Hillary Clinton: los derechos de la mujer son derechos humanos

El próximo martes conmemoraremos el Día de la mujer trabajadora. El 8 de marzo es una fecha señalada en el recuerdo de todas aquellas mujeres que se enfrentaron al cambio imposible para conseguir la igualdad entre hombres y mujeres en todos los ámbitos, especialmente en el laboral.

Esa lucha no terminó hace décadas. No es una vieja reivindicación. El propio presidente Obama tuvo que dedicarle una mención en su discurso de aceptación de la nominación: “And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.”

En España, hemos visto como la igualdad, pese a los ataques conservadores que han sido ejemplos del más recalcitrante machismo, ha dominado la agenda. Pasos polémicos como la paridad en listas electorales, han contribuido a que nuestras instituciones se acerquen a un equilibrio entre hombres y mujeres. Pese a ello, sigue existiendo un techo de cristal para las mujeres en los consejos de administración y los puestos directivos en las empresas. En el reportaje de El País Semanal titulado “Retratos del poder”, sobre las diez grandes empresas españolas, veíamos en las fotografías a 89 directivos. Solo 8 eran mujeres.

Queda mucho por hacer. Por eso, hoy recordamos un discurso de una de esas mujeres, Hillary Clinton, que han dado una sensibilidad diferente a la política y que han luchado por la igualdad de derechos desde muy joven. Hoy es Secretaria de Estado de los Estados Unidos y en 1995, cuando era primera dama, dirigió este discurso en la 4th Conference on Women de las Naciones Unidas:

“It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and for the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights.”

“Thank you very much, Gertrude Mongella, for your dedicated work that has brought us to this point, distinguished delegates, and guests:

I would like to thank the Secretary General for inviting me to be part of this important United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. This is truly a celebration, a celebration of the contributions women make in every aspect of life: in the home, on the job, in the community, as mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, learners, workers, citizens, and leaders.

It is also a coming together, much the way women come together every day in every country. We come together in fields and factories, in village markets and supermarkets, in living rooms and board rooms. Whether it is while playing with our children in the park, or washing clothes in a river, or taking a break at the office water cooler, we come together and talk about our aspirations and concern. And time and again, our talk turns to our children and our families. However different we may appear, there is far more that unites us than divides us. We share a common future, and we are here to find common ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world, and in so doing bring new strength and stability to families as well.

By gathering in Beijing, we are focusing world attention on issues that matter most in our lives — the lives of women and their families: access to education, health care, jobs and credit, the chance to enjoy basic legal and human rights and to participate fully in the political life of our countries.

There are some who question the reason for this conference. Let them listen to the voices of women in their homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces. There are some who wonder whether the lives of women and girls matter to economic and political progress around the globe. Let them look at the women gathered here and at Huairou — the homemakers and nurses, the teachers and lawyers, the policymakers and women who run their own businesses. It is conferences like this that compel governments and peoples everywhere to listen, look, and face the world’s most pressing problems. Wasn’t it after all — after the women’s conference in Nairobi ten years ago that the world focused for the first time on the crisis of domestic violence?

Earlier today, I participated in a World Health Organization forum. In that forum, we talked about ways that government officials, NGOs, and individual citizens are working to address the health problems of women and girls. Tomorrow, I will attend a gathering of the United Nations Development Fund for Women. There, the discussion will focus on local — and highly successful — programs that give hard-working women access to credit so they can improve their own lives and the lives of their families.

What we are learning around the world is that if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish. And when families flourish, communities and nations do as well. That is why every woman, every man, every child, every family, and every nation on this planet does have a stake in the discussion that takes place here.

Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to women, children, and families. Over the past two-and-a half years, I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in my own country and around the world.

I have met new mothers in Indonesia, who come together regularly in their village to discuss nutrition, family planning, and baby care. I have met working parents in Denmark who talk about the comfort they feel in knowing that their children can be cared for in safe, and nurturing after-school centers. I have met women in South Africa who helped lead the struggle to end apartheid and are now helping to build a new democracy. I have met with the leading women of my own hemisphere who are working every day to promote literacy and better health care for children in their countries. I have met women in India and Bangladesh who are taking out small loans to buy milk cows, or rickshaws, or thread in order to create a livelihood for themselves and their families. I have met the doctors and nurses in Belarus and Ukraine who are trying to keep children alive in the aftermath of Chernobyl.

