Last year, the glorious women’s caucus passed a law against political violence allegedly suffered by women. I have nothing against criminalizing violence, not least because things normally understood as violence are already crimes. Has the politician been beaten by an opponent? The lawyer will know how to say a criminal type and just run to the electorate’s embrace. Brazilians do not like bullies or fanatics. It is not for nothing that the opposition was dying of envy of Bolsonaro’s stab and part swears together that it was all just an act. It is also no wonder that the Nazis decide to appear every four years: every politician wants an attack to call his own. The voter rejects violence, the law rejects violence, and that’s all great.
But this is the 21st century, and the glorious women’s caucus is the glorious women’s caucus. Of course, violence is nothing physical. Violence is calling a woman ugly, boring and silly. It’s destroying the arguments of others. It’s criticizing. In short, it’s doing everything politicians do to each other while they’re slapping each other (metaphorically) for votes. Now “political violence” is not a knife, not even a flick, but: “harass, embarrass, humiliate, persecute or threaten, by any means, a candidate for an elective office or holder of an elective mandate, using contempt or discrimination to the condition of a woman or to her color, race or ethnicity, with the purpose of preventing or hindering her electoral campaign or the performance of her elective mandate”. And doing so carries a penalty of up to six years in prison.
Experts interviewed by Folha explain
The electorate also doesn’t think it’s nice to mistreat a woman because of her her sex. It goes against the sense of chivalry. So, unless she is a notorious nuisance and a champion of unpopularity, the candidate who was mistreated by a brucutu should be happy because the electorate – especially the male one – would soon be on her side.
But you know how the interpretations of these laws are. If a woman heard that she should go to the kitchen instead of doing politics, we would know that she only heard that because she was a woman. In theory, the law is aimed at this type of situation, and not to prevent criticism of women. However, it is enough to look at the situation of femicide to understand that activists do everything possible and impossible to say that everything bad that happens to a woman stems from the fact that she is a woman. The press taught us that when a jealous man kills his girlfriend, she only died because she was a woman – which is absurd, since the jealous man didn’t kill a random woman, but his girlfriend. The dead babies in China of the only child are killed for their sex. The girls in the Realengo bombing were killed for their sex. The jealousy’s crime of passion is driven by jealousy, and that’s all. Jealous women also kill boyfriends, but no one says that boyfriends die just because they are men.
Hence we can see that when we talk about a law that combats “violence” (quotes, please) that women suffer just because they are women, it’s really scum. And the experts consulted by Folha do not leave any hope that this is not the case. According to the newspaper, “several entities started to monitor attacks on women in a more structured way after the murder of councilor Marielle Franco, from the PSOL, in , a crime that is still under investigation. ”. Then we learn that Marielle died because she was a woman, and it seems that the new law, which does not mention anything physical, covers homicide. Well, experts from these entities point out that “in the election of 2020, candidates for mayors and councilors received, on average, 40 insults on Twitter. every day, according to research by InternetLab and AzMina magazine. The offenses alluded to their bodies, mental health, intellectuality and morals. In the first round, the most offended candidate was Joice Hasselmann (at the time in the PSL, today in the PSDB), who was running for Mayor of São Paulo. More than half of the insults directed at her were fatphobic.”
Moral of the story: violence is being insulted on Twitter. From which I infer that Lula and Bolsonaro must be the politicians who suffer the most violence in the elections, but be patient.
Bones of the trade
Public figures should be used to this. the harassment. In fact, the very definition of harassment can hardly be too objective, as if an anonymous person miraculously woke up as famous as Elvis Presley, the uproar from fans and reporters would be perceived as harassment. What was normal for Elvis Presley is harassment for ordinary people. I don’t even need to go that far: I myself, by publishing my opinions in the newspaper, am willing to be questioned by people I’ve never seen fatter. If a discreet housewife were publicly held accountable for her private opinions by someone she’s never seen fatter, that would be harassment and the woman would rightly be terrified. But if I am charged, this is a natural consequence of the work I do freely. Of course, not everything is acceptable; and if I received credible threats, I would take the matter to the police. Elvis Presley, ditto. The point is that some jobs require more thick skin than others. And certainly the politician’s job requires at least as much thick skin as mine.
Now suppose that Elvis Presley leaves the house and no girl screams at the sight of him. She goes to the bakery and the baker attends to him with indifference. A lot of people’s normal day would be a failure for him. Likewise, if only people I know privately comment on my opinions, it will mean that my work is doing very poorly. This leads us to suspect that maybe human beings have different desires, and that their different life choices reflect different desires. I don’t think Elvis Presley wanted to lead a quiet life, and I’d be a fool myself if I wanted my opinions to go unnoticed while I air them in the newspaper.
Between the star of rock and the newspaper columnist, somewhere on the scale of public exposure, is the politician. He goes out to eat pastel with sugar cane juice waiting to be recognized, he runs after the press to gain the electorate’s attention, he wants to kick ass during debates. It makes no sense to assume that women willing to enter politics are shy knickknacks. Politics is a fight, it’s public exposure.
Now, what makes even less sense is to consider that even successful women are such knick-knacks. After all, candidates for reelection are also covered by the law. So, after all, calling authority fat on Twitter gets you jailed – but only if you’re a female authority or one who feels like one.
You can’t criticize authority!
In a democracy, there is enough freedom of expression to speak ill of authorities without going to jail. If we vote for female authorities, however, we won’t even be free to say she’s fat. Not even Alexandre de Moraes wanted to put someone in jail for calling him bald. So we can only continue to be a democracy if we stop voting for women. It’s past time to start this boycott, since this women’s bench only makes nonsense and shames decent women. It is worth remembering that the majority of the Brazilian electorate is female, while the minority of those elected are female. Women vote for men.
It was just what was needed: aspiring authorities to earn the right to put in jail anyone who calls them fat. This just goes to show that most elected women should be at a spa taking care of their own weight, instead of staying in Congress making law.