Leo con desconcierto este texto de Javier Marías sobre violencia machista publicado hace 2 días en El País Semanal. En él, Javier Marías argumenta que la violencia machista es difícil de erradicar por tratarse de crímenes "individuales" con "su historia particular detrás".
No he leído nada de Javier Marías -él seguramente tampoco ha leído nada mío- y no estoy familiarizada con su orientación política o su ideología en general, así que me limito a juzgar lo que leo en el artículo. Es de agradecer de todas formas que al menos se reconozca el problema de la violencia machista y se intente analizar su raíz, aunque en este punto discrepo bastante con el señor Marías, que escribe frases como éstas:
No se intenta convencer a los hombres de que maten a mujeres, no se trata de una “causa” que busque “adeptos”. Por desgracia (bueno, no sé qué sería más trágico), cada bruto o sádico va por su cuenta y toma su decisión a solas.
Lo cierto es que cada crimen machista va por su cuenta, con su historia particular detrás. Cada asesino asesina sin confabularse con otros (...), ninguno necesita el aliento, el beneplácito ni la propaganda de sus congéneres.
¿Educar desde la infancia? Sin duda, pero no parece que eso dé mucho resultado: un alto porcentaje de adolescentes españoles ve hoy “normal” el control de sus “chicas” y hasta cierta dosis de violencia hacia ellas. Es deprimente, y da la impresión de que, lejos de mejorar las mentalidades, las vamos empeorando.
(Para ubicar cada fragmento en su contexto, arriba está el enlace al texto completo.)
Si la violencia machista fuesen solamente casos "individuales", uno puede pensar que habría tantos asesinos como asesinas. No se necesita fuerza física: para asesinar, especialmente a una persona con la que se convive, no hace falta un forcejeo; para violar a una persona inconsciente, tampoco. Y sin embargo no conozco ningún caso de un hombre que haya sido violado mientras estaba inconsciente y abandonado luego medio desnudo en una cuneta por una mujer o grupo de mujeres. Ni se me ocurriría, en ese improbable caso, que un juez le fuese a preguntar, "¿pero llevaba usted bien abrochado el pantalón?" Creo que Javier Marías se está olvidando del problema de base, el machismo intrínseco de la sociedad, del que todos somos un poquito culpables y un poquito víctimas. Ese machismo que nos hace aceptar como normal (y adecuado) el hecho de que, en algunos casos, la mujer se use como un objeto para servir al hombre. Llevado al extremo, cuando la mujer deja de servir, el asesino adoctrinado por el machismo de la sociedad se deshace de ella, y punto.
Hace poco fui con un niño de 6 años a unos recreativos para niños. "Para niños". Con la típica piscina de bolas, los ganchos de pescar muñecos que nunca se dejan pescar, y diferentes variedades de videojuegos, entre ellos varios de motos y coches de carreras. Por si no he hecho suficiente hincapié en ello, repito: recreativos "para niños". Y sin embargo la primera imagen en la pantalla del juego de las motos es una mujer de tetas gigantescas, cinturita de avispa y caderones, vistiendo un bañador rojo del que se le sale media teta por cada lado, dándole al niño de 6 años la bienvenida al circuito. Para las niñas, por supuesto, o para los niños a los que no les gusten las mujeres de cuerpos grimosos en bañador rojo, no había opción de sustituir a la modelo por un forzudo en calzones. Se asume, y se inculca tanto a niños como a niñas, la imagen de la mujer como objeto decorativo cuya función (y ambición) es agradar al hombre.
Partiendo de este contexto, vayamos de nuevo punto por punto:
No se intenta convencer a los hombres de que maten a mujeres, no se trata de una “causa” que busque “adeptos”. Por desgracia (bueno, no sé qué sería más trágico), cada bruto o sádico va por su cuenta y toma su decisión a solas.
Por supuesto, nadie le dice al bruto o sádico que se ponga a matar mujeres, y la enorme mayoría de hombres son gente normal que no va por ahí matando a nadie. Pero tampoco los asesinos toman su decisión enteramente "a solas". La toman con la complicidad inocente y silenciosa de una sociedad machista en la que todo, desde los juegos para niños, está diseñado "by default" para el modelo de hombre-macho. En la que a ellos se les enseña a dominar, y a ellas, a agradar. En la que a ellas se las juzga con desconfianza porque "algo habrán hecho".
