Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.

Tag: politics

Feminism and the authoritarian states – the cases of China and Brazil

Leta Hong Fincher’s Betraying Big Brother is a simultaneously inspiring and alarming reading for attentive Brazilians. The author takes us through the life stories of a group of feminists in China, how their personal struggles led to their political awakening, their activism and the government’s attempts at suppressing their voices. It is a very refreshing portrayal of Chinese women, too often represented as plain, passive and accommodating; at the same time, it shows a pattern for suppression of dissenting voices that rings many bells for people living in other authoritarian contexts.

One of the points Leta makes is how the internet enabled the organisation of women’s movements in the recent years, initially without major resistance from the government: “Despite intrusive censorship, the rise of China’s new generation of feminist activists was inextricably linked to the explosion of Weibo in 2010 and WeChat in 2011. […] The internet provided space for them to explore ideas with more freedom than many of their workplaces and homes, and also allowed like-minded women throughout the country to find one another.”

In Brazil, too, the internet has been playing an important role in the dissemination of feminist thought, with many shared issues, such as violence against women, workplace discrimination, and sexual harassment. Unlike China, in Brazil there is no wide governmental censorship of online content, but women are disproportionally targeted with online violence, putting feminists under increasing threat. Although this is certainly not part of official state policy, one could argue that the current political moment seems too encouraging of that kind of harassment: even before the election cycle of 2018 was finished, a very successful Facebook page organised by women against the eventual winner of the presidential race was target and taken down for a few days, not before having its name changed in order to feign support for the candidate.

Too often, Feminism is not perceived as a proper political movement, and for a while Chinese feminists played with that to bypass state control. Initially, the movement was made up mostly of university students and other highly educated women, with a strong focus on violence against women. Progressively, as they gained visibility, coordinated offline performances and organised with layers to defend worker’s rights, they suddenly seemed much more defiant of the government – especially since Xi Jinping came to power.

Leta describes how the image of Xi Jinping, initially built by state media and supposedly largely embraced by the Chinese people, is deliberately based in both hyper-masculinisation and an attachment to family values. He is simultaneously presented as a militarily powerful man and lovely model husband every woman should aspire to engage.

If You Want To Marry, Marry Someone Like Xi Dada

The name of the song above refers to Xi Jinping as Xi Dada – Big Daddy Xi, as Leta translates it, supposedly an endearing nickname used by Chinese people and state media to talk about their leader. The reference to a familial relationship is not poorly thought: the traditional family is fundamental for the Chinese government. The country is a “family-state under heaven” (jiaguo tianxia)” – and as such, the role played by women is fundamental to managing that family.

That is not at all unlike this moment in time in Brazilian politics. The current president was elected after a campaign light in proposals and strong in the reinforcement of conservative, religious-based values that praised both the traditional family and a very caricatural idea of masculinity, of which Bolsonaro was a model: from his everlasting gun gesture to his much younger wife. His popular nickname, though, is much more messianic – The Myth.

The myth has arrived 

Observing the fan-art that illustrates the fan-made video above, one may think of the place reserved for women in such family-forward states. In her book, Leta reminds us how control of women has been a constant through Chinese history, the most glaring example of that being the one-child policy that for decades meant forced sterilisation and abortions. Because of the decline in births over time and its consequences for the economy, in 2016 a two-child policy was adopted, now pressuring women into having 2 babies. Despite the failure of the policy in increasing births to the level expected, it seems that a three-child policy is soon to be enacted, as hinted by the release of a 3-kid family of pigs on the 2019 commemorative stamps for the year of the pig. Not much has been done in order to support working mothers, and much effort seems to be put into convincing women they would be much better off at home.

When the state has such strong positions on how women should behave and what constitutes proper femininity, it only makes sense that feminists and LGBTQ activists will be persecuted, with their speech and NGOs suppressed. Looking at Brazil again, we can see the same symptoms, this time directly from the government. The most flamboyant, and yet very consequential, example comes from Damares Alves, chosen as head of the ministry for Women, Family and Human Rights.

