“As a society, we don’t treat women well,” says feminist and politician Petr Konečný, who publicly defends the rights of women and queer people
You can’t fail to notice Petr Konečný on Facebook. He regularly raises issues such as feminism, women’s and queer rights, violence and inequality, and joins in debates in a way that elicits both support and very strong reactions. Outside of social media, he works as a community social worker at Fokus Praha, where he helps people experiencing mental health crises. He is also an activist and a member of the Volt party. In this interview, he talks about why, as a man, he identifies as a feminist, why he left the Pirate Party, and why he is concerned about the growing influence of the manosphere and the erosion of human rights.
When people follow you on social media, they see a rather distinctive personality who isn’t afraid of conflict. But who is Petr Konečný away from Facebook?
I work as a community social worker, helping people who are going through a mental health crisis. I see helping others as my life’s mission. I’ve been doing this professionally for my entire adult life.
For four years I worked at the Mental Health Centre, where I supported people with severe mental illness. I’m now part of the crisis team at Fokus Praha.
For example, we help people experiencing their first episode of mental illness. But we also support their family members or people who have someone with a mental illness in their circle. We try to guide people safely through a crisis and help them to cope with it. The Czech system is very complex. Sometimes it’s difficult even for us, who work within it, to find our way around, let alone for someone facing such a situation for the first time.
What other roles are important to you?
I am a feminist, an activist, a vegan and, to a certain extent, also a politician, although I do not have a distinguished elected political career behind me. In the past, I served as chair of the regional committee for the prevention of crime and drug addiction in the Olomouc Region. I was also a member of various committees and school councils.
Within the Pirate Party, I led working groups focused on mental health and served as Janka Michailidu’s deputy on the departmental team for addictive behaviour. I also worked on equal opportunities and tried to promote feminist issues within the party. However, I wasn’t very successful in this, so I left after a few years. I am now politically active in Volta as co-leader of the inter-departmental ‘State Care’ team (social, health and mental health policy) alongside Kateřina Šrámková, and also as programme coordinator for Prague Pride. I also retain my position on the school council of the primary school in Bohnice.
The public knows you mainly through your Facebook posts, where you have quite a large following, particularly among women. When did you decide to write more extensively about feminism and women’s rights?
It’s partly linked to politics. Every party needs people who are visible, who openly present its agenda and aren’t afraid to put their own face to it. In the Pirate Party, such figures included, for example, Olga Richterová and Ivan Bartoš. I was more of a behind-the-scenes sort of person, writing policy documents, preparing the agenda and contributing to the technical work.
At Volt, I realised that it’s important not only to draw up a programme, but also to communicate it publicly. I am a strong advocate of human rights and believe that they must advance together – whether they concern the rights of women, queer people, other social groups, or, for example, animals. If a significant imbalance arises in any one area, the whole process begins to falter.
Why did you choose women’s rights as one of your main themes?
I was thinking about which form of inequality in the Czech Republic affects the largest number of people whilst still being significantly overlooked. Even during my time with the Pirate Party, I realised that women’s rights in this country are not up to standard.
I often say that we are perhaps only halfway there. Women’s right to vote is certainly not enough. There is still a huge amount of work ahead of us.
Do you think the current situation is a consequence of the Czech Republic’s post-communist past? Why are we still lagging behind the West when it comes to women’s rights?
I wouldn’t automatically compare us with Western countries. For example, in the United States or some other countries that we’re supposedly meant to take inspiration from, the situation regarding certain rights is, in fact, getting worse.
There have been several waves of feminism throughout history, and in the Czech Republic the most recent ones probably did not run their full course. We lived under a totalitarian and authoritarian regime, and society was grappling with other problems. At the same time, however, it is true that even in countries where waves of feminism have taken place, there is regularly a backlash.
A very conservative section of society begins to claim that a certain group has gained too many rights. We are familiar with similar rhetoric in relation to gay people: ‘We’ve allowed you a few things, so don’t get too big for your boots, otherwise we’ll take them away again.’ And sometimes that is actually what happens.