Lo cierto es que cada crimen machista va por su cuenta, con su historia particular detrás. Cada asesino asesina sin confabularse con otros (...), ninguno necesita el aliento, el beneplácito ni la propaganda de sus congéneres.
Sé que la idea de la primera frase no es, aunque se pueda malinterpretar así, el que cada crimen machista tenga "sus justificaciones particulares". Pero los asesinos, violadores y maltratadores muchas veces sí buscan (y obtienen, en mayor o menor medida) el aliento y el beneplácito de sus congéneres. Sin ir más lejos, ahí tenemos el tan famoso caso de "la manada". Yendo más lejos, cualquier comentario del tipo "ella se lo estaba buscando" o "algo habrá hecho" supone una validación moral del acto de violencia machista.
¿Educar desde la infancia? Sin duda, pero no parece que eso dé mucho resultado: un alto porcentaje de adolescentes españoles ve hoy “normal” el control de sus “chicas” y hasta cierta dosis de violencia hacia ellas. Es deprimente, y da la impresión de que, lejos de mejorar las mentalidades, las vamos empeorando.
Es que no se está educando desde la infancia! Precisamente al revés! Se están inculcando ideas machistas desde la infancia, tanto a niños como a niñas, y muchas veces de una forma tan socialmente aceptada que ni siquiera nos choca. Nos parece totalmente normal encontrarnos a una tipa con un bañador rojo tres tallas pequeño y morros de silicona como imagen de portada de un juego de carreras para niños. Y nos parece normal precisamente porque la realidad también es así.
Dice tambien lo siguiente el señor Marías:
Conocíamos, sin embargo, una serie de normas inviolables: era inadmisible pegarse con un compañero de menor tamaño o edad; también ir dos contra uno (“mierda para cada uno”, era la frase infantil); y, sobre todo, a una chica no se le pegaba jamás, en ninguna circunstancia. Eso se consideraba una absoluta cobardía, algo ruin, algo vil. El que lo hacía quedaba manchado para siempre, por mucho perdón que pidiese luego. Pasaba a ser un apestado, un individuo despreciable, un desterrado de la comunidad. Y esas enseñanzas se prolongaban hasta la edad adulta. A una mujer no se le pone la mano encima, a no ser, supongo, que sea muy bestia y se nos abalance con un cuchillo en la mano, por ejemplo. Pero éramos conscientes de nuestra mayor fuerza física y de que era intolerable emplearla contra alguien en principio más débil (insisto, sólo en lo físico).
Pues eso está muy bien, pero también parte de la idea machista de que el hombre tiene derecho a pegar a la mujer..., pero no lo debe hacer porque la pobre es físicamente incapaz de defenderse. Es como aquella campaña desacertada de la policía en la que se pide a los hombres que no violen a las mujeres porque "podría ser tu hermana", tu novia, , tu madre, etc. No, es que a las mujeres no se las viola porque a las "personas" no se las viola. Y sí, obviamente, la mayoría de las mujeres somos físicamente más débiles que la mayoría de los hombres, pero ¿es ésta la razón para no violarnos?
Pero como digo, el machismo está en todas partes y es algo tan habitual que muchas veces ni lo vemos. Somos a la vez víctimas y culpables, tanto los hombres corrientes como las mujeres corrientes. Víctimas, por razones obvias. Culpables porque a veces, cuando lo identificamos, lo dejamos pasar. Unos más que otros, y yo más que muchos. En el curso de tres días he tenido la siguiente conversación, en tres ocasiones separadas, con tres amigos diferentes:
- El fin de semana vienen dos amigas de visita.
- ¿Están buenas?
Y yo no digo nada, o me limito a contestar que sí, que supongo que están buenas, porque sé que mis amigos en el fondo no son machistas y no me apetece empezar una discusión y que me llamen radical, a mí, que soy lo menos radical del mundo.
Pero la próxima vez que veas un anuncio en la tele, o una comedia romántica, o el vídeo de seguridad de un vuelo, o una película de superhéroes, o un reportaje de un suceso deportivo, o a Pablo Motos, o cualquier situación en la que se den roles "de género", intenta imaginar el mismo anuncio, la misma película, el mismo reportaje con los géneros invertidos. Verás como entonces sí resulta chocante ver a dos azafatos complacientes abrochando y desabrochando con una leve caricia y una radiante sonrisa el cinturón de seguridad de un tercer azafato sonriente, a un periódico deportivo refiriéndose a Javier Fernández como "el novio de Miki Ando", o a un juez preguntándole a un hombre víctima de una violación si él suele emborracharse en las fiestas o si llevaba el pantalón bien abrochado.
jueves, 14 de diciembre de 2017
domingo, 1 de enero de 2017
The greys of this world
I would like to wish you, non-existent reader, a happy new year.
