The issue begins as soon as it is born. They give us a name and show us that we have to identify with that name. Like all other words, names are not neutral indicators, each one has its aroma and vision of the world. The brochure Name and Be Questioned by Bilgune Feministak and Emagin: the practical guide has revealed this reality. Many names have a clear gender mark, a certain forecast or projection of what the person is going to be, the role that will correspond.

The same goes for the surname, which will be the social surname. Most heterosexual couples bet on paternity first. A totally androcentric view prevails: it is normal for the father to go first, as a general rule, to place the mother’s one is to deprive the man of the right that corresponds “for himself”. This is where the symbolic construction of power, status and prestige begins. It is represented that the family nucleus is the father and that the heritage to be preserved comes from men.

Then, they teach us to speak, and the language of power is owned by our discourse. Without realizing it, we reproduce every time we speak the previously established political, ideological and moral position. Evidence of this can be found in any area of speeches, including in political and economic activity.

They have recently created a party called Citizens, which in the same name leaves half of the population out, and therefore potential voters. He's been born here and now. Here? Where? Here in Spain? If we went back a few years in time, the ideological character of those who used this phrase was evident: Spanish, constitutionalist, unionist… or “democrat”? Today, however, I feel a relaxation of terminology around me, it is not uncommon to hear a phrase of this kind to the student who bears the nationalist motto: “Here, in Spain…”.

In any case, acrimony marks the peak with the words of the economic sphere.

The closer the centers of power, the more technical and unintelligible the use of words is. That does not prevent them from joining our daily lives without taking into account what they are inside. We could give thousands of examples, as the euphemism and the perversion of language are continuous in economic and business activity, but there is one that is very topical: unfortunately almost every day we hear or read that in the company here or there they are in the “employment regulation dossier” or “ERE”, using the acronym in Spanish habitual (oppression has thousands of faces). Why do we use this euphemism to whitewash the employers?

Without realizing it, we are assuming that the company is going wrong, so the situation needs to be regulated. Is the company really going wrong? And even if it goes wrong, is that “regulating work”? Why don’t we call them “layoffs”? And why employers and not midwives? If we accept that our language structures and creates reality, speaking requires a self-conscious exercise. What do we say when we speak? What do we want or what do we want? I myself, at least, would appreciate it if we created a dictionary of the oppressed that would allow us to live and think outside the hegemonic discourses of power. Lexical and semantic sovereignty is the only way forward.