New York. Late 1960s. Demonstrations in defence of women's rights. You.

He was passionate about a believing and idealistic movement and we were going to change the world. It wasn't because of the wind, many organizations despised us, construction workers hit us ... But we thought the matter could only continue. However, the last decades have taught us that the setbacks are threatened, that it is not necessary to take the achievements by the bathroom. In that sense, the feminism at the time was clearer, more transparent. We aimed to analyze and transmit the theories of feminisms, basic tools for movements, not current elitist studies that only the authors understand. It was a mistake to academize the theory until it became a difficult task to solve. We need jobs that give the keys for any woman, including housewives who have never stepped into college, to understand and change what's going on in their lives.

The keys are to open the door and move forward, to start and start the engine.

We are not yet in the era of progress, but in the era of “not steps back!”. Moreover, setbacks are almost impossible when you have so much work to do. Attacks and recessions will come when they consider us to be truly dangerous. So far we have not been dangerous to anyone. Now, in the UN, there are states that clearly say they don't believe in equality between men and women, that women need to be subjects of men. More and more states are insisting that a person has to send in the family, a person in the community, a person in the village, a person in the state... Understand a man when a person says: Recently, the Pakistani ambassador accused me of inventing feminist violence against women to weaken the position of men in society. So far no one dared to suggest it. Now yes. Why? Because they regard us as dangerous and because the risks are the most painful truths that are kept in us.

Could a feminist society emerge within capitalism?

Because capitalism is the eldest son of patriarchy, no. As capitalism without patriarchy is impossible, the values of capitalism and feminism are opposed. Patriarchy is the first type of domination in the world. Thus, some men are born above others, and form all the structures and laws necessary to guarantee their superiority. That's where the other differences come from: social classes, skin color, sexuality ... In the theory of capitalism, women did not exist, but a system as cruel and subtle as patriarchy could not be maintained if there were no female presence in the spaces of power. If you accuse women that they have no power or that they have to do what they are and what they are to reach power, you are beaten with examples of Merkel, Lagarde, etc.

With their finger they point to the moon and some always see their finger.

Because they don't want to see the moon! The powers of women in patriarchy are very bad. For example, the power of the mother. It is the mother who transmits culture to children and, consequently, to herself, transmits patriarchy. Power does not cease to be patriarchal because it is in the hands of women. Look in India, many women are murdered by their mother-in-law. But they do not do it for their own sake, but for their children. Patriarchy is completely manipulative, as cruel as it is to impose stricter legal criteria on women. In Costa Rica, we had a president. It was said to be the greatest disaster in history. It is true that it was a disaster, a pure neoliberal, but it did what its predecessor and the previous did, no more, no less. We are convinced that a man can be vile and hopeless, a vile and petty woman is the greatest disaster in history.

Social relations, social organization, linguistic issues... Is everything power?

Power relations are at the base of all evils. Thus, analyzing and understanding power relations is not just about researching how a network is woven, but about showing who and who benefits. Anyone who works meaningful on the subject will realize that there are less and less powerful with more power. For example, businessman Carlos Slim has more money than my country. Consequently, it decides what can be done and what not, what is important, what has priority, what will be imported, what working conditions are needed... That man will take care of all the appearances of democracy, but in countries as small as mine he can change the law with a sneeze. The worst thing is that he's admired, revered by ordinary people, and it's enough to give a handout to a foundation to clean up his face to make him a hero. So far the world has gone crazy. How is it understood, if not, that the wealth of an individual has no limits? A person should not, by law, have more than a certain amount. When I explain it, though, the students are shocked, they say that what's crazy is me.

What would the world be like if it were thought of by women?

The world looks very different if you've ever been touched by taking care of someone. In the patriarchal world, monuments are erected to those who have died in war, but not to those who have survived future generations. That is why I am convinced that if the world had been put into the hands of women, care would be more valued and more basic in the lives of all. So far we have been very concerned about production material, but very little about human reproduction. Even today, bringing and educating a child is a parenthesis or a pause for many. Worse still, this capitalist patriarchate has led us to believe that caring work is a stupid thing, that the important thing is to take a career, to make money and to have a lot of electronics. That can't be changed just by law, you have to change mindset and attitude. It's known that the pencil doesn't write a novel, but without a pencil, there's no novel. Laws are instruments to be used, as they can be liberators to the same extent that they are oppressors.

