Category Archives: Feminism – Féminisme

This a powerful man using language so obscene that we worry our children might hear it


A girl’s life – The Guardian

Ladies, middle fingers up!

I remember years ago playing Uno with some 20-something people and guys kept on cursing. “Fucking cunt” was one of them’s favourite everytime he had bad game and no one reacted. Until, his sister said “Aw fuck off!” after losing. The men gasped, turned to her, told her how offended they were. She defended herself and refused to apologise.

I praised her, the women present stood by her and the game ended with the men saying they were too shocked to carry on. She is a woman, she swore and did not apologise at once. How shocking, indeed…

As Stephen Fry says, I am not one of these twee people who believe that swearing is a lack of education. For me, as a man, swearing is normal. I swear and it’s fine for me and pretty much anyone, as long as it’s not to abuse anyone or in the classroom. And then again, I’m often excused if I go off rail because I am a man and that’s what men do. We are beasts and being violent, “asserting our authority is part of who we are”.

I am not here to advertise nor advocate swearing as a whole, especially when used as an attack on someone – which, by the way, can be done without swear words. It’s just that swearing holds a special place for me in how I fathom feminism.

For me, feminism is to relentlessly fight the gender roles that society has built, whether it’s males accused of being “such a girl!” or women shot down in flames for daring to behave like men. Despite what most (men) like to say, a woman swearing is still dragged in the dirt for having broken a taboo: violence through words.

That’s why I believe one the most poignant act of feminism any woman can do is to openly and unapologetically swear and be crude, raw, true to herself if she wishes to express herself in such way. Which is why I adore feminists like Amy Schumer, Jennifer Saunders, Jo Brand, Joan Rivers, Madonna and Beyoncé’s Lemonade. Because their work is a massive, loud, proud and now unavoidable “Fuck off” to what society expects of women: to be nice and polite.

Ladies, middle fingers up, put them hands high. Wave it in his face, tell him ‘Boy Bye!’

People don’t believe that women who swear and talk about sex without euphemisms are dragged in the dirt, well I hereby invite you to read the comments left on Amy Schumer’s latest acceptance speech at GQ. Warning: hatred by the bucket! Especially directed towards her not being funny because her language is crass, disgusting and undignified for a woman.

The buzz is also about Michael Caine’s reaction to her “Patrick Stewart cumming all over her tits” joke. The man didn’t laugh, looks appalled and like an umbrella has been shoved up him and just opened up. So people are going berserk to show that, unlike her, he has class whereas she is trash and cheap. “He’s a true gentleman” and “she’s a whore.”

As a man, the chances are he swears way more often than she does on a daily basis because it’s more widely accepted but in public, things are different.I am not accusing neither one nor the other for this, for the choices they made in defining their public persona, just pointing out at the reactions that are at the complete opposite: he’s praised for how he presents himself while she’s being dragged for basically talking like a man. She is compared to Ricky Gervais and other comedians.

That’s my point! This kind of joke is what Ricky Gervais or Jimmy Carr would do. That’s also the kind of  language hundreds of thousands of male comedians or pranksters use in their praised work, and highly watched and praised videos on YouTube. No one has a problem with that because they are men.

Schumer mentions how unfunny some men still find women who swear and talk about sex when women (and gay men) find them hilarious. It’s not the first time I hear or notice this. Almost none of the straight males in my family or friends circles understand the appeal of Absolutely Fabulous because it depicts women that no man would possibly want to marry. That’s what many straight guys tell me about the series when they try to explain why they didn’t understand the humor. For them, Eddie and Patsy are monsters and nowhere near appealing: they smoke, drink and swear. How not wife or mother material of them!

Women, on the other hand, and gay men, will find a common ground in the depiction of true women as flawed human beings who are aware of their limitations and find the material for their brash and unconventional humour.

Saunders close her acceptance speech hoping she has done enough to promote women’s friendships, the need to not have a conventional, normal heterosexual relationships to define you and women applaud. They applaud her swearing, her accepting and not thriving for another version of herself but embracing her human nature.

What I find the most interesting is that GQ has censored Schumer when she says the word “cunt”* when, at the same time, Glamour Magazine posted a completely uncensored video of Saunders using that very word. It’s not a first for Glamour nor is it for GQ. A women magazine is not censoring swear words whereas a men magazine does. Hmmm…Especially when it comes to words depicting female genitalia for Schumer’s use of the word “dick” was left to be appreciated.

