A criterion considered indispensable internationally is to listen to the victims. But those who claim that the conditions for dialogue are not in place believe that this justifies not only not listening to them but also attacking those who do listen to them.
This criterion is defended from feminist values, international norms, institutional campaigns, … because this has been demonstrated by scientific evidence of social impact. Even two very opposing positions coincide in this rule. One position says that the victims must be believed, another position says that believing or not believing the alleged victims can only be done after listening to all the various testimonies, including the alleged aggressors. But both say that the victims must be listened to.
The current «the conditions for dialogue are not present» is part of a machoism wave that reacts against the advances that are being made in making victims heard, in that they no longer feel isolated, in that they can report and feel supported at all times. This machismo does not only occur in certain environments, but is spread accross the most diverse contexts, including people who hold positions of equality or publish on this issue and use that excuse to justify the fact that they sometimes take a position against the victims without even listening to them.
That machismo soon slips them into listening and believing the aggressors, into saying that the alleged victims exaggerate (without having listened to them), that they lie, that they are crazy. And, in an attempt to leave them isolated, they attack not only them but also those who do listen to them and support them.
👀 Visitas: 15
Primera víctima en ganar un caso en las universidades españolas. Coordinadora del Metoo University.