The words that don't touch: controversy over 'Defamation'
BarcelonaA few weeks ago I wrote an article praising my friend and editor Ignacio MoretaHe shared it on the network formerly known as Twitter, but claimed that I was blinded by friendship. I couldn't disagree more, and I'll explain it with an example. Last year, Oriol Pérez Treviño wrote a critique of my essay. You shall honor father and mother, published by Fragmenta, To which I responded with an article in that same space, considering it misogynistic, at the very leastIgnacio let me know that he believed my reply was infinitely crueler than the original article and, for this reason, he wouldn't share it on social media or post it on the publisher's website, while Treviño's criticism would. I thought it was unfair and inappropriate, but I still value him as a friend and editor (it should be said that this situation has since been corrected, and my article now also appears on the publisher's website).
Speaking of replies to misogynistic articles, today I wanted to write some impressions about the reaction of various media outlets to the publication of Defamation, the essay by journalist and writer Eva Piquer (Club Editor), written in response to a text that the philosopher and columnist Bernat Dedéu posted on his blog more than ten years ago The Tower of HoursWhen I first read it, I didn't know Bernat, but I thought it was an offensive, sexist, and completely unnecessary article. I've met him now, and since friendship doesn't blind me, I still think the same.
That said, I think women should learn to defend ourselves against misogyny with the right words. Piquer's criticism of Dedéu's offenses as vicarious violence, as she has done in some interviews, seems completely out of place to me. Termcat defines vicarious violence as "domestic violence consciously perpetrated against a person, often a child, with the intention of harming a third person who is the real target of the action, often the ex-partner." Trying to equate a sociopathic article with an act as extreme as the death of a child, I think, is doing women a disservice: if we empty words of meaning, when we are faced with violence that crosses the line into a crime, there will be nothing left to defend ourselves with.
On the other hand, I was surprised that so many media outlets and so many voices have joined the Dedéu coven, rushing to reveal his name (Piquer does not mention him in his essay, but refers to him as Ricard) and to label him a terrorist or neo-fascist for their own insults. However, they are still singing the same songs, waiting for someone to come forward. tear their shirts off in the face of the abuses that singer-songwriter and poet Ivette Nadal describes anonymously in his book Poetic justice (Portico) or rush to reveal the names of these poets who abuse minors. In this case, it seems everyone was satisfied with describing these relationships as "unbalanced," and that day will be a year.
This is the problem with putting words that don't belong where they don't belong: many men, as in the case of DefamationThey'll rush to join the cause so they can claim to be feminists and defenders of justice, while happily buying into the euphemisms in truly criminal situations, creating a smokescreen that continues to give them leeway and privilege. It's also easy to demand cancellations and firewood from a fallen tree, but daring to take on those who still have power and influence, that's... not next year, the year after. It's pure proceduralism.