In a society that keeps asking women to hide who they are, change who they are, pretend to be someone else in order to achieve the ultimate goal of finding a man to marry, every single swear words ushered, murmured, whispered, said, told, spoken, shouted, screamed, yelled by women is a step forward.

*Here’s the uncensored version posted by Jim Chapman who doesn’t think she is dirt for saying “naughty words”.

Le burkini: Messieurs, fermez-la!

Il y avait une blague au Royaume-Uni, au temps de Bush et Ben Laden. Un sondage avait révélé que l’Américain moyen voulait un leader pro-armes, anti-féministe et anti-gay, un leader qui soit véritablement religieux et qui soit prêt à se battre pour faire le monde à l’image de sa religion. On disait alors : « Voici votre homme » et on montrait une photo de Ben Laden. J’ai toujours beaucoup aimé cette blague parce qu’elle disait en substance que  l’Amerique de George W Bush n’était pas l’inverse de l’Al Quaida de Ben Laden mais son complétement. Comme le Yin et Yang se complètent, les puritains et autres fondamentalistes chrétiens vont de pair avec les fondamentalistes musulmans.

Aujourd’hui, la France voulant devenir l’inverse de Daesh et exposer des valeurs inverses à ceux des islamistes ne devient que le complétement de ces mêmes valeurs. Elle ne devient que le penchant occidental de cette mouvance.  Nous avons aujourd’hui des fondamentalistes islamistes contre des fondamentalistes républicains ou laïcistes. Pas laïcs, je précise. La plupart des figures qui crient « laïcité » au visage des musulmans sont eux-mêmes des catholiques pratiquants qui continuent à pousser pour que le Vatican retrouve une place centrale dans la vie du pays.

Dans les deux cas, aucun n’a compris les textes qu’ils utilisent comme fondement de leur pensée et de leurs actions. Dans les deux cas, ils détournent le pouvoir de l’Etat (qu’ils ont parfois créé de toutes pièces à ces mêmes fins) pour proclamer et s’assurer de la légalité de leurs actions qui donc « ne peuvent pas être critiquées ». Et dans les deux cas, les femmes sont les premières à souffrir.

Je ne suis pas là pour me prononcer sur le port du burkini en lui-même. Tout d’abord, je suis un homme et je ne suis pas concerné (on verra quand ils commenceront à mesurer les barbes) mais surtout  je n’ai en pas assez entendu des sources essentielles (les musulmanes qui le portent et celles qui ne le portent pas) pour pouvoir tirer des conclusions sures car informées. Personnellement, mon problème se situe une fois de plus dans le fait que les femmes sont prises entre deux feux qu’elles n’ont pas souhaités être tirés.

On est arrivés à une situation où, des hommes principalement, ont estimé que si une femme est sur une plage et qu’elle ne montre pas ses cheveux, son décolleté, ses cuisses, son dos, ses bras, ses jambes, c’est qu’il y a quelque chose qui ne va pas et qui s’apparente à du terrorisme. Ces pensées aussi ridicules que radicales ont été mises dans des décrets de lois applicables et appliqués par la police.

Quand j’étais petit, et même aujourd’hui, la France était la première à dénoncer ce genre d’abus par les pays arabes. Un des moments dont je me souviens le plus, c’est l’outrage mi-scandalisé mi-désobligeant dont la France a fait preuve quand le billet de 100 Francs, sur lequel figurait La Liberté guidant le peuple de Delacroix, fut interdit en Iran parce que l’allégorie a les seins nus. Cette poitrine allait à l’encontre les lois de décences de la République Islamique alors bien sûr, on trouvait ça « ridicule », « pathétique », « scandaleux », « misogyne », « digne d’un régime d’un autre temps dominé par des hommes polygames à longue barbe » et bien sûr, on a beaucoup réfléchit, écrit, reporté – et à juste raison – sur ce que ça signifiait pour les femmes iraniennes au quotidien, des femmes qu’on nous décrivaient comme étant démaquillées au papier de verre.