I will do as I sometimes do, and write about an idea not knowing where I'm going yet,
There was an attack in Istanbul, where someone I care about lives. Now I'm worried, athough I know this is probably like our ETA times, when attacks did happen but it was more scary to hear about it from the outside than it was to actually live here.
There was an attack in Istanbul, and most of my facebook "friends" don't know yet, and if they do, they most likely don't care much. Except the few ones who are muslim-haters, who find in every ISIS attack a legitimization of their hate for everything muslim. Anyway. Many of my "friends" are posting photos of themselves with their significant others and their one or two kids, inside or outside their bellies, welcoming the new year. They look happy.
I've been told since I came back I sometimes act like I'm above the rest. I don't think it was true when I was told, and I don't want to sound like it now... But I might. So be ready and forgiving.
I am getting a bit anxious about finding a partner, making a family, etc., and in a way I envy all these people on facebook. But, even though I know they are objectively happier than I am, from where I stand right now (figuratively, since I'm writing from bed) I wouldn't change my life for theirs. I see them, and I see a very small world, and a very limited sight of reality, or a very tightly enclosed reality. Not that mine is much wider, not that I have learnt so much more since I left. I used to live within the same 4km straight line in Madrid, now I still live within the same 4km straight line but 13000km away. I guess 4km is just a practical distance to live within. But in this time I have met many people who come from many different places, and I've become much more away of my limitations, much more conscious of how much I'm missing, of the scope of my ignorance. So yes, maybe I consider myself to be above certain people..., but only above those people whose attitude shows they consider themselves to be above any kind of people they are not familiar with.
I think what motivated the observation about my haughtiness was something that happened while playing a card game with some people. The cards had many different and varied images of characters, animals, monsters, mixed things, and among them there was one showing a black kid. A few minutes later in the game, another one showed a black man. Someone made the comment that "the black kid grew up so quickly". I said the comment sounded awful to me. It really did: in a game full of images of multiple princes and princesses, fairies and witches, flowers, plants and trees, where one could have said, "the princess changed dresses so quickly", or "the plant became a tree so quickly", or "the prince and princess got married so quickly", what caught people's attention was the presence of black characters, because it's something they don't see every day in their social circle -all the princes, princesses, fairies and witches were, after all, white. When I told other people about this some days later, someone said, "that was a comment you could perfectly have made a few years ago". I wondered, could I? And honestly, I don't even know anymore. I don't think I would, but if I did, it would only show my ignorance -an ignorance that is not my fault, an ignorance I'm not even aware of and therefore I don't bother hiding. So yes, I think I'm better now, and I know I have shown my ignorance many times along the way, and I still do. I would not go back.
But then, these people who care only about their family, their little houses, their 10-blocks neighborhood, their 4kms, seem to be much happier.
So I wonder: what's the right way?
(Please let me know if you know the answer...)
I will do as I sometimes do, and write about an idea not knowing where I'm going yet,
There was an attack in Istanbul, where someone I care about lives. Now I'm worried, athough I know this is probably like our ETA times, when attacks did happen but it was more scary to hear about it from the outside than it was to actually live here.
There was an attack in Istanbul, and most of my facebook "friends" don't know yet, and if they do, they most likely don't care much. Except the few ones who are muslim-haters, who find in every ISIS attack a legitimization of their hate for everything muslim. Anyway. Many of my "friends" are posting photos of themselves with their significant others and their one or two kids, inside or outside their bellies, welcoming the new year. They look happy.
I've been told since I came back I sometimes act like I'm above the rest. I don't think it was true when I was told, and I don't want to sound like it now... But I might. So be ready and forgiving.
I am getting a bit anxious about finding a partner, making a family, etc., and in a way I envy all these people on facebook. But, even though I know they are objectively happier than I am, from where I stand right now (figuratively, since I'm writing from bed) I wouldn't change my life for theirs. I see them, and I see a very small world, and a very limited sight of reality, or a very tightly enclosed reality. Not that mine is much wider, not that I have learnt so much more since I left. I used to live within the same 4km straight line in Madrid, now I still live within the same 4km straight line but 13000km away. I guess 4km is just a practical distance to live within. But in this time I have met many people who come from many different places, and I've become much more away of my limitations, much more conscious of how much I'm missing, of the scope of my ignorance. So yes, maybe I consider myself to be above certain people..., but only above those people whose attitude shows they consider themselves to be above any kind of people they are not familiar with.
