I quote the minister verbatim Irene Montero, invited to the program ‘The hour of the 1‘. “The neutral male is political and has a very clear political function in society: telling women, from the time we are very little, that we are not good for important things. That we are not worth to be scientific, that we are not worth to be medical or medical, that we are not worth for the things that are important in society. And we are made invisible in education, in books, in all the references in the media ”.
Perfect. Let’s use this same logic in the opposite direction and interested: “The neutral male is political and has a very clear political function in society: to tell us men, since we are very little, that we are worse and we are destined to be worse. That we will be criminals, that we will be murderers, that we will be thieves or corrupt, that we are not worth the things that are positive in society. And we are criminalized in education, in books, in all references in the media ”.
Juan Soto Ivars
Is the ridiculous thus understood, I fooled him of the minister’s statements? Sometimes the purple glasses do not let you see the most elementary philology. If there was a political intention of someone to keep women out of cool jobs like engineeringWho would be responsible for the fact that men always appear as protagonists of crime and violence, of fatal work accidents, of prisons? The same archaic, Levitical manipulators, that discredited women and plunged men into barbarism? The same terrifying shadows cast on the wall by a jacket hanging on a rack?
If it is language that makes women invisible for what interests the minister, then it is language that criminalizes and violates men. So let’s end this debate once and for all: let’s always use splitting, throughout the Penal Code, in all crime news, in black novels (or color novels). Let’s stop criminalizing men en bloc and fight that policy that, since biblical times, has seduced men around evil. From today, Raskolnikov y Raskolnikova.
Juan Soto Ivars
The truth is that the more you use this trick, the more you like it. Let’s go on for vice. Why, when I say the word “terrorist” (which ends in a) do you mentally represent a man? Are there no female terrorists? Yes, okay, they are less! But, without a doubt – and following the minister’s solid chain of reasoning – if there are fewer terrorist women it is because language, which transforms everything, has predisposed us for generations to plant bombs, it has locked us in that alley no way out, it has prevented us from dreaming, why not say it, of a better world under the protection of the law, feminine word.
If women do not become engineers because Spanish does not let them (although in countries where this word does not have a gender mark the same thing happens, mysteriously), Can we not affirm with Montero’s firmness that we become miners, waiters, criminals, traitors, lackeys, villains and falsifiers, precisely, to non-inclusive language? Why the hell then are there so few women football players compared to male soccer players? ¿Why do they pay them less, if they had the word on their part? Anyway, let’s run a dense empowering veil.
Juan Soto Ivars
Let’s go quickly to other languages and other societies to justify it. Let’s take the example of Finnish, language without gender marks, around which a society, the Finnish, which is very good on gender equality issues, has grown and flourished. But problem! It is also like this the Magyar, a native language of Hungary, and it is better not to speak of Hungary. Yoh, more problems! Nor does Farsi, the language of Iran, hardly use gender marks, where the only thing that empowers women, following the logic of the ministry, is the mandatory veil. Ahem.
Okay, there are starting to be some problems, yes, but no rational argument should affect us, as happens with the Ministry of Equality, refractory to the argument. They will ask us, for example, why is it that in Mali, where Koyra is spoken, a language that use feminine as generic, the Islamic State does not stop growing. And we will respond, shouting, that the Islamic State attacks Mali precisely to eradicate Koyra from the face of the earth, a liberating language that could turn the world situation around. Because the Islamic State it is full of philologists.
Juan Soto Ivars
The letter on the sleeve of the Ministry of Equality, able to turn around any adversity, leads us to the discussion won. If the reasoning system fails, if it fails, we can always accuse the secret intentions of a phantasmagoric mass, a dark hand that has turned the matter upside down and left us the shrill screech as the only possibility. So if we find no possible explanation, if our propaganda leads us to a dead end, we open a butron in the wall, and we accuse those who do not sing along with our frogs to be in favor of evil.
Let’s close the debate forever. Let us free men and women from their respective yokes, simply, Stop talking! Language makes us worse. From an early age, it induces us to commit more crimes, to be more reckless, to carry out the overwhelming majority of precarious or dangerous jobs, to be miners, asphalters, formworkers, soldiers and firefighters, to die. Whoever denies that all this is due to the generic masculine in Spanish will be accused of unsupportive or unsupportive, oppressor or oppressor, reactionary or reactionary. And we will rock him on a gallows, tickling his feet.