Which countries can serve as an inspiration in this regard?
The Nordic countries, in particular, and Scotland tend to be successful. Personally, I draw the most inspiration from Finland, but Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Scotland and Australia are also doing well.
These aren’t huge countries, and their systems are similar to the Czech one in some respects. It is therefore more realistic to draw inspiration from them than, for example, from the United States.
How did the period of state socialism influence developments in the Czech Republic?
During the First Republic, we were off to a very good start. Women gained the right to vote relatively early on, and society was moving in a certain direction. However, this progress was interrupted by the authoritarian regime.
Moreover, some ideas which might in themselves have been emancipatory were imposed by force and from above. This applied, for example, to the way the regime handled International Women’s Day.
That is why, today, all you have to do is raise the subject of feminism, gender or human rights, and some people immediately react by claiming it’s all about communism. They say that we got rid of such issues after 1989 and should not revisit them. This is a conservative narrative that keeps resurfacing and influences public debate.
To be specific, which areas of women’s rights does the Czech Republic need to address most urgently?
One of the biggest problems is the gender pay gap. The difference in average earnings remains very significant. Sometimes women are paid less even for doing the same work.
However, the so-called gender pay gap is not just about pay for a specific role. It reflects broader societal inequalities. Although a high proportion of women have a university education, their average earnings remain lower.
Another topic you often discuss is women’s health. Where do you see the problem?
For a very long time, we have focused primarily on women’s reproductive health and pushed other areas to one side. Endometriosis, for example, was overlooked for many years. Similarly, women’s pain or severe period pain was downplayed.
Yet these problems have always existed. It is absurd that medicine and society have only begun to address them more seriously relatively recently.
Historically, it has also been the case that scientific discoveries, research or literary works created by women were attributed to men. It is therefore important to highlight women’s true contributions and to restore the reputations of figures who have been erased from history.
In your view, women also face inequality in care and domestic responsibilities. How does this manifest itself?
Women often have lower incomes, but at the same time higher expenses. In addition, they bear a disproportionately larger share of care responsibilities – most often for children, but also for their own parents or their partner’s parents.
It is not just about the care itself. Alongside her paid job, a woman often has another part-time, and sometimes almost full-time, workload at home. She looks after the household, the children and other family members. This is a huge inequality that society still takes for granted.
Does gender inequality also manifest itself in areas we do not normally associate with feminism?
Yes, for example in transport or in the design of public spaces. Women are more likely to use public transport and less likely to drive, yet the infrastructure is primarily geared towards the needs of car travel.
Furthermore, public spaces are often not accessible. They are full of steps and obstacles, which makes it difficult for people with pushchairs, children, older people or those with disabilities to get about. Society also treats parents very badly, particularly mothers with young children. They often face aggression, abuse and a lack of understanding.
Violence is, of course, another key issue.
Yes, the overwhelming majority of violent acts are committed by men. It is true that men are very often violent towards other men, but violence against women is also predominantly committed by men.
This applies to sexual violence, physical violence, domestic violence and violence in close relationships. The victims tend to be women, other men and children. When men speak of their own experiences of domestic violence, it very often took place during their childhood.
Violence is usually linked to a power imbalance. It is most often the man who is in the dominant position, and the violence is then directed against a child, a partner or, for example, ageing parents.
You describe single mothers as a particularly vulnerable group. Why is that?
As a society, we do not treat women well in general, but the situation for single mothers is exceptionally dire. A major problem, for example, is the level of child maintenance and the failure to pay it. Alternative support mechanisms often do not work effectively enough.
We also have parental allowance spread over several years, yet there is a lack of part-time work opportunities and accessible childcare services. Inequalities thus intertwine – in the social sphere, employment, healthcare, transport and care.
You publicly describe yourself as a feminist. What does this word mean to you personally? Can a man be a feminist?
Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk said that a man cannot be a feminist, because only women can be feminists. I disagree with him to a certain extent. In my view, a man can, above all, be an ally.
Women face injustices that they cannot completely eliminate on their own. They need allies amongst men too, and I have decided to be one of them.
I do not face these inequalities directly myself, but I know of many specific stories and can see the problems that exist. I can talk about them, bring them into the public sphere and amplify women’s voices.
Many men shy away from the word ‘feminist’ because they’re afraid of being labelled weak, effeminate or enemies of men. Do you come across this?
Very often. People write to me saying that I’m a woman in a man’s body, a trans woman, or that I must be on my period when I talk about menstrual issues. They label me as weak or effeminate.
It’s interesting that they use femininity as an insult. For them, traits associated with women serve to humiliate a person.
These insults also appear in the comments under your posts. How do you deal with them? Do you try to engage with the commenters, or do you block them?
It depends on the specific comment. If it contains calls for violence, insults, or is intended to humiliate me and discourage others from taking part in the discussion, I’ll hide it and block the author. Often, these are fake accounts.
Behind many of these profiles, however, are real people, most often men. Paradoxically, these are sometimes people with whom I could, under normal circumstances, imagine having an interesting conversation.
It surprises me that hatred towards women – or towards a man who raises issues important to women – can overshadow everything else we might have in common.
Do you also come across arguments about traditional values, according to which a woman’s primary role is to look after the home and children?
Very often. I usually respond by drawing on my knowledge of history. The so-called traditional family and traditional values, as they are discussed today, do not stem from some age-old and immutable arrangement. They are models that took shape under specific historical conditions.
For example, people say: ‘If you want equal rights, let’s turn women into miners and factory workers.’ Václav Klaus, for instance, uses a similar argument. But it is based on a lack of historical knowledge.
Did women really work in the mines?
Yes. Mining and manual labour were also professions carried out by women in the past. Women worked just like men, and in some situations they might have had a physical advantage because they were smaller and could get into places where men could not fit.
This enabled them to extract precious metals and stones, sell them and earn their own money. It was precisely this economic independence that was one of the reasons why women’s work in certain sectors began to be restricted or banned.
Today, people who are unaware of this history cite work in the mines as supposed evidence that gender equality is absurd. Yet women have historically worked in the mines.
Similarly, in your view, the so-called traditional family is also idealised.
A family consisting of a man, a woman and children is one of the models we have created as a society. However, no one can claim that it must suit everyone or that it is automatically the best option for everyone.
Families formed by same-sex couples can be just as good as heterosexual families. It is generally better for a child to grow up in a loving family than to be without a stable home life.
Moreover, gay men and lesbians often have to invest a great deal of money, time and energy into starting a family. Their parenthood is usually very well thought-out and a conscious choice. In the case of heterosexual couples, children may also be born unplanned.
Professional psychological organisations have long stated that children from same-sex families thrive just as well as children from heterosexual families.
I agree with that. The positions of professional psychological organisations clearly state that families formed by same-sex couples can be just as good as heterosexual families. For children, a stable and safe family environment is more important than the gender of their parents.
Do you also encounter criticism from women themselves?
Yes. In my view, these are often women who have adapted to certain injustices, learnt to live with them and gradually come to accept them as the norm.
When someone then confronts them with the fact that they’ve had to suppress themselves or accept an unequal position, they may react irritably. They’ve already had to make a great effort to learn to function under those conditions. The realisation that this might not have been necessary, and that society could have been organised differently, can be painful for them.
Sometimes I wonder whether there might also be unresolved trauma or some other difficult life experience behind this. If we knew the personal stories of the women who claim they do not need equal rights, we would probably find many important connections within them.
Do you feel that you’re imposing on women what they should want?
Some women do actually say to me: ‘Petra, stop telling us that something shouldn’t hurt us or that scientific research should take us more into account.’ Yet my motivation is simple: I want as many people as possible to have the best possible living conditions.
Of course, criticism can be unpleasant. But I react slightly differently to women than I do to men.