Aujourd’hui, au nom de la laïcité, je vois la même chose. Je vois des femmes innocentes qui vont sur la plage avec leurs enfants, pas forcément pour se baigner elle-même, et qui sont publiquement humiliées par la police du Pays des Lumières et qui doivent se déshabiller correctement pour une plage ou la quitter tout court, après une amende, bien sûr. Du moment qu’elles sont sur le trottoir, leur tenue est réglementaire mais la seconde où leur pied touche le sable, elles sont soumises à l’indécence laïciste et ce qu’elle porte est illégal. Pas (encore) au niveau de l’Etat même si le Premier Ministre se réjouit, mais au moins sur les plages extrêmement fréquentés et donc traditionnellement les plus conservatrices et xénophobes de France.

Le fait que la France ait des lois vestimentaires (au secours !) qui varient de la plage à la rue n’est pas nouveau : on n’a pas le droit de se balader torse nu, même avec un haut de bikini, dans les rues d’une ville ou un espace public. Un restaurant, un café, un hôtel aura le droit sans appel de vous mettre dehors. C’est une tenue réservée à la plage et éventuellement la Promenade car du moment que vous êtes dans la ville, vous entrez dans « le monde civilisé » et vous mettez un haut qui couvre au moins le buste.

C’est une loi qui m’a toujours procuré beaucoup de plaisir parce que les Britanniques ne comprennent pas. Les Londoniens, ou les habitants des Midlands ou du Black Country, oui, parce qu’ils sont loin de la mer et ne se baignent pas mais des gens de Brighton, Blackpool, Bristol, Bournemouth, Birkenhead (je voulais réviser mes B), ne comprennent pas. Shopping, course, resto, pub…il est normal pour eux de voir en été des hommes sont torse nus et des femmes avec un petit quelque chose qui cache leurs seins. A tel point que les supermarchés sont obligés d’afficher des règles vestimentaires parce que ça commence à faire mauvais genre. Surtout auprès des Européens et autres touristes qui affluent de plus en plus.

Ca m’amuse parce que je dois leur expliquer qu’il s’agit de se couvrir quand on est en société, de ne pas exposer les enfants au corps d’inconnus, de « décence » et je me retrouve à parler comme un ayatollah sur des codes vestimentaires qui sont des valeurs culturelles inexplicables. Néanmoins, personne n’est forcé de mettre un pull ou un blouson. Les choix sont multiples et un petit haut qui cache le nombril satisfera tout le monde.

Cette fois, il s’agit de forcer des femmes à se déshabiller après les avoir fait payer au nom de la lutte contre le terrorisme. Je ne vois pas le rapport mais bon, je ne fais aussi pas dans le populisme de bas étage.

Alors comment sort-on de là-dedans ? Parlez aux femmes ! « Mon dieu, quelle horreur ! »  je sais, mais que ce soit ce qu’elles portent, comment elles parlent, qui elles fréquent et épousent, comment elles gèrent leur utérus, il est temps de parler aux femmes pour savoir quelles sont les motivations derrière ce qu’elles font. Forcément, ça prend du temps donc pas de gain politique immédiat dans un discours aussi trompeur que dystopiste. Mais surtout, la difficulté est d’enlever l’opinion de gens qui ne sont pas concerné et ça enlève tout d’abord les hommes en tant qu’acteurs principaux.

Je ne dis pas que si les femmes étaient les actrices principales du débat, il n’y aurait donc plus de burkini, je sais juste que dans le débat actuel, ce sont les hommes qui définissent les termes : les hommes islamistes qui appellent au port de la burka contre les hommes laïcistes qui appellent à l’interdiction du burkini (qui n’est même pas prôné par des hommes qui refuseraient volontiers aux femmes l’accès à tout loisir). Et au milieu ? Les femmes qui n’ont pas leur mot à dire doivent suivre les recommandations des uns ou des autres qui parlent et décident pour elles.

S’il y avait une véritable volonté de vivre ensemble, on aurait déjà mis les oreilles aux portes des endroits anodins et souvent ignorés où les femmes sont entre elles et peuvent parler librement. On aurait déjà découvert que tout n’est pas blanc ou noir, pour ou contre, victoire ou défaite, comme le monde forgé par les hommes laisse paraître.

