In the feminist march against violence against women that took place in Paris last Saturday, the complaints against rape and the demand to “Educate, prevent, train” stood out. Although in the French context each of these expressions has a particular background, both concern millions of women in the world.
In Mexico, without a doubt, it will be necessary to protest this November 25 against feminicide in the public or private sphere, disappearances, forced, permanent and intermittent; bullying and harassment in public institutions, universities, streets, and public transportation; the sexual abuse of children in schools several times reported and stubbornly ignored by the authorities; impunity for the trafficking and sale of girls; against labor exploitation exacerbated by the pandemic, the confinement, the economic crisis and the lack of government support. As in France or Spain, it will be necessary to remind prosecutors and judges that rape can never be justified and that it does not matter, time, clothes, or place: the fault lies with the aggressor and the violating state that protects him.
Reminding those who deny or minimize reality and shout our outrage at the ongoing and growing violence against women and girls is urgent and necessary. At the same time, it is necessary to go one step further: to demand not only “punishment of the guilty” and their accomplices by omission, but also a radical change in public policy against violence, particularly violence against women, to stop current atrocities and limit current and future damage.
Indeed, violence not only destroys the life and health of those who live it directly. It leaves deep physical and psychological marks on them, yes, and also on the girls and boys who witness beatings, femicides or shootings. It undermines social relationships in families, neighborhoods and communities; limits the personal and intellectual development of abused or mistreated children; sow fear, discomfort, anger, despair, apathy or new violence. Although not every survivor of violence will be an abuser or potential victim, the risk exists: instead of learning to resolve conflicts peacefully or constructively, they learn to disqualify, mistreat or kill; Instead of learning equality, submission is internalized.
Since the 1980s, feminists and women’s groups have denounced violence against women as a public health problem. Conventions such as CEDAW or Belem do Pará took up their claims and incorporated both the need to punish violence and the urgency to prevent it, in order, utopianly, to eradicate it. Through the obligations accepted by the signatory states (such as Mexico), they draw a map of essential interventions: eliminate stereotypes and sociocultural patterns of subordination and domination of the educational system, the media, institutional discourse and public policies; promote substantive equality and full recognition of women’s human rights, with specific programs and laws; professionalize State agents to avoid sexism and revictimization, among others.
Instead of assuming these guidelines, the Mexican State has lost itself in the simulation, omission and fetishism of the law. Worse still, today it (and us) is heading, in the opposite direction, towards the cliff. Instead of promoting equality, it praises subordination; instead of autonomy, it promotes welfare; Instead of preventing violence through education, community strengthening, and comprehensive development, it encourages authoritarianism and militarization – which harms women the most; Instead of punishing abuses and human rights violations by its civilian or military agents, it stigmatizes those who investigate, denounce, and cry out against violence and impunity.
Demanding a stop to sexist violence requires today to denounce these destructive drifts; think from society how to educate, prevent and act for equality, against all violence.
Cultural critic
Transmutations
She is a professor of literature and gender and cultural criticism. Doctor in Latin American literature from the University of Chicago (1996), with a master’s degree in history from the same University (1988) and a bachelor’s degree in social sciences (ITAM, 1986).
Reference-www.eleconomista.com.mx