Damares is an evangelical pastor in charge of a brand new ministry responsible for taking up work previously done by smaller, specialised institutions focused on policies for women, family, human rights, the advocacy for racial equality, prevention of torture and others. Damares has been a prolific meme generator, either gleefully chanting that “boys wear blue and girls, pink”, or carelessly declaring that in an ideal society women would stay home with their children. According to her, Brazil is entering a new era.

There is a strong disagreement between concerned Brazilians whether those declarations are just smokescreens or should be taken at face value. But this requires ignoring the consequences of the already realised amalgamation of women’s issues with family issues in a single ministry, which hints at even more control over women’s reproductive rights in a country where sex education is poor and access to legal abortion is virtually inexistent. At the very least, advancements for women’s rights will be halted for the next 4 years. In a less hopeful perspective, this government would materialise their campaign promises, such as eliminating any form of activism and all leftists. In the present, NGOs are being monitored, and the LGBT population is no longer mentioned in the text of public policies for human rights.

Nothing can threaten the traditional family, neither in Brazil or in China – the government will make sure of that.

In spite of all that, Chinese feminists resist. Two things have been fundamental for the maintenance of their activism: courage and strategies to keep going and evading censorship; and the support from wider sections of the society. Because so much of their activism involved mobilizing for worker’s rights, they had popular support in many critical moments of their fight. The second point is becoming specially important: Chinese companies have aimed at monetising the growing feelings of empowerment among women. They amplify its individualistic aspects, making it less political and therefore less threatening to governments – not too different from what has been happening in the west.  But in the conclusion of her book, Leta presents us with some relief for that: “Yet Lü Pin argues that the new corporate interest in feminism in China might, paradoxically, help keep the political movement alive. […] ‘When the government wants to silence us, [corporate feminism] may help us to get our message out and expands the space for the discussion of women’s rights.’ She cites a Chinese idiom: ‘The pond that is too clean has no fish” (chi zhi qing ze wu yu), which she takes to mean that a movement cannot survive if it is too ideologically pure'”.

We Brazilian feminists should take notes.

Facebook Feminism in Brazil

For my degree in Social Psychology, back in 2017 I wrote a dissertation about intersectionality and Facebook Feminism in Brazil. I had two main reasons for that: the perception that intersectionality was a growing concern for feminists in Brazil and the fact that this specific platform had become so popular for fast feminist activism that “Facebook Feminism” had become an easy derogatory expression.

After reading a couple of qualitative research focused on one specific Facebook page or movement and limited by narrow time frames, I thought it would be good to get a broader view of the field, so I decided to do a wider-reaching data collection and exploratory analysis. More than just satisfying my own curiosity, I wanted to contribute to further research (although I am still to work on writing and publishing a paper about it). Today I want to share a fragment of what I found out.


Simply put, the intersectional approach posits that thinking about oppression requires that we consider all the relevant multiple forms oppressions at play and how they relate for creating specific outcomes. So, for feminist analysis, that involves going beyond just gender, as not all women navigate the world in exactly the same conditions.  Markers of oppression vary widely across cultures, but overall there is an agreement that the minimum 3 categories of difference that should be taken into consideration are gender, race and class. That being said, it is not a simple task to try to attribute the presence of those markers to Facebook posts or, really, any text.

What I did and what I found

I collected posts from the six most liked Facebook pages in Brazilian Portuguese that I could identify using the platform’s research tool (which is in itself very limiting). I chose only the pages that did not explicitly identify whit any specific strand of Feminism. The most popular one at that time (July 2017) had 1.242.852 likes; the least, 727.575. The gathered corpus had a total of 26.890 posts published from mid-2013 up to that moment.

A bar chart representing the number of posts by type. Different colors represent the different pages analyzed.

The first thing I could immediately conclude was that any serious future analysis should focus on images, not text, as “photo” is the predominant type of post. That is reinforced by the fact that only 35% of the collected posts had text with more than 140 characters. 

A word cloud of most common pairings for the word “Feminism”.

A word cloud for the most common pairings for the words “woman” and “women”.