How is your approach different?
When a man sends me a vulgar message and tries to put me down, humiliate me or hurt me, I often perceive his motivation as a defence of a system that suits him.
With women, I more often try to continue the discussion. I try to explain the issue in more detail and seek some form of understanding. I don’t think their motivation is usually the same as that of men, for whom the unequal status of women can bring advantages.
This brings us to your political career. Why did you leave the Pirates to join Volta? Did you feel the Pirates weren’t liberal enough?
They were liberal, and I don’t want that to be misinterpreted. However, I am someone who believes very strongly in internal party democracy. I object to the centralisation of power.
The turning point for me was the election of Zdeněk Hřib as party leader. The mere fact that he became leader wouldn’t have bothered me. I understand that I don’t have to get on with every politician and that we don’t have to agree on everything.
The problem, as I saw it, lay in the programme he brought with him when he took over the leadership.
What specifically did you find objectionable about it?
I saw it as an attempt to concentrate more power in the hands of the leadership, to restrict internal party democracy and to reduce the ability of ordinary members to influence decision-making.
For me, as someone with a democratic and transparent mindset, this was a fundamental problem. I joined the Pirates precisely because of their internal democracy and the opportunity for every member to have a say in the party’s direction. Suddenly, I felt that this principle was being eroded. It came as a huge shock to me.
For someone outside a political party, it can be difficult to understand just how personal a departure like this is.
A political party is also a community. Every day you meet people, build relationships and get on well with one another. You agree with some people more than others, but you’re united by the belief that you’re working towards a common goal.
Then, all of a sudden, you get the feeling that perhaps some people aren’t after the same thing. That internal democracy isn’t all that important to them.
I also have a theory that if a political party weakens democracy within its own organisation, we cannot be sure that it will consistently uphold democratic principles externally either.
Why was Volt a better alternative for you?
Volt is a party that is still taking shape, but at the same time has a pan-European, socially liberal and Euro-federalist foundation.
With the Pirates, we could say that it was a liberal party that sometimes shifted further to the left and at other times to the right. Individual policy measures were developed gradually and discussed by members. Volt has its core values defined more firmly.
As a Pirate, I have long sought to increase women’s involvement, both in terms of their representation on candidate lists and in leadership roles. I didn’t have much success with that. At Volt, a similar approach is part of the party’s core ethos.
We’ve just had the general election, and local and Senate elections lie ahead. What are your personal political plans?
I will be standing on the coalition list in Prague 3 alongside the Greens and Budoucnost.
The parliamentary elections are still a long way off, and a lot can change in the meantime. For now, we’re focusing primarily on the Senate and local elections. We’ll be standing in Prague, Brno, as well as in Ostrava and other cities.
We must always bear in mind that Volt is a small party that is still in the process of being formed. We are therefore striving to build broader coalition partnerships with socially liberal movements – typically with the Greens, Praha Sobě, the Pirates and other like-minded groups. You can also look forward to a surprise in the Senate elections.
Let’s return to feminism and the rights of LGBT+ people. These issues spark heated debates on social media. Do you think society is more divided than before, or is this primarily an illusion created by the internet?
In my view, the situation differs when it comes to queer rights and women’s rights. As far as queer people are concerned, society appears very divided, particularly on social media, but in reality support for their rights is quite high.
For example, according to surveys, support for marriage for all stands at around two-thirds of the population. That is a very strong majority.
What about support for feminist and socially liberal issues?
I don’t have such a clear picture there. However, there is a socially liberal section of society that I focus on. I estimate that support for helping vulnerable people, those in need and the equalisation of rights stands at around a quarter of society.
I work with this group and create my content for them. I talk to them about politics, women’s rights and support for queer people. When I write a post, I’m essentially saying: ‘Look, there’s a problem here that’s affecting a certain section of society, and I want us to fix it.’ It might be, for example, a call for free sanitary products in public toilets.
