Bad fame has been dragged by my memory. A while ago I discovered in Jesus Mari Olaizola Txilikuren Piztiariak how little I know about them, enough, in any case, to change my mind about the animal that tends to live in open spaces. The image carved by bad fame coincided with the description received by the author zarauztarra: “(...) It has always had a pessimistic and negative tone: dirty, scavenger, lascivo, false, selfish and hoarding”. Txiliku gathers the perception that human beings have had of themselves in tradition: “For the Primordials, at all, what made the hyena a rare and unreliable animal was its unclear sexual tendency. In the book Ovidio's metamorphosis mentions that hyenas have the power to change sex, and, taken from it, according to the Christian Physiologus: “Now the female can be like a male, and she is dirty and viscose, changing her nature at will.” More recently, science has given its own explanation to the type of hyena called a pikarta. “Hiena Pikart is a female with a very curious sex organ: you don’t see the vulva or the vulva and has a very developed clitoris, like the male penis. On the other hand, female hyena, especially the dominator, tends to be more male than the same male, even more so when females are bigger and more aggressive than males, just as they are.”

Hien's bad fame has led me to the bad reputation of feminists. In addition, an anecdote from the 18th century proves that the comparison made is not unnecessary. The English writer and thinker Mary Wollstonecraft published in 1792 A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, one of the first to claim equal rights between men and women, and the conservatives of the time liberated their hatred and baptized Hiena with the nickname “hiena gonaduna”.

The bad name of hyena comes from the comparison with males: they look more like males, they are bigger and more aggressive than males, and their genitalia are described compared to males. The male is the measurement and eradication of regulated femininity hyena stigma. The causes of bad feminist reputation are not far from it, even if each feminist is the daughter of his mother and some are splintered with a much worse reputation than others, or even that many feminisms that have been pampered by institutions can enjoy good reputation. The bad fame has not been won by us, however, it has been put to us by the speakers of the main discourse, who hardly find the tradition of feminism. Today, when it comes to uniting claims and actions against abortion law reform, I am convinced that the shadow of fame that leans towards feminists makes it difficult for the voice and pulse of many people who regard abortion as an unjust and regressive reform to join feminists. Those who so far have not joined the feminist struggle will not now join by flooding, of course. We, however, know that abortion is a right and we repeat unanimously: “Our body, our decision. Safe, free and free abortion.” We know it goes beyond abortion. This pretension of reform, hypocritical and classicist, aims to abolish the competencies to decide on our bodies and on our lives, as well as control over our bodies. It is an honour for me to have a miserable reputation in the discourse of these conservative legislative mummies. I'd like to be the one who, in his dreams, stumbled upon a lewd hyena. Sometimes it would be better for all the people who are in favor of a just society to come up in those dreams with feminists and hyenas.