Ecoutez, comme j’aime le faire, les femmes parler de leur quotidien, de la pression qu’elles ont d’être, d’agir, de vivre, de penser souvent de telle ou telle façon. Demandez-leur pourquoi elles font ces choses, et pas seulement aux femmes voilées mais aussi aux Becky with the good hair de tous les jours : celles qui disent détester se maquiller mais qui passent dix minutes sur leur eye-liner tous les matins. Mais faites-les parler d’elles-mêmes, pas de leurs consœurs. Ne laissez pas d’autre prendre leur parole, faites-leur la prendre elles-mêmes pour elles qu’on puisse vraiment savoir à quoi s’en tenir et faire évoluer les choses. C’est alors fascinant ce qu’on apprend.

Vous allez voir que du hijab au burkini, du maquillage au botox en passant par le fer à lisser les cheveux, des exégèses erronés des livres saints aux innombrables articles, reportages, pubs sur ‘Comment faire disparaître la cellulite avant l’été pour un corps parfait en bikini ?’, vous aurez de tout. Des femmes fortes et indépendantes qui le font (ou pas) parce qu’elles en ont envie, parce que ça rend leur vie plus simple ou plus sûres, plus agréables – ces femmes sont d’ailleurs généralement méprisées, ignorées ou ridiculisées. Des femmes plus soumises qui ont intériorisé les attentes religieuses et sociétales (par essence conflictuelles en France) et ne comprennent pas pourquoi elles sont victimes de contradictions dont elles ne sont pas responsables. Et puis, vous aurez la majorité des femmes qui font preuve d’une volonté de fer de continuer à vivre et survivre au jour le jour dans des sociétés dans lesquelles elles ne se reconnaissent pas. Ces femmes, vous allez voir, sont tiraillées entre le ras-le-bol d’être toujours victimes de l’autre et accusées de tout, de ne pas avoir de véritable voix, de devoir se contenter du moins pire, d’un côté, et de la bonne éducation qui les instruit de se taire et d’être polies, de l’autre.

Burkini ou pas, ce n’est pas ma question et je n’ai pas d’avis car je me fous de ce que pensent les hommes sur le sujet, ils ne le portent pas, et les femmes sont partagées. Je ne peux donc pas avoir d’avis informé.

Certaines en rêvent pour pouvoir aller se baigner sans être reluquées et se faire siffler par les hommes, ou ne plus avoir honte de leurs seins qui « ne sont pas fermes » ou de leur « cellulite dégoûtante ». Certaines ne vont juste plus à la plage pour les raisons précédentes donc la question ne se pose pas. Certaines se foutent des gros moches et alcoolisés qui osent les siffler mais elles sont religieuses donc elles le mettent mais pourquoi ? Je n’ai pas eu de réponse à ça. D’autres ont bien compris que le Coran ne mentionne rien de tel donc elles ne le mettraient pas mais elles comprennent que des femmes veuillent le mettre. D’autres savent faire preuve d’empathie et n’ont pas vraiment d’avis, ça ne les dérange pas, elles veulent juste qu’on laisse les femmes tranquilles. D’autres ne savent pas se mettre à la place de l’inconnu et ne raisonnent qu’en fonction de leurs valeurs et sont hostiles. Toutes aimeraient que ce soit un choix. Toutes. Sans exception. Même les conservatrices. On arrive à leur faire dire que ce serait bien que les femmes aient le choix dans leur religion ou la société.

Pour moi, la honte est que la France reste une société dans laquelle les femmes n’ont toujours pas le choix et ce sont toujours celles qui prennent les coups entre les hommes qui font ces choix.

Ring my bell? Please, do!

There is an old trend that seems to flourish lately and it says that one can only ring its own bell. Chris Thompson, a YouTuber, is one of the best-spoken advocates for gay rights I have ever listened to: clear, straight to the point, genuine, asking the right questions, righteous but not sanctimonious. Yet some gay people seem to have a problem with him defending their rights, going to gay prides, campaigning for equality: he’s not gay.

He basically doesn’t belong to the community as such so their argument is that he’s taking the speech time and the space of someone who is truly gay, who can speak first-hand about the realities of what it means to be gay and actually bring water to the mill instead of a half-glass of lukewarm water. Chris Thompson is straight so he should shut it and let the gays speak for themselves.

Firstly, he says it himself, his advocating and expressing himself doesn’t shush the others into darkness. He’s not taking anyone’s space. It’s 2016 and the age of virtual reality with infinite space to share, not 1850 with a couple of newspapers columns to fight for. If anyone has anything to say, say it. Open a YouTube channel, it’s free, a blog on WordPress or anything and just say what you want to say but don’t blame others for taking your space when you don’t even create it.