I think what motivated the observation about my haughtiness was something that happened while playing a card game with some people. The cards had many different and varied images of characters, animals, monsters, mixed things, and among them there was one showing a black kid. A few minutes later in the game, another one showed a black man. Someone made the comment that "the black kid grew up so quickly". I said the comment sounded awful to me. It really did: in a game full of images of multiple princes and princesses, fairies and witches, flowers, plants and trees, where one could have said, "the princess changed dresses so quickly", or "the plant became a tree so quickly", or "the prince and princess got married so quickly", what caught people's attention was the presence of black characters, because it's something they don't see every day in their social circle -all the princes, princesses, fairies and witches were, after all, white. When I told other people about this some days later, someone said, "that was a comment you could perfectly have made a few years ago". I wondered, could I? And honestly, I don't even know anymore. I don't think I would, but if I did, it would only show my ignorance -an ignorance that is not my fault, an ignorance I'm not even aware of and therefore I don't bother hiding. So yes, I think I'm better now, and I know I have shown my ignorance many times along the way, and I still do. I would not go back.
But then, these people who care only about their family, their little houses, their 10-blocks neighborhood, their 4kms, seem to be much happier.
So I wonder: what's the right way?
(Please let me know if you know the answer...)
martes, 8 de noviembre de 2016
Election day -- the basics
Today, I didn't want to miss the opportunity to write a brief entry.
Why? Because it is the day of the most awkward US presidential election! The most awkward I remember, at least. And I am here in Philadelphia, right in the middle of it!
For those of you who are reading from the future, let me explain. There are two candidates, one from the Republican Party, one from the Democratic Party. The vision that most people have of them as of today, is that one is kind of bad, and the other one is worse. There are a couple of other candidates whose only purpose in this election is to steal voters from one or the other.
So let's start with the kind of bad one, Hillary. AKA "Her". She looked good on paper and she did a great job in the debates, first getting rid of cute grumpy grandpa Bernie Sanders, and then also against her (allegedly) republican adversary. She was cold, sharp and efficient. At first, they tried to sell her as "the" candidate, with a vast experience in politics, also as the First Lady and recently as Secretary of State. There are a couple of things, apart from her husband's extramarital activities, that stain her campaign: an attack to US facilities in Lybia in 2012, after which she was blamed for the security deficiencies, and the use of her private email account to handle classified information while she was Secretary of State that have prompted two FBI investigations, the last one concluding just yesterday, after which she was cleared from criminal charges.
The second candidate, Donald Trump, is an orange man who has never worked in politics before. He is a racist, sexist billionaire with very small hands which apparently he has used in the past to touch a few females, because "when you're a star, you can do anything to them". All Europe wonders how someone like him could have got the republican nomination for president, while Putin laughs about it. His two main electoral promises are:
1. To build a wall between Mexico and the US -- and make Mexicans pay for it.
2. To banish all Muslims from entering the US.
These two combined will "make America great again", which has been the slogan for his campaign.
As incredible as it may seem, he has millions of people backing him, who won't hesitate to defend him passionately whenever he is criticized for any of his racist or sexist comments.
This is basically it. We'll see what happens!!
Why? Because it is the day of the most awkward US presidential election! The most awkward I remember, at least. And I am here in Philadelphia, right in the middle of it!
For those of you who are reading from the future, let me explain. There are two candidates, one from the Republican Party, one from the Democratic Party. The vision that most people have of them as of today, is that one is kind of bad, and the other one is worse. There are a couple of other candidates whose only purpose in this election is to steal voters from one or the other.
So let's start with the kind of bad one, Hillary. AKA "Her". She looked good on paper and she did a great job in the debates, first getting rid of cute grumpy grandpa Bernie Sanders, and then also against her (allegedly) republican adversary. She was cold, sharp and efficient. At first, they tried to sell her as "the" candidate, with a vast experience in politics, also as the First Lady and recently as Secretary of State. There are a couple of things, apart from her husband's extramarital activities, that stain her campaign: an attack to US facilities in Lybia in 2012, after which she was blamed for the security deficiencies, and the use of her private email account to handle classified information while she was Secretary of State that have prompted two FBI investigations, the last one concluding just yesterday, after which she was cleared from criminal charges.
