion that, “The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House;” — can we use the words used against us to reframe and perform our strength? I don’t know. Understanding that maybe we can’t do that — that maybe there is no value in performatively adopting "the ideology [I] oppose" — understanding and embracing that possibility will be part of the journey of building this piece. I think ultimately, your question is central to the drive, excitement, fear, worry, failure, and success of this piece. Your question is our question; maybe we'll have an answer by the end of the piece. Maybe we won't.

You’ve cited that while violence of such opinions continually “[takes] from women”, there is a legitimacy to male struggle. Can you speak to the oppressive methodologies that the patriarchy could rightfully take the credit for, over scapegoated feminism, in the eyes of men defaulting to alt-right or incel forums?

Briefly, we imagine we'll discover the answer to this as we do our interviews with the men in question. There are a lot of "oppressive methodologies" within patriarchy, many (all?) of which speak to male experience and the disenfranchisement of today’s men. That is what this project hopes to unpack: the nuance of the male struggle that creates cycles of abuse, that in turn, are played out on women. Examples of male struggle include: stereotypes of masculinity that reject male tenderness, fragility, or care; a sex-obsessed capitalist system that frames “success” in terms of sexual conquest; oppressive standards of male “beauty” and “strength” that are just as limiting as standards of beauty for women.

Yes, there is a legitimacy to male struggle. But does it have to be either or? Does talking about female struggle negate male struggle? Can we avoid a hierarchy of struggle? Yes, men have suffered. This project is focusing on how women have suffered. We are choosing to focus our conversation on women as a way in; unfortunately, we can’t address the entire patriarchy in our project. We are interested in understanding why so many men hate women — we’ve chosen to focus on this because it speaks to our interests and experience.

What is the powerful potential of engaging in discourse with those you disagree with when formulating your own beliefs and understanding?

Discourse literally means coming into to the conversation assuming you might be wrong. There are very few true discourses happening online, and in Men’s Rights communities. Because they often come into the conversation assuming they are right. We are coming into this conversation curious. I don’t think we’re engaging with people we disagree with; I think that’s a reductive reading of the men we are interviewing. Some of these men are the people we grew up with. Some of them are our family members. Imagining that the people who express anti-feminist sentiments are not in our backyard, and deeply (albeit sometimes invisibly) entrenched in our community is short sighted. We're interested in the nuance of hateful thinking. Not (only) the aggressive and hateful acts, but also the micro-aggressions. The stuff your uncle says at the dinner table. We're doing this to have a better understanding about how they have formulated their own beliefs. And in turn, understand how women have formulated their own self hatred. We’re still in the very early stages of development; we don’t know what this will look like. While this will certainly help me unpack my personal understanding, but I don’t know — yet — what my personal understanding has to do with this project. I don't know how I feel about it — that's why I want to make a play about it. As creators of this piece, we aren’t coming in with an agenda or an argument. We are coming in trying to understand the nuance, pain, and struggle behind violent opinions. I’m very wary of setting this up as an argument, discourse, or conversation with people I disagree with. There is something more difficult going on here. Am I even speaking the same language as those I interview, for instance? If we're not speaking the same language, how do we begin to learn how to communicate?