Secondly, we need him. We need straight people to also speak for us because they know exactly what to do to convince them: be themselves – tolerant and happy. Having straight people to defend us doesn’t make us any weaker, or more dependent on them. The truth is that we are a minority so we do, somehow, depend on them. As of today, we depend on the people from the majority to also speak for us because there is safety and results in numbers. To call for the community to be the only one to be allowed to speak and defend itself is not going to get us anywhere.

Minorities and everyone who suffer discrimination in any form cannot afford to curl up in an armoured and restricted community that will be the only voice out there. We need people who, because of their gender, sexuality, skin colour, religious beliefs belong unwillingly to what is considered as the dominant group because they will be the first ones to be taken seriously by the said group and they will be role-models their peers will follow.

The first reaction we have in the face of someone else getting what we have is a feeling of self-defence so it’s dangerous to force the precept that we should only fight for our own privilege. It creates division and infighting when so much can be done by their free electrons to unite us under a common goal and make others understand that the fight for equality doesn’t deprive them of anything.

All these men – like me – who everyday explain to other men that women’s rights are not a personal threat to every living male. All these straight people I met at the gay pride who show the world everyday that gay rights are not a personal attack of straight people’s freedom. All these white people who campaign against racism. All these people who campaign for animal rights because they have no voice. History moves forward and our societies improve because people see beyond their own privilege, why stop them?

Where would the women of France be without the man who used his position of power to weather the storms of his sexist peers as he managed to convince them that contraception had nothing to with men but everything to do with women’s freedom to have control over their own body?

In South Africa, it took a white man to stop the Apartheid. Why? Because white people had the power but it doesn’t make Nelson Mandela and his life work irrelevant. De Klerk was a selfless force for good who saw beyond his own privilege and that’s what Mandela needed, what every black person in South Africa needed. People like him is what we all need.

Don’t let anyone restrict you to your own parish. You needn’t be a woman to fight for women’s rights, you needn’t be gay to fight for gay rights, you needn’t be fat to fight against body-shaming, you needn’t be discriminated to fight against discrimination.

If you want to help ring the bells of someone who, you know, is being ignored or discriminated, do it. If, for whatever reasons, the society has put you in a position of power and you want to use it to help others, do it.

Use your position to do good, we need all the help we can get.

What is it going to take for us to tackle women’s rights issues seriously?

We were meeting with my local Amnesty International group, discussing the main lines of action for next year: the official ones and the ones we would also like to tackle. My mother brought up women’s rights and she said she wanted the group to also focus on the slow but certain erosion of these very rights and the plight of women.

It was met with a certain level of agreement but no exactly the concern I was expecting. Nor my mother. It was then commented by one of the member, a retired teacher, a woman, who said she did not want to discuss the issue more than three times. Why there should be a status of limitation when it comes to women’s rights, who know?

I know what my mother did “wrong”. The examples she gave to justify this focus were all happening in France. Nothing about the Third World, about women living in slums or deserts or small villages in a savage, undemocratic world waiting to be civilised by us.

And that was the key problem for this member as she is the typical Westerner when it comes to making the world a better place: she thinks the world should become us, basically. She is fine denouncing every single country as long as they don’t belong to the First World. She cringes and always finds excuses every single time when we try to bring the focus on what our governments and institutions are doing to our freedom or how they abuse poorer countries. She says there are bigger issues, I say she doesn’t understand that charity begins with yourself and one should clean up before their own door before complaining that the neighbour’s should be addressed.

My point is, she felt it was not necessary to dwell of the rights of women, especially in our country. We should focus on what she called “actual problems in our countries”, like the refugees crisis because that is a real problem. People die, you know!

What is it going to take for her and the rest of the world to take women’s rights issues seriously?

Women represent 52% of the world population.

If they are a minority in China and soon in India, due to their short-sighted birth policies, there are countries like Russia or Brazil where they are a strong majority. And yet, their daily burden is worsening. As shown, for instance, by today’s news of men, not only gang-raping a 16-year old girl for wearing “the wrong length of skirt”, but proudly posting pictures of themselves and their crime all over social media, to the glee of hundreds of other men who liked and shared the pictures.

Women are responsible for 70% of the world’s production yet earn only 10% of the total income and own 0.9% of the world’s property.

