It seems that thanks to the series Adolescence Many have realized the dangers of leaving children alone on the Internet and have discovered the existence of the so-called machosphere or the groups of involuntary celibates who hate women. Welcome to the world of knowledge and wisdom that feminist thinkers, researchers, activists, and opinion-makers who have been discussing the subject for some time have been weaving and accumulating. The problem is the curious selective blindness that many men (and some women) experience when the person writing or speaking is a woman, and a feminist at that. It's quite surprising that this mechanism still operates, as if feminism were only a women's thing and men didn't need to read or listen to them. I once said this very thing to a colleague who had the habit of never, even by mistake, mentioning any female writers. Very naively, I wanted to make him understand, out of sympathy and good faith, that this wasn't normal, that by not reading feminists, he was missing out on a very interesting corpus that is useful not only for the second sex but for all of humanity. He became indignant, as if I had insulted him, and replied: "What do you mean? That to talk about equality I must read feminists?" I swear this happened to me in that decade and on that continent.
Everyone can read what they want, of course, but systematically dismissing feminists is renouncing a point of view on the world that has often served to anticipate dangers and risks of the continuous transformations in which we live. When, from an egalitarian perspective, one denounces that the prevailing extreme neoliberalism seeks to be able to buy and sell everything, even human beings with practices such as surrogacy or prostitution, what it does is try to put an ethical brake on radical mercantilism, and if it puts it on women, it will also put it on everything else because if a society does, it will put it on everyone else because if a society does, it will put it on everyone else because if a society can. When feminism began to denounce fundamentalists who wanted to force us back to an ancient order of subjugation and lack of freedom, what it was doing was pointing out the danger that the theocratization of democracies poses for all citizens, the danger of returning to regimes in which God is above the sovereignty of men and the mechanisms that have been implemented. When it now points out the implications for women of a gender theory promoted by powerful pharmaceutical companies and socially transmitted through a virtuality that separates the individual from their material reality, it is not only defending rights based on real sex (the only sex that exists, in fact), but it is also putting a stop to mass medication for both girls and boys and highlighting the lack of ethics of health professionals willing to mutilate healthy children in the name of a supposedly progressive ideology that hides the enormous economic profits derived from it. Once again, the defense of equality between men and women is, in practice, a barrier to the carnivorous voracity of corporations that have crossed all known boundaries. And if they cross them with so-called "trans" people, sooner or later they will do so with everyone else as well. Since we feminists still don't listen to us, we'll have to wait for Netflix to make a series about a teenager who regrets having taken puberty blockers or undergone a double mastectomy. Perhaps then we'll see clearly and ask ourselves, as we ask ourselves today with Adolescence: How could this be? How could we have let this happen?
