In these days of social and political turmoil, with a case of sexual violence and machismo at the center – that of Íñigo Errejón – the networks are bustling, but also the feminist groups, the chats, the conversations. Not only are there certainties, there are also many debates, many questions, many doubts. In a time of polarization, putting them all on the table is sometimes difficult. The title of this article is part of the end of another, one of many that have been published in recent hours about these headaches that consume many these days. I share some of the reflections that the authors – María Batalla and Irene Redondo – make in El Salto and others I do not, but I share that feminists are asking questions and that these questions must continue without accusations.
Since 2016 we have been experiencing a collective catharsis with peaks and valleys. The rape of a woman by five men in the Sanfermines of that year and the investigation, the judicial process and the different resolutions that followed were the beginning of these curves. They also coincided in time with MeToo, which during all these years has had replicas. From the beginning, and on each occasion that a case shook society, thousands of women were encouraged to share their stories of violence and sexual harassment, or of sexist experiences that had had a strong impact on their lives. Or perhaps what shook society was, not only the particular case, but precisely the massive and simultaneous story that the women gave of their experiences and that gave an idea of the magnitude and normalization of violence, silence and the complicities.
When the idea that we were facing a fourth feminist wave began to be conceptualized, breaking the silence of women about their experiences was at the center. This massive revelation puts an end to the idea that machismo and violence are something exceptional to bring to the table a structural problem with deep roots.
How we tell it, where we tell it
What channels have women used to share their experiences? Fundamentally, social networks, as well as some specific forums. The success of some hashtags on networks, such as Cuéntalo, promoted by Cristina Fallarás, or of spaces such as Everyday Sexism (in English) or Micromachismos was precisely due to the previous absence of channels to speak safely, to feel heard and, somehow, repaired.
It would be necessary, however, to make clear the difference between what some channels provide and what others provide, or what each one can serve us for. Women have every right to decide if we want to share our stories and how to do it, in what space and how far to go, and whether to file a complaint in court or not.
Profiles on social networks or blogs can be that liberating and healing space for words, also spaces for collective awareness. There is a difference, however, between that and a journalistic publication that names a harasser or aggressor with names and surnames. In this case, it is not just a matter of disseminating a testimony, but of carrying out an investigation that supports the identification of a specific person and the attribution of responsibilities: collecting testimonies, confirming identities, requesting data, contrasting peripheral information…
These days, in the heat of the Errejón case, which began with a publication on Cristina Fallarás’s Instagram profile, other profiles have been created on networks with generic names that are made available to women to receive testimonies and help or guide them in some sense. Some have been linked to the names of feminists, in others there is no clarity about who is behind it, and that is an important point if it is about women being able to safely share their stories. But, in addition, it seems important to collectively reflect and do pedagogy on what we want each of these spaces for: creating the idea that an anonymous channel can serve to make an aggressor publicly answer for his actions can be misleading and frustrating for victims.
In the case of Errejón, the publication on Fallarás’s profile served for a party to question a deputy about the facts attributed to him. He admitted them and left. But it is this admission of his actions that has made the resolution quick and easy considering that it was an anonymous complaint. Any protocol against sexual harassment and violence establishes, for example, the steps to carry out an investigation based on a woman’s internal complaint, that is, the consequences (no longer criminal, but social or work-related) on the person. indicated are not immediate.
We can think, of course, that the dissemination of testimonies with a semblance of verisimilitude that point towards specific people should serve to make parties, companies or organizations look inward, ask the relevant questions or verifications and think about how to address, not only that case. , but structural machismo in general. If we know that reporting, formal or informal, is tremendously difficult due to the consequences, fear and stigma, it is worth considering whether these channels can serve as clues to look towards, albeit in themselves – and without the verifications. relevant – should not serve to take forceful measures against the accused.
It is not about discrediting any channel, but rather about thinking about the meaning and function of each one and that they can function complementary, also with what we do from the street or from other spaces. Going to court is also a channel, but a non-obligatory channel, contrary to what many want us to believe these days. Firstly, because no one forces a victim of aggression or harassment to criminally report the facts. Secondly, because each woman must decide what justice and reparation she seeks or needs, and what she can sustain at all times. What we surely cannot – nor should we – is expect the same from each of these channels. And thirdly, because not all sexist or misogynistic behavior is criminally punishable, but that does not mean that it does not deserve social or work reproach or that it should not have consequences.
