As in other similar contexts, there are women and men who took part in favour of the victims at the University but, startlingly, also men and women who took part for the harassers staying by their side. We have seen the same situation with the “wolf-pack” issue: while demonstrators strongly demanded that what was being judged was to be treated not as abuse, but as an obvious rape case, other men and women were completely in favour of harassers.
Regarding the University, some of the female teachers who took this position justified it by trying to give a feminist image, when actually feminism has always been, is and will be in favour of the victims, which implies a strong position against the aggressors. They say that taking punishment measures against the aggressors is patriarchy when in reality patriarchy has always been characterized in the opposite direction thus, by disagreeing of taking measures against the aggressors. In the many demonstrations across the Country against the “wolf-pack,” victims of gender-based violence at the University demanded specific measures to be implemented and taken; those who oppose to it are the ones who defend patriarchy.
When gender-based violence is involved, there is no room for neutrality: either you are in favour of the victims or the harassers. All the international recommendations go in this direction: active solidarity with the victims. The positioning these female teachers took unfortunately benefited the harassers and seriously harmed us as victims, re-victimizing us and making second order sexual harassment. Most of the main models of this discourse use the feminist label to earn money, prestige and/or power, but they do not support the victims of gender violence in their Universities, on the contrary, they attack us and those who support us.