Miguel Lorente Acosta, Deputy Government against Gender Violence Why
fears over terrorism of ETA machismo? Why is looking to finish before the terror of a criminal gang with a violent culture references? Why when we talk about terrorism and worthless when it comes to machismo anything can be acceptable?
Why a spokesman for the environment when the band makes reference to the world his words are to praise, and when someone with a pen, voice command makes direct references to machismo ears and eyes narrowed deviate? Why?
Since June 28, 1960, ETA has killed 857 people, deaths that are an average of 16.8 killings per year. However, only since 2003, the year that statistics are unified by domestic violence, machismo has murdered in Spain 545 women in the field of relationship, ie, 68.1 on average. In the past five years, terrorism has killed 12 people, while gender-based violence has killed more than 345 women, and only two years, 1979 and 1980, with 86 and 93 victims, in which ETA has killed rather than gender-based violence.
Why, then, is more afraid of terrorism that machismo? We know some of the reasons, but do not understand many of the reactions.
Terrorist violence is experienced as outside the system against him. This perception allows anyone to feel that they may suffer by being hit by a car bomb or other criminal action, as part of the strategy of indiscriminate attacks that the band needs to generate terror. This design is also accompanied by a visible network of claims that can be supported from other fronts.
sexist violence, however, stems from the values \u200b\u200bthat the culture has established for social coexistence, is what is called a "structural violence." From this point of view it is perceived that not everyone can be a victim of their actions, in fact, only women can be, and according to that same idea, not all women, but those are some bad women for not being good wives , mothers and housewives, or if look at the aggressor, those which intersect with an alcoholic, drug addict or psychological problems. There are also differences in the staging, no one claimed goals to achieve, and have, so you do not want to lose, and not go out, stay in their homes to exercise violence.
Well, I know some of the reasons to display a completely different attitude and certainly paradoxical to show more concern about a less serious in the result and meaning, it is much worse prevent equality for all of society and exercise violence from that position injustice of machismo, to face the demands of a group criminal and isolated, having more support in a given territory. What is surprising, as pointed out in the beginning, is how in this situation and there is a dramatic result so weak reaction by the same company that is so tough on terrorism, and how, even, come to criticize and question the tools and measures to eradicate sexism, inequality and violence.
Only the gravity of the findings should lead to say from any area of \u200b\u200bsociety and every citizen and citizen, "What I have to do to help eradicate gender violence?" But the situation is very different.
It is clear that no one wants the result of violence, but still want less accept that their cause is inequality. No sense in the circumstances described as adopting a passive position to the measures to counter this and be so belligerent criticism with arguments as false reports that men also suffer violence or be included in the law children as direct victims.
Indeed, the aim is to distort the meaning of the statute comprehensive look away from his home in inequality. Imagine now that we have commemorated the International Day against Cancer, in speaking of him one argues that not much talk about cancer and to speak more than infectious and metabolic diseases, or if it conducts a program on breast cancer someone said that it should be included with prostate cancer or who are questioning the whole health policy on cancer because there have been cases of people who have simulated this disease ... it would be absurd, right? Why not when you use this type of argument against equality and gender violence? Behind the machismo
no acronyms, but centuries of power who will not resign, and as in previous times have tried to change the acronym to continue with the strategy, Others have tried to change the words over the centuries to remain silent, but all violence as an argument. Terrorists take sexist behavior in the use of violence as a form of power, and machismo is a terrorist to introduce fear and terror as a cell for women, and in the same way that calls for no defense for one, should not have for each other.
Now is the time of peace and equality, and for this entire society is necessary, all except the violent.
http://blogs.publico.es/dominiopublico/3118/machismo-y-terrorismo/
0 comments:
Post a Comment