Not One Step Back
Once upon a time in this ancient country, women were chattel. If they were unmarried, they were under the tutelage of their fathers, however old they might be. Any earnings at any job they were allowed to hold (very few) were handed to the father. They could not leave the parental house without permission, unless they were to enter a convent or get married. Once married, they were under the complete tutelage of the husband. Things changed slightly in 1958. Under a new law, unmarried women could leave their father's household once they were 25. At that age they became independent. But married women remained under the yoke of their husbands.
In 1961, a new law came into effect, allowing women to enter most of the workforce. It was a law born of necessity, not of the recognition of women as equal citizens. Women were still expected to become wives and mothers. They were obliged to attend to their houses. The ideal woman had a small job in which she brought to the household a supplemental income, took care of all the housework, and looked to the welfare of both husband and children. The Franco regime based itself upon the nuclear family, with the husband as the head of every household, and the wife the secondary protagonist.
In 2019, women have full equality; on paper, at least. In the light of recent history, there are laws on the books that protect battered women, something which the Franco regime ignored. Under the National Catholic regime, marriage was for life, and could only be annulled by the Church under very strict circumstances; being beaten by the husband was not one of them.
Times have changed, yes, but there are reactionary people who fight change. The new political party, Vox, is filled with those reactionaries. One of the rallying cries of this party is that modern society is declaring war on the traditional Spanish family. They argue that the nuclear family must be protected from radicals, such as those who agree that LGBTQi people have the right to marriage and adoption, or from those who support abortion rights, or from feminists who decry violence against women. This little gem of a political party has garnered enough votes to sit in the Andalucía regional parliament. And one of their number has made a petition.
The petition is for the names and educational information of all those social workers who elaborate reports used by judges in cases of violence against women, especially those in which the husband is the accused. The parliamentarian claimed, "Los jueces dictan sentencias en base a informes de profesionales no cualificados y altamente ideologizados y de los que depende la libertad de un acusado o el futuro de los niños." ("Judges dictate sentences according to reports of unqualified or highly ideologized professionals and on whom depends the freedom of the accused or the future of the children.")
If the parliamentarian were only looking to assure that qualified people are the ones doing the recommendation to the judges, he would not have added "highly ideologized" to his words. This parliamentarian is Francisco Serrano, a former judge with a history of sentencing that reflects his questioning of feminism. He believes that most women that claim to be battered are falsely accusing their husbands or boyfriends. The truth is, once investigated, only 0.1% of all accusations have turned out to be false. In this man's eyes, and in those of his political partners, women are not to be believed. The purveyors of the truth, to them, are men, just like themselves. To them, feminists are trying to punish men for being men.
One could make the assumption that the misogynist views upheld by Vox derive from the divorce of its leader, Santiago Abascal. The frightening part is the percentage of population that would consign my daughter and me to a secondary role within society merely because we are women. This cannot be allowed to happen. The gains women have made in this past half century cannot disappear because of fear-mongering misogynists and xenophobes. National elections have been called for the end of April. All those who want to keep the social gains made in these fifty years must vote. That is the only way to keep these social dinosaurs in the past, where they must stay.
In 1961, a new law came into effect, allowing women to enter most of the workforce. It was a law born of necessity, not of the recognition of women as equal citizens. Women were still expected to become wives and mothers. They were obliged to attend to their houses. The ideal woman had a small job in which she brought to the household a supplemental income, took care of all the housework, and looked to the welfare of both husband and children. The Franco regime based itself upon the nuclear family, with the husband as the head of every household, and the wife the secondary protagonist.
In 2019, women have full equality; on paper, at least. In the light of recent history, there are laws on the books that protect battered women, something which the Franco regime ignored. Under the National Catholic regime, marriage was for life, and could only be annulled by the Church under very strict circumstances; being beaten by the husband was not one of them.
Times have changed, yes, but there are reactionary people who fight change. The new political party, Vox, is filled with those reactionaries. One of the rallying cries of this party is that modern society is declaring war on the traditional Spanish family. They argue that the nuclear family must be protected from radicals, such as those who agree that LGBTQi people have the right to marriage and adoption, or from those who support abortion rights, or from feminists who decry violence against women. This little gem of a political party has garnered enough votes to sit in the Andalucía regional parliament. And one of their number has made a petition.
The petition is for the names and educational information of all those social workers who elaborate reports used by judges in cases of violence against women, especially those in which the husband is the accused. The parliamentarian claimed, "Los jueces dictan sentencias en base a informes de profesionales no cualificados y altamente ideologizados y de los que depende la libertad de un acusado o el futuro de los niños." ("Judges dictate sentences according to reports of unqualified or highly ideologized professionals and on whom depends the freedom of the accused or the future of the children.")
If the parliamentarian were only looking to assure that qualified people are the ones doing the recommendation to the judges, he would not have added "highly ideologized" to his words. This parliamentarian is Francisco Serrano, a former judge with a history of sentencing that reflects his questioning of feminism. He believes that most women that claim to be battered are falsely accusing their husbands or boyfriends. The truth is, once investigated, only 0.1% of all accusations have turned out to be false. In this man's eyes, and in those of his political partners, women are not to be believed. The purveyors of the truth, to them, are men, just like themselves. To them, feminists are trying to punish men for being men.
One could make the assumption that the misogynist views upheld by Vox derive from the divorce of its leader, Santiago Abascal. The frightening part is the percentage of population that would consign my daughter and me to a secondary role within society merely because we are women. This cannot be allowed to happen. The gains women have made in this past half century cannot disappear because of fear-mongering misogynists and xenophobes. National elections have been called for the end of April. All those who want to keep the social gains made in these fifty years must vote. That is the only way to keep these social dinosaurs in the past, where they must stay.
I have fought for women's rights most of my life. My mother didn't think it was necessary but she was one of the most liberated women I ever met. Couldn't get a job, start your own business. She was also a reporter later on and that never limited her. I remember lobbying for the Equal Rights Amendment at the State House and this a--h--- senator saying that I was too cute to need to fight. Men would take care of me. When I moved to Switzerland in 1990 had I been married, I'd have needed my husband's permission to open a bank account. As the ad said, we've come a long way baby. What it doesn't say we still have a long way to go.
ReplyDelete