The second candidate, Donald Trump, is an orange man who has never worked in politics before. He is a racist, sexist billionaire with very small hands which apparently he has used in the past to touch a few females, because "when you're a star, you can do anything to them". All Europe wonders how someone like him could have got the republican nomination for president, while Putin laughs about it. His two main electoral promises are:
1. To build a wall between Mexico and the US -- and make Mexicans pay for it.
2. To banish all Muslims from entering the US.
These two combined will "make America great again", which has been the slogan for his campaign.
As incredible as it may seem, he has millions of people backing him, who won't hesitate to defend him passionately whenever he is criticized for any of his racist or sexist comments.
This is basically it. We'll see what happens!!
miércoles, 21 de septiembre de 2016
Rambling
The most interesting thing about writing a blog is that you kind of have an idea of how you want to start, but no clue what it's gonna turn out...
Whenever I start writing, I usually have one or more thoughts that I imagine floating over my head in circles, and I keep rambling as I catch them. Sometimes I add stuff that I wasn't thinking of adding, just because it comes to my mind. Like this whole last paragraph. My apologies.
So going to the beginning of today's ramblings, I've been thinking, again, about why I like blogging. What brought me to think about it was seeing a photo of some Spanish celebrity on one of my cousins' facebook, and reading my cousin's furious comment towards this person. That is one of the many purposes that social media serve, apart from enabling us to see how immensely happy other people's lives are. What people like about social media, and the reason why platforms like facebook or twitter are so successful, is not because they make communication easy. It is because they allow people to throw their personal opinions all over the place when nobody asked and nobody cares. Same reason why I write: do you really care about what you're reading here? And before you answer that question, let me ask you a more pertinent one: "Are" you, even? Most likely not. And if you "are", you surely don't care. Now, do you think I care that you don't care? Nope. I know you don't, but I keep on writing anyway. Because it makes me feel important. It makes me feel that I actually have an opinion, and a strong one, on stuff.
This thought being already completely caged here, let me now talk about death. Again, I was not planning to but it popped up, so I'm sorry. Death. As you probably know, or you would probably know if you "were", I am an atheist. I believe that once you're dead, you're dead and that's it. We have whatever we have here, and there is no afterlife. A religious person might think that this is a very disheartening thought, but for me it's actually quite a relief... So I would say I am not particularly scared about death... But I am scared about death interrupting my life when I'm in the middle of something! And I guess one is always in the middle of something, so maybe I am particularly scared of death after all... And I'm calling it death, but this also applies to illness.
Anyhow. (Hey, this is the first time in my life that I used that word!!!) Today I did a bunch of things that I hadn't done in a long time. I listened to long forgotten music, talked to an old friend, caught myself remembering scenes from years ago... I also read one of those "free for all" pieces of wisdom that you constantly come across on facebook, but this one I liked. It was something like, "every new situation in life will require a different version of yourself". Or something of the sort.
Maybe I am actually Belen 3.1 and Belen 1.0 is no longer supported by this device...
And maybe I should go to sleep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWqVQr4EPYM
Whenever I start writing, I usually have one or more thoughts that I imagine floating over my head in circles, and I keep rambling as I catch them. Sometimes I add stuff that I wasn't thinking of adding, just because it comes to my mind. Like this whole last paragraph. My apologies.
So going to the beginning of today's ramblings, I've been thinking, again, about why I like blogging. What brought me to think about it was seeing a photo of some Spanish celebrity on one of my cousins' facebook, and reading my cousin's furious comment towards this person. That is one of the many purposes that social media serve, apart from enabling us to see how immensely happy other people's lives are. What people like about social media, and the reason why platforms like facebook or twitter are so successful, is not because they make communication easy. It is because they allow people to throw their personal opinions all over the place when nobody asked and nobody cares. Same reason why I write: do you really care about what you're reading here? And before you answer that question, let me ask you a more pertinent one: "Are" you, even? Most likely not. And if you "are", you surely don't care. Now, do you think I care that you don't care? Nope. I know you don't, but I keep on writing anyway. Because it makes me feel important. It makes me feel that I actually have an opinion, and a strong one, on stuff.