There are 196 countries in the world and only 15 elected heads of state are women.

About 300 million girls are deprived of the very basic education, which means they cannot even write their names rendering them at the complete mercy of the educated males around them.

And going to school is not always a charm when 60 million girls are sexually assaulted on their way to school every single year.

In Nigeria, when a student gets raped by four other students, including her boyfriend, we only focus on why the woman was alone with four boys to begin with.

India is at a breaking point after decades, if not centuries, of women serfdom and abuse. It is only because Westerners were attacked that we really talked about it.

You think it’s all about shaming the Third World? Let’s have a look at our “civilised” societies then.

In Europe, most monarchies still apply the agnatic-cognatic primogeniture rule, which means that a man will always comes first when it comes to accessing the throne, not matter how many older sisters he has. And in case of strict sorority, the first sister who has a son will become the first in line to the throne, only because she has given birth to the next potential king. What a great message to send if you consider that these dynasties claim they are chosen by God.

In the US, girls are submitted to insane school “decency rules” regarding what they can and cannot wear whereas boys can just walk in wearing…clothes. The opening remark of this video is everything.

In the US, whether it is the Congress, the House of Representatives, the Senate, none of these prestigious institutions shaping the most powerful country in the world can managed more than 20% of women.

In our society, when men are free to be and do whatever they want, women can never win: whatever they do, they say, they look like, it’s never right.

In France, if a woman wears too much, she is frigid or a Muslim (cue derogatory tone) and if she wears too little, she is a whore craving for men to fill her every holes.

The French former ministre de l’économie openly sexually harassed a journalist during a Davos conference prompting female journalists from all over Northern Europe to specifically ask not to be sent to France for the harassment of women has become unbearable. The French female journalists and politicians are now in rebellion against the inherent misogyny of the French masculine elite. A behaviour, these old perverts like to call the “French sauciness” as if it were something we were all born with, should be proud of and nurture.

Every single woman I know has a story of abuse.

My mother who was fondled by older classmates when she was at school. She slapped them just to be told 35 years later than showing some cleavage when you are a HR manager is inappropriate. That happened in France…as we lecture Iran.

My grand-mother who was offered an after-school ride by one of her father’s business partner. A man who then wanted her to show some kind of gratitude. She went out of the car before anything happened, thank God!

A friend of mine who has been living in fear for the past two years after she broke the vicious circle and left a violent man who was cheating on her and abusing her physically and psychologically. He went all the way to punching her boss, causing damage to her and her parents’ properties, threatening her friends to the complete inaction of the police.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

According to official statistics, 25% of women have, are and will experience domestic abuse in the hands of the one they love. Every minute, in the UK, the police receive a phone call dealing with domestic violence and 81% of the victims are women. On average, a woman was assaulted 35 times before she finds the courage to call the police.

The overview of Europe is pretty much the same. Some countries look bad because they actually consider these numbers when others still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them.

One in 10 women have experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 15, while one in 20 has been raped.

One in five women have experienced some form of stalking since the age of 15, with 5% having experienced it in the 12 months preceding the survey. However, three out of four stalking cases reported in the survey never come to the attention of the police. And having a name for yourself will not make the police be any more understanding or professional.

Of women in the survey who indicate they have been raped by their current partner, about one third (31%) say they have experienced six or more incidents of rape by their partner.

Just over one in 10 women experienced some form of sexual violence by an adult before they were 15.

These numbers will only tell a partial story as they rely on women’s courage to break the circle of abuse and speak up. Like all these girls and women who don’t exist because they cannot sign their own name, how much abuse “doesn’t exist” because women cannot put words on what they suffer everyday?

On average, in Europe, in every single country, every three days a woman is killed by a current or former partner. If you consider the whole of the UE, that’s 9 women killed every single day.

Every day.

Every. Day.

Remember that, as you are working, eating, walking, cooking, playing or listening to music…As you are living your daily life, 9 woman are suffering, agonising and eventually die of domestic violence. In their own house. By someone they once trusted and loved.

Nine woman. Every day. In the European Union.

As Amnesty International, we are campaigning against oppression, violence, abuse and death penalty. Why, then, can’t we spent more than three days discussing the fate of the people who suffer the most from it?

How many more will have to die for us to finally consider that women are indeed fighting an everyday war and need our help?