In order to try to observe what kinds of Feminism were enunciated in the posts, I used n-grams to see which words most commonly accompanied “Feminism”. “Intersectional” showed up only 24 times, while “black Feminism” occurred 50 times.

That focus on racial identity was also predominant when repeating the same process using the words “woman/women” to observe which categories of women were most frequently enunciated in the posts. “Black women” had 579 mentions, while “white” had 266 and other WoC had 46.

Whether or not this really says anything about intersectionality in Facebook Feminism, it is great to see some emphasis on blackness in these spaces. White middle-class women are traditionally over-represented in Feminism; in a country where most of the population identifies as black, it only makes sense that any new approaches to mainstream feminist conversation elevate black women’s voices and concerns.

Intersectionality does not have to be enunciated to exist. My simple exploratory methods did not allow for more nuanced inquiries, but more complex approaches could provide a deeper understanding of this form of digital activism.

e-cidadania, is it worth it?

Just a few days after the election of Jair Bolsonaro a couple of weeks ago, a friend sent me a link suggesting that we voted, in a poll, in favor of maintaining the current gun control legislation in Brazil. That had been a very common and divisive subject during the election cycle and will likely remain so, at least until the new leader passes the desired changes.

Some examples of Bolsonaro showing his appreciation for guns.

The link took me to a page called e-cidadania, a portal launched in 2012 by the Brazilian federal Senate to allow and incentivise citizens to take part in legislative activities, budget planning, accountability and representation. The platform consists of three tools:

Legislative ideas: citizens can suggest and support changes in legislation and the creation of laws. If a suggestion reaches 20 thousand supporters in at most 4 months, it is then discussed by the Senate.

Interactive event: users can watch and comment on events open to the public.

Public consultation: all law projects and other propositions being discussed by the Senate are described to users, who can then vote for or against them.

The main concern I have about this platform is online safety. There have been many instances of data breach worldwide, and Brazil is believed to be an easy target. Here we have a national participatory technology that requests its users to create an account with full name, password, state of residence and e-mail: all sensitive information that could be used for gaining access to other services. Looking closely at its terms of use and privacy policy, things don’t get more reassuring: the only information about personal data storage is that it is held in the Senate’s database, with no mention of expiration period. It is stated that the Senate retains the copyrights and prerogative to divulge users’ names and other input information whenever they consider it necessary for the portal’s mission.

Such is the case when a user’s legislative idea gets more than 20,000 favorable votes and is sent forward to be discussed by senators. Not only the author’s full name is divulged to the representatives and anyone who accesses the site, but also those of all people that supported it, along with their e-mails.

That may seem like fair use, but right now in Brazil, any discussion topics are clearly divided ideologically. That political divide has reached e-Cidadania: the two most voted proposition of 2018 so far suggests “criminalising MST and other social movements that occupy private lands” and “turning into a crime the teaching of gender ideology in Brazilian schools“. Those propositions (which were both supported and will be discussed by the Senate) are a reaction to what is perceived to be the greatest harms caused by leftist politics. By looking at the list of supporters names, you can identify people who are at least in part aligned with the incoming government. I wonder where are held the names of the people who voted against those values, and who can/will be able to access them: maybe a government that has promised to end any forms of activism and to eliminate opposition?

Criminalising “gender ideology” at schools: yes

Criminalising land justice activism: yes

Reviewing gun legislation: no

How do senators handle those results? A research by Raianne Liberal Coutinho in 2017 using data from the previous year shows that although representatives say they check the votings and take the results into consideration, they vote against popular opinion in the most relevant cases.

If e-cidadania is becoming more partisan by reflecting the current political climate, it does not seem to be overly protective of user’s personal information, doesn’t seem to influence political outcomes and could be a tool for an authoritarian government, I have to ask: is it worth participating?

My vote is no.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén


Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner.

Please enter an email address you wish to be contacted on. Please describe the unacceptable content in sufficient detail to allow us to locate it, and why you consider it to be unacceptable.
By submitting this report, you accept that it is accurate and that fraudulent or nuisance complaints may result in action by the University.