I've seen the autobiographical documentary by Arantza Santesteban, 918 nights, at Topagune Feminist. I'm going to make you a spoiler. When Santesteban is in prison he realizes that he is more comfortable with social prisoners than with political prisoners. It appears surrounded by muscular men in a photograph of the patio and recognizes that it feels good among these inflated bodies with anabolic agents. The prison bubble gives him perspective to realize that political militancy was also a bubble. His friends send him photos of concentrations in favor of Basque prisoners, read the slogans of the banners and no longer satisfy him.
I was particularly interested in this part of the film, because I've linked it to the discomfort I've had for a long time. Feminism is the main analytical tool that I use to explain the world, to understand and understand my environment. On the contrary, in everyday conflicts I have realized the limits and dangers of considering slogans as a round reality.

Love does not hurt Matxiruloak
sutara Bollera
is the only way

Philosophy professor Teresa Maldonado and feminist militant have put in the essay “Let’s Speak Clear” precise words to my concern:

“The feminist language of recent times is filled with stereotypes, linguistic clichés and phrases made. (…) They are no longer tools to articulate complex and nuanced thinking, which clarify and enrich it, but mentally repeated chanting, sonites of a false unscrupulous thought of complexity and critical capacity. This can happen when criticism becomes dogma.”

Categorical slogans can play an important role if we use them consciously, prudently and measured. The objective of the communicative action should be clear: Do we want to do pedagogy or provoke? Do we want to bring the conflict closer or make it clear? Is it about the awareness of others or our self-affirmation?

One of the concerns that Maldonado has expressed in the book is that it is difficult for us to adapt the register. That is, we use the same language in an internal assembly, in the media or in a doctoral thesis. I studied with Nicaraguan feminists the convenience of contrasting our messages with people out of bubble before they spread them.

Let us not forget that experiences are much more complex and contradictory than slogans. I interviewed feminist psychologist Norma Vázquez for Pikara Magazine and she said:

“I think sometimes feminists are far from women’s vital experiences. We have plenty of speech and we lack contact, even with our vital experience. I see feminists with seemingly very clear and rigorous ideas that get complicated in their relationships. We are very used to fighting with the outside world and wanting to explain what happens to women from very general ideas.”

That is why we have thanked feminist mothers for the attempt of Adrienne Richen, born of Women: to motherhood in the face of the passionate feminist critique, which separates the institution from experience (although one limits the other). Thus, ambivalence is the central concept that Rich uses to define motherhood.

It would be good if you were able to detect the complexity of a particular experience without completing it, rather than giving lessons about the lives of others. Strengthen critical capacity and accept the knots, edges and lights and shadows of reality rather than responding to new dogmas.