This thought being already completely caged here, let me now talk about death. Again, I was not planning to but it popped up, so I'm sorry. Death. As you probably know, or you would probably know if you "were", I am an atheist. I believe that once you're dead, you're dead and that's it. We have whatever we have here, and there is no afterlife. A religious person might think that this is a very disheartening thought, but for me it's actually quite a relief... So I would say I am not particularly scared about death... But I am scared about death interrupting my life when I'm in the middle of something! And I guess one is always in the middle of something, so maybe I am particularly scared of death after all... And I'm calling it death, but this also applies to illness.
Anyhow. (Hey, this is the first time in my life that I used that word!!!) Today I did a bunch of things that I hadn't done in a long time. I listened to long forgotten music, talked to an old friend, caught myself remembering scenes from years ago... I also read one of those "free for all" pieces of wisdom that you constantly come across on facebook, but this one I liked. It was something like, "every new situation in life will require a different version of yourself". Or something of the sort.
Maybe I am actually Belen 3.1 and Belen 1.0 is no longer supported by this device...
And maybe I should go to sleep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWqVQr4EPYM
jueves, 28 de julio de 2016
Bernie lovers: it's in your hands to keep America still great.
I am Spanish. I should start admitting that I am not into Spanish politics and yet I am sticking my nose into yours. For some reason though, American politics are very appealing to me. Maybe because they surprisingly look more like a reality show and everything has always this feeling of a huge party full of colors, music and balloons.
What shocks me about American politics is how polarized they look, at least on this election year, and how passionate people are to defend their candidate. Seriously, I don't get it!
There is clearly the bad guy whose only campaign arguments are these:
1. Muslims = terrorists --> no muslims.
2. Mexicans = rapists --> no mexicans --> big wall.
3. Torture = good.
4. Guns = good.
5. Make America great again.
And yet there are so many people supporting him! Why? What good could he possibly do for the country?
But I want to write about something else. I was in a Bernie Sanders little event today - full of colors, music and balloons. These are a few examples of what I saw there.
Here, a Bernie head and a placard reading "Bernie or Jill or both". Ok.
Here, "We the people say never $illary" and "Hillary Murdered Harambe". Haha, funny.
And here, at the back of the crowd, these people. Wtf?
No! NO!!!
American democrats who love Bernie: I agree, he looks like a very nice guy. I understand there are many things to hate in Hillary, even many reasons to distrust her. I see why you think she is corrupt and I see why you think Bernie would make a better president. I agree.
But Bernie is not an option anymore. And we are all sorry for that, but now it's time to move on and face the real options! So there is on one side this woman you hate, and on the other side, the bad guy. The crowd who claims that "Homo sex is sin" and have the answer to "Why you deserve hell". Think of it! Bernie is not an option, so what option is closer to what you want for your country? Or you can look at it the other way, what option is closer to what you DON'T want? Then vote accordingly! Voting for a 3rd party because you hate Hillary is a powerful way to protest, I get it. But do you hate her more than you hate the bad guy? Do you hate her so much that you would surrender your country to the bad guy? Because that is what will happen if you don't vote for her, the "less bad option". I understand that you want to protest, but now it's not the time. Not when your country is the price. Look at Brexit!
Please... Vote responsibly and keep America still great...
What shocks me about American politics is how polarized they look, at least on this election year, and how passionate people are to defend their candidate. Seriously, I don't get it!
There is clearly the bad guy whose only campaign arguments are these:
1. Muslims = terrorists --> no muslims.
2. Mexicans = rapists --> no mexicans --> big wall.
3. Torture = good.
4. Guns = good.
5. Make America great again.
And yet there are so many people supporting him! Why? What good could he possibly do for the country?
But I want to write about something else. I was in a Bernie Sanders little event today - full of colors, music and balloons. These are a few examples of what I saw there.
Here, a Bernie head and a placard reading "Bernie or Jill or both". Ok.
Here, "We the people say never $illary" and "Hillary Murdered Harambe". Haha, funny.
And here, at the back of the crowd, these people. Wtf?
In this video, you can see a placard reading: "When the RNC is racist and the DNC is orwellian we are morally obligated to vote 3rd party".
No! NO!!!
American democrats who love Bernie: I agree, he looks like a very nice guy. I understand there are many things to hate in Hillary, even many reasons to distrust her. I see why you think she is corrupt and I see why you think Bernie would make a better president. I agree.