Do you talk about positive discrimination?

Differences are not the same in themselves, we have to act from the outside. For example, in the United States, without positive discrimination, there would be no equality between whites and blacks. Positive discrimination speeds up equality, pulls the way. The problem is that the system has managed to make people believe that positive discrimination is a measure against those in a privileged position or in power. In Costa Rica, in 1982, when we began to demand quotas for 50% of the congress to be female, we were accused of “you want everything!” I said: “Not everything, only half”, but whoever is used to having everything seems to leave half. How do you understand a man that the best thing he can do is to leave his place? To sincerely believe in equality is to free privileges, to discover that the best for the world is for you also better.

Inequality generates violence.

And inequality between men and women is gender violence. As long as misogyny lasts, while the life of some is worth more than that of others, there are no miracles. What deaths are the informative? Why are the deaths of some always the fifteenth item of news? In 50 shades of Grey, violence is naturalized to the point of eroticization. Chance has become erotic violence when several laws prohibit and punish violence. Patriarchy is constantly adapting to new situations. What are the laws hurting you? It tries to camouflage violence so that women don't take it as bad. How many times do you hear “beat me because he loves me”? Patriarchy is not in vain 7,000 years. It knows how to revive, it knows that everything changes so that everything stays the same. The only thing that does not change is that women's life, vision and action are worth less. That's why laws never protect women properly. That is why education and cultural change must be affected.

Is the change going to come from the bottom up?

For change to occur, those from the bottom up and those from the top down must push in the same direction. In principle, it would be ideal if the change were from the bottom to the top, but to do so the institutions have to promote and support the movements of women. For example, it is up to the institutions to pull their ears out of the media so that, by working seriously on the issue, they can reach beyond stereotypes. When will you realize that these stereotypes are the cause of violence against women? They will accuse me of blaspheming freedom of expression, but since when is freedom of expression more important than life? How many business models are hidden under the guise of freedom of expression? To whom does it occur to attribute part of the blame to women in the articles on male violence in most countries? With these types of models it is not surprising that people immediately engage with the words “women” or “feminism”. To those who have become accustomed to seeing everything from androcentric eyes, to delve into these issues, produces the laziness that is supposed to read about what they do not know. I, on the other hand, will stop talking about feminism only on the day that patriarchy disappears. While patriarchy kills and tramples women and ruins the lives of many men, there is no peace.

Does peace look at justice with the gender glasses?

With gender glasses you see not only the difference in treatment between men and women, but justice for those who are not in the dominant forms of the human being. When are you going to think that justice has to offer a nursery to those who are going to account for bureaucracy? It looks silly, but if you haven't left the girl, how is a woman going to report? The same is true of laws. Until recently the laws had nothing to do with violence against women, the victims had nothing to say in the case. Why? Because the laws were made by men! Despite the progress that has been made as a result of the real struggles, we still do not have ideal laws, all have an androcentric footprint. To cope with this, the empowerment of women is essential. However, empowerment is not an objective, but a path. The struggle for a right empowers us, the maintenance of that right empowers us, empowers us to decide ourselves about our lives. Empowerment is a breath of women, nothing that comes from heaven.

Shouldn't we talk about feminisms to empower the air?

Let no one think that all feminists have the same beliefs, that we have the same solutions to the problem. The non-differentiation clearly shows that our different origins, cultures and ways of seeing the world are not taken into account, that they do not have us as isolated human beings, that still 25 women are 50 boobs. The problem is that we're losers everywhere. Stressing our differences, he stressed that we cannot agree with each other and, like all of us, renounce our plurality. That is why it is essential not to lose the north, to be clear about where we come from and where we go. Those who read the newspaper openly at my conferences a few years ago, I am now attentive to the congresses, as well as reasonable arguments, we have in favour of legal arguments that we did not have before... Feminism is not a revolution overnight, but it has saved my life.