A sexist debate on public television

Last week, the program El juicio on La 2 raised an unprecedented debate topic: Should feminism continue to advance? The lever that allowed them to activate this reflection was a question from the CIS in 2024 about the perception of equality policies. 44% of men answered that they believed these policies discriminated against them, and 32.5% of women did too. The origin of the problem is the same in both cases: the legitimacy of an unquestionable social right is shifted to the realm of opinion. It's not that feminism cannot be discussed. Priorities, public policies, or whatever is considered can be debated. The problem is questioning a fundamental right to create a confrontation for the benefit of spectacle. This dramatization of the conflict into a simple for and against presupposes that equality between men and women is negotiable. It is surprising that lawyer Montserrat Nebrera agreed to defend the thesis against the debate question, even though it is known that lawyers defend their clients even when they are guilty.The testimonies from El juicio raised views on feminism that grated. The artist Aldo Comas stated: “Machismo exists, but I don't think it's as big a problem as they make it out to be or as huge a drama”. Social reality is distorted from an individual opinion which, moreover, is a fallacy. That a specific man does not perceive sexism as a serious problem is no proof of its irrelevance. And this is another problem: reflections are incorporated that do not stem from a criterion of expertise but from finding a gentleman who wants to go on television to pontificate.The question “Should feminism continue to advance?” is a symptom of another circumstance. The previous week, El juicio posed: “Is Spain a racist country?” but in no case did they dare to ask: “Should the fight against racism continue to advance?” Not even the CIS dares to ask: “Have anti-racist policies gone too far?” It is difficult to imagine Nebrera taking on the television defense of these theses nor an artist coming out to comment that the problem of racism is being exaggerated and that there are other priorities. El juicio would also not have the guts to debate whether the rights of LGBTI people should continue to advance or whether the integration of people with disabilities should continue to advance. The popular trial ended with 9 votes in favor and none against. What a coincidence. In the end, everyone comes out looking great and progressive.There are questions that cause debate to cease being a tool for reflection. What they do is take advantage of a social issue to make noise and create spectacle. What this approach demonstrates is that women's rights can still be questioned and put to debate. That is why feminism needs to advance. Because public television still allows itself the right to propose debates of a fundamentally sexist nature.