I know that some people will welcome this, others will be undecided, and some will be strongly against it. So there might be eight hateful comments under the post and only two positive ones.
I’ve come to terms with that. I know that, to a certain extent, I’ve become a lightning rod that’s going to attract criticism. I suppose it’s something I need to go through.
In recent years, the so-called ‘manosphere’ has been growing in strength – an online environment made up of influencers and communities that often promote very rigid notions of masculinity, question women’s equality and sometimes openly spread misogynistic attitudes. Do you think this content poses a threat primarily to teenage boys and young men?
Yes. I see the ‘manosphere’ as part of a recurring backlash against social progress. A movement emerges demanding that certain conditions be rectified, and then a group appears that says: ‘We’ve already allowed you something, so watch out – we might take it away again.’
I believe that the manosphere stems precisely from this principle. In the past, similar movements took different forms; today, they take this online form.
What makes the current manosphere particularly dangerous?
Its various strands often contain extremist views. However, they enter the public debate through content that may, at first glance, be appealing to young men. This radicalises a larger section of society than would previously have been the case.
The influence of the manosphere can already be seen in language. Terms such as ‘alpha’, ‘beta’, ‘gamma’, ‘incel’ or ‘misandry’ are familiar to almost everyone today. They are often used even by people who do not realise that they originate from an online subculture based on hostility towards femininity and, very often, towards women themselves.
I hope that most people are unaware of this origin and use these words without any deeper ideological context.
Andrew Tate, for example, has a major influence.
Yes, Andrew Tate has a large following. There are also Czech representatives of the ‘manosphere’ movement. Some of them, however, make money from women themselves via OnlyFans or similar platforms.
We can also mention cases of Discord groups in which men shared sexualised content of their partners, acquaintances, sisters, mothers or complete strangers. Recordings of violence, rape or sexual content involving children also appeared there.
In Czechoslovakia, tens of thousands of men have joined such groups. This is extremely alarming.
Can parents configure their children’s social media settings so that they cannot access content from such figures?
It’s very complicated. Children are clever and can get round restrictions. Simply restricting access to a specific social media platform or individual may therefore not work.
If a child already has a penchant for such content, they’ll probably find another way. If they don’t view it on their own phone, they’ll see it at school on a classmate’s mobile, on a computer or somewhere else.
So what might work better than bans?
In my view, prevention lies primarily in fostering healthy relationships, a safe environment and a supportive community.
In the Czech Republic, for example, there is an effort to focus more on children’s mental wellbeing in schools. Young people should learn to communicate, form relationships, date and understand what healthy romantic relationships look like. High-quality sex education should also be part of their education.
It is paradoxical, however, that conservative movements in the Czech Republic and, for example, in the United States, reject sex education. They do not want children to acquire the skills needed for safe relationships and sexuality at school. Ultimately, however, this approach drives them into the arms of abusive figures such as Andrew Tate.
How do you think the rights of women and LGBT+ people will develop in the coming years? Do you believe we will succeed in advancing them further, or are you more concerned about a step backwards, such as the one we are currently seeing in the United States, for example?
I can see that those who oppose the advancement of rights are exceptionally active and capable. They have effective tools and substantial funds at their disposal.
Opposing them are often people like me, who don’t have many resources. They devote themselves to this work in the evenings at home or on the tram on their way home from work. They tend to be tired, sometimes resigned, and constantly face attacks from fake accounts or aggressive people.
Do you think there is a risk that human rights defenders will lose this battle?
If there are so few of us left, we will lose again. I would therefore like to appeal to us all to support one another and not to attack each other over minor differences.
I understand that not everyone has enough energy. People have families, children and their own problems. They don’t want to be constantly dealing with conflicts and hateful reactions.
But that is precisely what the opponents of human rights want. They want us to hide away in our safe corners, look after ourselves and stop paying attention to what is happening to the people around us. I don’t want to judge anyone. I understand why people withdraw. But if we all give up on helping others and supporting those in need, we will lose.
