“Now I can vote null without regrets,” wrote a participant in a feminist chat on July 4; and she finished: “
The story goes back a long way and I am going to try to summarize it by differentiating two currents within feminism. Although they agree on many things: combating violence against women and the wage gap, recognizing care as work, defending the right to abortion…, there are important differences between the currents that we can call equality and diversity. The first considers it essential to abolish the industries that use poor women as merchandise and degrade the dignity of all: prostitution, pornography, surrogacy. It also fights against the sexism inherent in religious fundamentalisms. On all of these issues, diversity feminism is far more nuanced, wavering, or, if you prefer, contradictory. He is much more comfortable with the LGTBI agenda.
And what does Sumar say? Her program tiptoes over those issues. Regarding prostitution, just a passing mention: socio-labour insertion plan for those who practice it, but without questioning it; about pornography, surrogacy, or the rights of all women, whether they belong (them or their families) to whatever religion it is, not a word. The reason is very simple: the parties that make up the platform do not agree with each other. Inspired by postmodern ideologies that resemble neoliberalism like two peas in a pod, several of them defend that women, invoking “freedom”, rent out their vagina or uterus and produce children to sell or give away, or in the name of “diversity”. ”, submit to such an oppressive religious fundamentalism, even if it bears another name, like the one against which we Spanish women fought under Franco.
The trans issue has emerged, in this dispute, as a new battle horse. Public opinion believes that only the rights of a minority are at stake, so small that their legal status will have no consequences for third parties. They do not see that the problem is one of concept: if we accept (and this is enshrined in the trans law) that whoever claims to be a woman is a woman, this has two effects that are true Trojan horses for equality.
First, sexist stereotypes are enshrined: woman is no longer the person of the female sex, who hopefully is free to behave as she wants, but consists of “becoming the object of desire for men” (Elizabeth Duval dixit).
Second, you can’t make policies in favor of women, because it’s not clear who they are. When Sumar demands, in his program, “gender parity”, what does he mean? In their lists, biological men –converted, without any requirement, into legal women– occupy positions destined for women; and one of them holds, as I said at the beginning, the spokesperson for feminism, without any experience of what it is to be a woman, or any feminist trajectory. It’s like naming a bullfighter Councilor of Culture.
For all these reasons, I am not going to take the Sumar ballot on July 23. Which one then? Although there are two feminist parties (that of Lidia Falcón, and the recent Feministas al Congreso), neither of them is present. And although I understand feminists who advocate abstention or null voting, it seems dangerous to me as things are.
I have almost always voted for the PSC-PSOE, because it is the party that has approved the laws on abortion, equality and against gender violence; because he declares himself (although he does not show it much) contrary to prostitution and surrogacy; because it has in its midst (although it has ignored them lately) very valuable feminists. I know that in this legislature you have put feminism at the feet of horses, to please your partners. But I also know of another party that, if we don’t stop it, will unleash its own so that they can destroy us like Attila’s horse.