But Bernie is not an option anymore. And we are all sorry for that, but now it's time to move on and face the real options! So there is on one side this woman you hate, and on the other side, the bad guy. The crowd who claims that "Homo sex is sin" and have the answer to "Why you deserve hell". Think of it! Bernie is not an option, so what option is closer to what you want for your country? Or you can look at it the other way, what option is closer to what you DON'T want? Then vote accordingly! Voting for a 3rd party because you hate Hillary is a powerful way to protest, I get it. But do you hate her more than you hate the bad guy? Do you hate her so much that you would surrender your country to the bad guy? Because that is what will happen if you don't vote for her, the "less bad option". I understand that you want to protest, but now it's not the time. Not when your country is the price. Look at Brexit!
Please... Vote responsibly and keep America still great...
viernes, 8 de julio de 2016
The obvious (or why the utopia of an egalitarian society will never be more than just a utopia)
Another 2 black men were killed by police for no reason. I just read that 3 police officers were killed during a "Black lives matter" protest in Dallas.
Refugees in Europe are victims of anti-immigrant attacks. Europeans fear that their governments are letting terrorists in.
Women are not effectively considered as good as men. Some men -and I would even say, some women- feel they're being attacked by the "feminazi" movement.
Educated and uneducated. Homosexuals and heterosexuals. Democrats and republicans. North and South. 1st world and 3rd world. Right and left. Religious and atheists. Pro and anti. Western and Eastern. Madrid and Barcelona. Rich and poor. Fat and skinny. Omnivores and vegans.
There is this story by Italo Calvino that I'm just about to spoil. "There was a country where they were all thieves." It talks about this country, where people go to other people's houses at night to steal from them, so everybody steals and everybody gets stolen and so the circle closes creating a perfectly balanced society where nobody gets rich and nobody gets poor, until an honest man comes into scene that ruins the system. This man doesn't go out to steal at night, and so the person he won't steal from will become richer, whereas the person who can't steal from him will become poorer.
We try to fight for equality, and we must. But we also need to realize that our fight can never completely succeed. "Nature must not win the game, but she cannot loose."
We blame the powerful for establishing the rules that keep them powerful. We blame white supremacists for racism, male supremacists for sexism, demographic or religious majorities for discrimination.
Ok, let's succeed for an instant and press the magic world reset button and start over, all of us from the exact same "time zero" conditions. Oh, happy day.
Then what happens? What is the first thing you want after the "3, 2, 1, go"? Well, unless you're an idiot, which I doubt, the first thing you want is success. In whatever form it may work for you. Economic, familiar, professional, social, it doesn't matter. Time 0.001 and we're already screwed.
Because for you to stand out among others, others need to stand in. And so you will pick your quality pack and you will become richer, or smarter, or more popular, or prettier, for example.
And it will be much easier if you find your kin, other human beings that share some of their ambitions with you, so you can group together. And the only point of "grouping together" is grouping together "against".
That way, we have that:
1. Individual 1 wants to be richer and smarter. Individual 2 wants to be smarter and popular. Individuals 1 and 2 group together against those who are less smart (i.e. individuals 3 and 4).
2. Individual 2 wants to be smarter and popular. Individual 3 wants to be popular and prettier. Individuals 2 and 3 group together against those who are less popular (i.e. individuals 1 and 4).
3. Individual 3 wants to be popular and prettier. Individual 4 wants to be prettier and richer. Individuals 3 and 4 group together against those who are uglier (i.e. individuals 1 and 2).
4. Individual 4 wants to be prettier and richer. Individual 1 wants to be richer and smarter. Individuals 1 and 4 group together against those who are poorer (i.e. individuals 2 and 3).
Ok, you might think, the system is not perfect but it still kind of works. After all, we all have different qualities and defects, furthermore, what I consider a quality you might consider a defect. We cannot pretend to be a society of clones.
Fine, but then there is a problem, because some qualities come with more potential than others. So in the end it will all translate into "the powerful" and "the powerless", and guess which ones will get to make the rules. (Personally, I wouldn't give too much for individual 3... Just saying.)
And this is after a time zero. Now translate it into a society where the dice were thrown long time ago and there is no magic reset button. The perspective sucks.
Anyway though, you get the point. Or you got the point when you read the headline of this entry and you just kept reading all this nonsense out of inertia or a deep lack of anything better to do. (Dude, I'm sorry for you!)
But this is not intended to be a message of despair... Au contraire! "Nature must not win the game, but she cannot loose"? Oh no, my friend, not like that at all! Just the other way round:
"Nature cannot loose, but she must not win the game."
