The official ‘yes, but…’ on Women’s Day
Rosario Piedra Ibarra, head of the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), came out with the textbook script. At an event for the 8M organized by democratic lawyers, he mixed obligatory recognition with the predictable warning.
He said that there is progress in the participation of women in decision-making. The usual: Executive, Congress, Court. The institutional discourse that we already know.
“Gender parity in decision-making spaces represents a historic achievement, but social transformation will not be complete as long as manifestations of violence against women continue.”
There it is. The ‘but’ that changes everything. Because of course, you can have more deputies or ministers, but if when you leave the seat or the court they harass you, threaten you or violate you, what good is the number?
Piedra Ibarra maintained that this participation has strengthened democracy. That will allow a future where women are not only part of the productive force, but also of the leadership of the country. Nice words.
But then came the juicy part: she considered that the arrival of women in key positions marks the beginning of a new stage, not the end of the process. A tacit recognition that this is going to be a long time and that the charges are only part of it.
What he did not say is how his own institution acts in response to specific complaints. Or how these ‘advances’ are measured against the daily figures of attacks. It’s easy to applaud statistics when you’re not the one experiencing the risk.
The question that remains is simple: when will we move from discourse about ‘gaps to close’ to actions that really make a woman feel safe in any space? Because so far, it seems more like a toast to the sun than a concrete plan.
