At this point, many of you will already know the initiative #MondayTits, promoted by Naukas and Francis Villatoro in particular, that it was basically an excuse to choose a day, Monday, and write a string of popular articles whose common link was the tits. The tits in all its manifestations. Tits of women, men and even animals.
However, the first criticisms quickly appeared. What if it was a macho proposal. What if it was in bad taste. What a cheap way to prepare to get some web traffic. In the blog of Francis Villatoro, The science of the Francis Mule, explains some of the side effects of #LunesTetas, as well as the promotion of an upcoming #LunesPollas to compensate and prove that there was no sexist bias. But some of the #LunesTetas side effects are more worrisome.
What offends is not necessarily bad
Everyone can say that one or an entry or idea seems offensive (or rather, it has offended them, because it is a bit pretentious to speak through the mouth of others, not the majority). For some time now, however, the mere act of feeling offended already seems to establish a sort of white card to censor content or, worse, censor by invoking the politically correct: Your text or idea offends me because, in reality, it is macho, classist, racist, etc. When the politically correct is invoked, the voices multiply, and the interpellated person (s) prefer to retract rather than continue under artillery fire.
It doesn't matter whether the intention is sexist or not. Not even if unconsciously there is sexism. Nor if there are people who consider him sexist. What matters is that if they accuse you of being sexist, then it is, for practical purposes, sexist. Which allows anyone (I do not say that is the case) to use that trick to censor or question any work they want. For example, my favorite science popularizer, Natalie Angierwrote a book entitled Woman, where he only talks about female biology, and naturally about his sexual organs. Is that sexist? Or the problem is the word "boobs", which sounds like Torrente? Can the disclosure use swear words or the sense of humor that it deems appropriate or, on issues like this, you have to use neutral terms to not hurt sensitivities?
Does hurting sensibilities tell us anything other than how thin the skin of the injured is? Does it clarify something about the intrinsic capacity of the offending text? These are complex questions, especially in these days when if you laugh at a God they acribilize you or if you make a satire relating a political party with a terrorist group, they impute you.
But the #LunesTetas case has continued its course, now splashing another popularizer of Naukas, Arturo Quirantes, responsible for the blog The Professor of Physics: the Equality Unit of his University, that of Granada, and some fellow professors have been upset because a teacher goes around talking about tits.
It was suggested to Quirantes that everything could be arranged without more if “University of Granada” was crossed out of his profile. However, before making a decision in this regard, the Ombudsman decided to request an opinion from the legal cabinet; depending on what they say, Quirantes has said he will proceed as he sees fit. At the moment, he will participate in the #LunesPollas.
And what do you think? In a world where we all already have the potential power of a mass media we must take maximum care of what we say and how we say it? Precisely because now we are all potential content producers, we have to tolerate that everyone says what they want? Are we exaggerating? #LunesPollas fixes the mess or makes it worse? I give you the opinion turn, but not before leaving me as a pledge of mine, more elaborate here.