We will never succeed, but we must keep trying.
With my best wishes for a better world.
Refugees in Europe are victims of anti-immigrant attacks. Europeans fear that their governments are letting terrorists in.
Women are not effectively considered as good as men. Some men -and I would even say, some women- feel they're being attacked by the "feminazi" movement.
Educated and uneducated. Homosexuals and heterosexuals. Democrats and republicans. North and South. 1st world and 3rd world. Right and left. Religious and atheists. Pro and anti. Western and Eastern. Madrid and Barcelona. Rich and poor. Fat and skinny. Omnivores and vegans.
There is this story by Italo Calvino that I'm just about to spoil. "There was a country where they were all thieves." It talks about this country, where people go to other people's houses at night to steal from them, so everybody steals and everybody gets stolen and so the circle closes creating a perfectly balanced society where nobody gets rich and nobody gets poor, until an honest man comes into scene that ruins the system. This man doesn't go out to steal at night, and so the person he won't steal from will become richer, whereas the person who can't steal from him will become poorer.
We try to fight for equality, and we must. But we also need to realize that our fight can never completely succeed. "Nature must not win the game, but she cannot loose."
We blame the powerful for establishing the rules that keep them powerful. We blame white supremacists for racism, male supremacists for sexism, demographic or religious majorities for discrimination.
Ok, let's succeed for an instant and press the magic world reset button and start over, all of us from the exact same "time zero" conditions. Oh, happy day.
Then what happens? What is the first thing you want after the "3, 2, 1, go"? Well, unless you're an idiot, which I doubt, the first thing you want is success. In whatever form it may work for you. Economic, familiar, professional, social, it doesn't matter. Time 0.001 and we're already screwed.
Because for you to stand out among others, others need to stand in. And so you will pick your quality pack and you will become richer, or smarter, or more popular, or prettier, for example.
And it will be much easier if you find your kin, other human beings that share some of their ambitions with you, so you can group together. And the only point of "grouping together" is grouping together "against".
That way, we have that:
1. Individual 1 wants to be richer and smarter. Individual 2 wants to be smarter and popular. Individuals 1 and 2 group together against those who are less smart (i.e. individuals 3 and 4).
2. Individual 2 wants to be smarter and popular. Individual 3 wants to be popular and prettier. Individuals 2 and 3 group together against those who are less popular (i.e. individuals 1 and 4).
3. Individual 3 wants to be popular and prettier. Individual 4 wants to be prettier and richer. Individuals 3 and 4 group together against those who are uglier (i.e. individuals 1 and 2).
4. Individual 4 wants to be prettier and richer. Individual 1 wants to be richer and smarter. Individuals 1 and 4 group together against those who are poorer (i.e. individuals 2 and 3).
Ok, you might think, the system is not perfect but it still kind of works. After all, we all have different qualities and defects, furthermore, what I consider a quality you might consider a defect. We cannot pretend to be a society of clones.
Fine, but then there is a problem, because some qualities come with more potential than others. So in the end it will all translate into "the powerful" and "the powerless", and guess which ones will get to make the rules. (Personally, I wouldn't give too much for individual 3... Just saying.)
And this is after a time zero. Now translate it into a society where the dice were thrown long time ago and there is no magic reset button. The perspective sucks.
Anyway though, you get the point. Or you got the point when you read the headline of this entry and you just kept reading all this nonsense out of inertia or a deep lack of anything better to do. (Dude, I'm sorry for you!)
But this is not intended to be a message of despair... Au contraire! "Nature must not win the game, but she cannot loose"? Oh no, my friend, not like that at all! Just the other way round:
"Nature cannot loose, but she must not win the game."
We will never succeed, but we must keep trying.
With my best wishes for a better world.
lunes, 6 de junio de 2016
Died doing what they loved...
I always think it's funny --or sad-- when I read that somebody died (while working) doing "what they loved".
I'm sure if the day comes, I will be happy to be a pathologist..., but there are many other things I'd rather be doing at the moment of my death! To name a few, I like reading, listening to music, watching shows or movies, hanging with friends, having sex, singing, taking a shower, eating chocolate or sleeping.
Thanks.
I'm sure if the day comes, I will be happy to be a pathologist..., but there are many other things I'd rather be doing at the moment of my death! To name a few, I like reading, listening to music, watching shows or movies, hanging with friends, having sex, singing, taking a shower, eating chocolate or sleeping.
Thanks.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)