Domestic violence and terraplanismo

The absurd insistence of Vox to eliminate the expression of gender violence is what most worries these staff, even more than the measures that they later approve when they arrive at the institutions. More than the demands that they include in all their agreements with the Popular Party, which only seek that, the noise, the grotesque scandal. Controversy as a political objective, which is not uncommon in populist movements. Everything arises, as we have seen since the first pacts between the right and the extreme right in Andalusia, when the leaders of Vox highlight in all their negotiations the demand to end the expression gender violence. As one of the spokespersons for this party in Valencia, José María Llanos, has said, “gender violence does not exist, sexist violence does not exist, what exists is intrafamily violence”.

They say it because, according to the president of Vox, Santiago Abascal, gender violence “is an ideological concept”, but then they rush to publish decalogues to defend the opposite, their firm commitment to “combating violence against women and their Causes”. That is the absurdity, to deny the expression and fully assume its meaning.. Because, what else is gender violence, and why is it called that way, if not to give a name to the violence that is exercised specifically against women?

The expression, like others that originate in the Anglo-Saxon world, fit with difficulty in our language because it was not necessary and contravened the definition that was made in the dictionary.. As was repeated when the term began to be used here, the Spanish language does distinguish between biological sex and grammatical gender, and there was no need to confuse them.. A table is a noun that has a feminine gender, why include it in a type of violence.. In short, this debate continued until the Royal Academy of Language settled it with a modification of the dictionary, in 2014: it included a new meaning of the word gender, the third: “Group to which human beings of each category belong.” sex, understood from a sociocultural point of view instead of exclusively biological”. Since then, not even the most recalcitrant purists have been determined to discredit the expression gender violence; It is true that in Spanish the word gender had been reserved as a grammatical category, to distinguish between masculine, feminine and neuter, but there is no problem in expanding its meaning. debate resolved.

The curious thing is that this rejection has only been maintained in politics, in the extreme right, determined to call it domestic violence or intrafamily violence, but maintaining the need to fight against violence against women, and the need to help them, to approve “prevention campaigns, identifying the causes and repeated profiles of the aggressors”. We repeat: why this uncouth insistence on saying that gender violence does not exist if it is later admitted that in our society women, by being women, suffer a specific type of violence. What frivolity is that of discrediting a name, when the seriousness of a problem in our society is admitted?

We also know, from the experience accumulated since they began to reach agreements with the Popular Party, that, although the leaders of Vox recreate themselves in these controversies, later, they assume that in the institutions in which they are, the expression continues to be applied gender violence, although others such as domestic violence and intrafamily violence are added. In Andalusia, which, as noted before, was the first agreement signed and has since been replicated in other agreements, the fundamental insistence, for example, was the creation of a specific telephone number for domestic violence. The political scandal, the hours and hours of debates that were consumed, should be the only reason for public shame when, a year later, the official statistics were published: the domestic violence telephone line only received an average of two calls a day, while that the gender violence service handled more than 100 calls a day.

So let's go back to the beginning. If what we have proven is that when the Popular Party agrees with Vox in the institutions, the policies against gender violence do not disappear, why this insistence on throwing away the atrocities of the most caffirs of the formation, like that guy from Valencia who is going saying that “macho violence does not exist”. Anyone who does not contemplate this discussion with party interests and political prejudices can share with Vox that, in our society, not everything is reduced to gender violence, that violence within the family also exists, domestic violence or violence intra-family, because the reports of all the prosecutor's offices in Spain have been insisting on this drift for years. But if that were the intention, there would be no controversy or scandal. With which, that must be the only reason why Vox promotes the most caffirs, because they should not only be interested in extending protection and aid to families in the face of all types of violence, but they are also interested in promoting of this sociological terraplanism of denying the existence of violence against women.

Vox's discourse on intra-family violence could be compatible with the recognition of gender violence, as they themselves end up implicitly acknowledging in their documents, but they maintain the absurdity of denialism because that hooligan essence is what attracts a lot of voters to their ranks. anti system. Those who laugh at the periodic lapses of some councilor or deputy when they become famous for saying that Vox is such a women's defender party that, in fact, “there are women of almost as much worth as men”. well that. The PP will do well to continue limiting the agreements, and to get away from all this absurdity, without the complexes in which they get entangled so often, with publicity and transparency of what they sign. Without being carried away by confusing, equivocal terms, or malicious expressions. Few State pacts are signed in Spain and this, that of gender violence, is one of them, along with that of pensions, the Pact of Toledo, and those signed against ETA terrorism. There are no more state pacts, only the first of democracy, the Moncloa pacts. The PP to its own, which is the State pact. And if one day Abascal admits the ridiculous absurdity of maintaining this double discourse in the face of such a serious problem, of half-truths and outright barbarities, his party will begin to be a little less disturbing.