The Women’s Institute but not for all

The Women’s Institute (formerly Women’s Institute, when there was no disagreement over the definition of this expression) has recently made public a false etymological study on the term Charo, which seems essential for real equality. that its use in … Social media, he concludes, is symbolic violence and digital misogyny against women. At the same time, and because of this insidious mania that reality has to impose itself, like a mirror in front of our contradictions, one of these television programs whose programming is fully in accordance with the government credo, announced the broadcast of a very rigorous and impartial analysis of the “fachavales”. The fahavales are, explains the promotion, young people seduced by the discourse of the extreme right. Bad young people. And a lot. Because if we look at the current discourse coming through official and unofficial channels of what is morally correct (i.e. from Sánchez to the space furthest to his left), everything else (i.e. from Sánchez to the center, from the center to the moderate right, from there to the right and from there to the extreme) is all far right. Bulk. Thus, as soon as a child experiences a certain disaffection for a left that is increasingly disconnected from his concerns, his needs and his desires and, therefore, which approaches, out of sympathy or necessity, other political options, he inevitably falls into the dark abyss of the unacceptable. And stop being a kid and be a fascist. But the term, make no mistake because your sense of logic collapses to work intuitively, is not symbolic violence against young people who exercise their freedom of thought as a matter of right. Nor is it a question of digital misandry exercised by supra-ideologized adults who consider that contempt is the best asset to attract them towards their option. And it is not for the same reason that they are neither lord, nor machirulo, nor pollovieja, nor cayetano: because it is not so much the what but the who. In reality, even Charo would not seem to be an unacceptable insult if, instead of addressing the hyperventilating militants of hegemonic schizofeminism (this definition is mine; it is not the official one in the report signed by the specialist Charos), he addressed the women who, in favor of a rabid and scrupulous equality between men and women, feel alienated from a movement which does not represent us because it is Adamist, protective, revanchist and victimist. If that were the case, what we would have seen pass under our noses would not be twenty pages of disjointed sentences, without the slightest trace of conceptual depth but on a beautiful, suitably purple background, but rather a formidable estepicursor surrounded by silence and indifference. So let me here, taking into account what has been said and refining the title a little further, propose a new name change for such an organization: I think it should be called Women’s Institute but not All Women’s Institute. If they changed the name so as not to insult women with penises, they can change it now so as not to insult those of us who are ashamed of being bullfighters.

Session limit reached

• Access to Premium content is open thanks to the establishment you are in, but there are currently too many users connected at the same time. Please try again after a few minutes.

try again

You have exceeded the session limit

• You can only start three sessions at a time. We have closed the oldest session so you can continue browsing the rest without limits.

Continue browsing