Who was silent, who knew, why the silence: the Errejón case does not challenge just one man or a party but an entire society

There are, around the Errejón case, the stories of women that we gradually know and the political decisions, many questions. They are questions that slip into comments, conversations, social networks and articles. If it was a rumor, why didn’t someone speak up before or make decisions before? Did someone know something? Who? Did someone keep quiet? Why? And why didn’t they report or point out before? These questions can function in two ways: as reproaches and ammunition for a fight, or as triggers for a reflection that we continue to have pending as a society and, if applicable, to point out responsibilities.

I have learned many things from experts and activists focused on sexual violence, but I highlight one thing now: reporting is not an individual process, but a collective one. This premise, however, is almost completely ignored, so that speaking, pointing out and denouncing seems simply an individual task, the responsibility of a person who, we forget, carries on his back damage that can be very profound.

This idea is so established that, although in recent decades – and with more intensity in recent years – equality plans and protocols against harassment have been implemented in companies and organizations, and resources have been reinforced to serve sexual violence, in some way it is understood that, once the paper is fulfilled, the procedure is completed, the task is done and the rest corresponds to the women.

We find, then, that the responsibility seems to fall on women: we are the ones who only have to be in charge of speaking, of telling what happens to us, of taking any type of action, of seeking justice and reparation… or of shut up. Because therein lies the trap and that is that, whatever we do, there will be questions that serve to doubt our behavior. Why did we speak now and not before, why before and not now, why did you remain silent, why do you report now, why did you report so soon.

By holding women individually responsible, a very functional objective for the system is achieved: pretending that no one else has anything else to do or can do more. It’s a lie. The conditions that allow speaking and reporting are a collective task and a responsibility that must be assumed by all the actors involved, from administrations to organizations, parties, social movements, companies. It is not about having a piece of paper to comply with a rule or to be able to excuse that something was done, the work to allow speech and denunciation must be constant because it is, ultimately, a work to prevent violence from existing, harassment, abuse of power, machismo, racism or lgtbiphobia.

What do we do with rumors? What do we do to eliminate power dynamics from our spaces? Are there different standards depending on who behaves how? What degree of tolerance do we show with what behaviors? What behaviors do we reward? What guarantees do we give to those who raise their voices and to those who help them?

Interpellation must reach everywhere, so that something that, unfortunately, is very common does not happen: that it is always other women (feminists) who are in charge of opening those spaces or those conversations, of trying to change the dynamics, and of fighting. against the structure. The pacts of silence between men must be broken and also the pacts of silence or complicities that still operate in politics or in organizations to protect leaders, important members, or those structures themselves, leaving aside the suffering and experience of the women.

Many people still find it easier to think of conspiracies than to simply believe the word of women who, even with risks and costs, dare to talk about what they have experienced. These women are sometimes even their own companions. Many people find it easier to see plot and suspicion than to understand that even the most intelligent, kind, or idealistic men in a sense can commit sexist acts and aggression. How is a woman going to speak or at what cost is she going to do so if her own environment may point her out as crazy or as a piece in a larger conspiracy?

So it is about setting the conditions for speaking and denouncing and that we do it constantly: silence, stigma, shame, fear, guilt, or sexist stereotypes are so deeply rooted and permeate our ways of doing so much. and to think that only if this review and work is permanent will we get the victims to speak and create spaces free of machismo, abuse, harassment and aggression.