The consequences
Linked to the reflection on the channels is that which corresponds to the consequences. Some colleagues are wondering these days whether or not specific stories serve to end the culture of rape and impunity, to transform our context, or when and in what way they can do so or not. “A feminism that is presented these days through a redemptive fire, possibly alienates many, instead of convincing them that our project brings a more generous and kind world for everyone,” states the Cantoneras collective in another article.
The debate on punitivism and feminist justice is extremely interesting and necessary. But don’t we have the right to rage, to vent? Are the so-called ‘restorative justice’ processes serving where they have been launched? I am not saying that the rage, injustice and impunity with which we women live justify any behavior or should prevent us from reflecting, but sometimes it seems that in the face of any catharsis we have to run out to warn of punitivism, to point the finger at ourselves. ourselves as if we were a bunch of vampires, without taking into account the unequal context in which all this happens.
The proportionality of the responses and consequences is a debate. How testimonies or complaints should be channeled, too, or how we set the conditions to end impunity and create safe environments. Just as it is how to ensure that these individual ‘scandals’ do not remain just that, a specific scandalous and striking event, but rather serve to look around and continue changing the structural. It is wonderful to think of feminism as a project that brings a more generous and kind world to everyone, because it is, and that cannot be done at the cost of creating a culture of revenge, but nor at the cost of ignoring the discomforts of women. women and to assume that so far it seems that the repair has worked very little. We are tired of being nice all the time, and I think we deserve that to be taken into account.
Sex and power
There is a key question to ask ourselves when we talk, from anywhere, about sexual violence and serious sexist behavior: what do we say? What details do we give so that whoever reads or listens to us knows what has happened and understands it or comes to terms? idea of the magnitude of the events and what details divert attention or spectacularize? The line is not always as clear as it may seem.
In this case, the women’s stories about Errejón include the description of, let’s say, unconventional practices. Some of these details seem necessary to understand what type of situations or systematic behavior we are talking about. But we run the risk of stigmatizing a type of sex, of assuming that certain practices are necessarily sexual violence. Sexual violence is about consent and consensus between people, and not so much about specific practices. A man can violate by doing missionary or masturbating a woman: the ‘normalized’ or frequent nature of the practices does not make them better or non-violent, in the same way that the less conventional or habitual ones are neither humiliating nor sexist in themselves. .
Sexist is imposing your desire and your will. Sexist is coercing or blackmailing, explicitly or not. Sexist is feeling that if you do or don’t do something, you will be punished or have consequences, whether that means stopping calling you, talking to you, walking away from you, or physically attacking you. Macho is not being willing to consider the other an equal with needs and their own voice, someone with whom to agree, not someone to use, belittle, or ignore. Among many other things. All of this can sometimes constitute violence and other times, destitution: it has no criminal consequences, but it is absolutely reprehensible and not acceptable in certain spaces.
Why did you continue with him?
Yes, women have to take responsibility for our actions. But are we going to ask men to take responsibility for their own or are we going to focus the discourse, once again, on what women do or do not do? Understanding why women stay in problematic and even violent relationships in any sense is approaching a tremendously complex reality. Socialization, gender roles, trauma, traumatic bonds, cycle of violence, social expectations…
Wanting to resolve this complexity with a ‘assume your actions’, ‘that he would have left’, ‘why later you went to his house with him / got in a taxi / or continued the relationship with him’ speaks of the profound general ignorance that follows existing on this phenomenon, despite years of specialized laws. We cannot go back to what she did, because it means going back to the discourse of the miniskirt, of resistance, of you were provoking, of you asked for it. And because it means giving up on doing the necessary pedagogy so that society understands that the answer to the questions about why we stay, why we return and why we continue does not correspond to each one of us but must be joint because it has to do with with the system in which we were raised: patriarchy.
#Feminists #questions #uncomfortable #topics #talk #wake #Errejón #case
