Sarah Santaolalla's real breast problem

The female bust is not just a part of the body: it is a symbolic territory. Large or small, visible or concealed, perky or pendulous, it has historically been an instrument used to measure, classify, and, above all, discredit women. On February 10th, on the program The Anthill On Antena 3, this mechanism was activated with unsettling ease. Panelist Rosa Belmonte dismissed fellow commentator Sarah Santaolalla—following her criticism of Felipe González—with a phrase that didn't challenge any ideas, but rather reduced her interlocutor to her physical appearance: "half stupid, half tits." The knowing laughter from the studio audience, including that of host Pablo Motos and the latest Planeta Prize winner Juan del Val, wasn't anecdotal. It was part of the ritual.

This is not an isolated incident or a mere television extravaganza, but rather the expression of a persistent logic. Former Italian minister Maria Elena Boschi was repeatedly ridiculed for her low-cut tops in the Catalan Parliament. Her policies were not questioned; the cleavage became the argument. Visible skin became a source of suspicion, as if competence could be measured in centimeters of fabric. Similarly, Ione Belarra was subjected to derogatory headlines and comments because her nipples were visible through her blouse. Exposure isn't even necessary: ​​the mere suggestion is enough for the body to become the focus of debate. The bust thus functions as a mechanism of distraction and delegitimization: an effective way to undermine authority without discussing ideas.

In the entertainment industry, the phenomenon takes a different form, but it operates under the same structure. Actresses like Sofía Vergara have seen their busts monopolize interviews and red carpets, overshadowing their careers. And the Janet Jackson incident at the 2004 Super Bowl highlighted the double standard when Justin Timberlake ripped off part of her outfit, exposing her breasts. The moralistic and punitive wave fell primarily on her, with professional consequences that her stage partner did not face. This overemphasis on breasts, paradoxically, often originates from right-wing sectors, defenders of traditional values.

But why is it that men don't face any social consequences when their breasts are visible or their nipples are subtly suggested? It might seem like a matter of size. But then, why are women without prominent breasts also ridiculed? Actress Keira Knightley, especially during the 2000s, was constantly subjected to comments that considered her chest "too small," as if it were a flaw to be corrected if she wanted to be more professionally successful, as has also happened to Kate Moss and Taylor Swift. If men have less volume in their torsos, they certainly have more in the groin area. Would anyone ever suggest to a journalist or politician that he owes his position to the size of his penis? Or imply that the larger his penis, the less intelligent he is? As if there were some kind of connection between the brain and the penis, so that what grows in one area has to shrink in the other.

What's clear is that Sarah Santaolalla's problem isn't the size of her breasts or her intelligence. Regardless of whether one agrees with her opinions, she is more than qualified and professionally competent. And perhaps this is the real problem: not the size, but the voice. Breast size is never an obstacle when the body is the object of desire, but it becomes a source of scandal when a woman is in a position of power, when she speaks, expresses opinions, and debates power. And when the debate shifts to the body, it's often because the debate has already lost its substance.