The great challenge of this conference is to give voice to women everywhere whose experiences go unnoticed, whose words go unheard. Women comprise more than half the world’s population, 70% of the world’s poor, and two-thirds of those who are not taught to read and write. We are the primary caretakers for most of the world’s children and elderly. Yet much of the work we do is not valued — not by economists, not by historians, not by popular culture, not by government leaders.

At this very moment, as we sit here, women around the world are giving birth, raising children, cooking meals, washing clothes, cleaning houses, planting crops, working on assembly lines, running companies, and running countries. Women also are dying from diseases that should have been prevented or treated. They are watching their children succumb to malnutrition caused by poverty and economic deprivation. They are being denied the right to go to school by their own fathers and brothers. They are being forced into prostitution, and they are being barred from the bank lending offices and banned from the ballot box.

Those of us who have the opportunity to be here have the responsibility to speak for those who could not. As an American, I want to speak for those women in my own country, women who are raising children on the minimum wage, women who can’t afford health care or child care, women whose lives are threatened by violence, including violence in their own homes.

I want to speak up for mothers who are fighting for good schools, safe neighborhoods, clean air, and clean airwaves; for older women, some of them widows, who find that, after raising their families, their skills and life experiences are not valued in the marketplace; for women who are working all night as nurses, hotel clerks, or fast food chefs so that they can be at home during the day with their children; and for women everywhere who simply don’t have time to do everything they are called upon to do each and every day.

Speaking to you today, I speak for them, just as each of us speaks for women around the world who are denied the chance to go to school, or see a doctor, or own property, or have a say about the direction of their lives, simply because they are women. The truth is that most women around the world work both inside and outside the home, usually by necessity.

We need to understand there is no one formula for how women should lead our lives. That is why we must respect the choices that each woman makes for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to realize her own God-given potential. But we must recognize that women will never gain full dignity until their human rights are respected and protected.

Our goals for this conference, to strengthen families and societies by empowering women to take greater control over their own destinies, cannot be fully achieved unless all governments — here and around the world — accept their responsibility to protect and promote internationally recognized human rights. The — The international community has long acknowledged and recently reaffirmed at Vienna that both women and men are entitled to a range of protections and personal freedoms, from the right of personal security to the right to determine freely the number and spacing of the children they bear. No one — No one should be forced to remain silent for fear of religious or political persecution, arrest, abuse, or torture.

Tragically, women are most often the ones whose human rights are violated. Even now, in the late 20th century, the rape of women continues to be used as an instrument of armed conflict. Women and children make up a large majority of the world’s refugees. And when women are excluded from the political process, they become even more vulnerable to abuse. I believe that now, on the eve of a new millennium, it is time to break the silence. It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and for the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights.

These abuses have continued because, for too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words. But the voices of this conference and of the women at Huairou must be heard loudly and clearly:

It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.

It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution for human greed — and the kinds of reasons that are used to justify this practice should no longer be tolerated.

It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire, and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.

It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.

It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes by their own relatives.

It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.

It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely — and the right to be heard.

Women must enjoy the rights to participate fully in the social and political lives of their countries, if we want freedom and democracy to thrive and endure. It is indefensible that many women in nongovernmental organizations who wished to participate in this conference have not been able to attend — or have been prohibited from fully taking part.

Let me be clear. Freedom means the right of people to assemble, organize, and debate openly. It means respecting the views of those who may disagree with the views of their governments. It means not taking citizens away from their loved ones and jailing them, mistreating them, or denying them their freedom or dignity because of the peaceful expression of their ideas and opinions.

In my country, we recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of Women’s Suffrage. It took 150 years after the signing of our Declaration of Independence for women to win the right to vote. It took 72 years of organized struggle, before that happened, on the part of many courageous women and men. It was one of America’s most divisive philosophical wars. But it was a bloodless war. Suffrage was achieved without a shot being fired.

But we have also been reminded, in V-J Day observances last weekend, of the good that comes when men and women join together to combat the forces of tyranny and to build a better world. We have seen peace prevail in most places for a half century. We have avoided another world war. But we have not solved older, deeply-rooted problems that continue to diminish the potential of half the world’s population.

Now it is the time to act on behalf of women everywhere. If we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of children and families too. Families rely on mothers and wives for emotional support and care. Families rely on women for labor in the home. And increasingly, everywhere, families rely on women for income needed to raise healthy children and care for other relatives.

As long as discrimination and inequities remain so commonplace everywhere in the world, as long as girls and women are valued less, fed less, fed last, overworked, underpaid, not schooled, subjected to violence in and outside their homes — the potential of the human family to create a peaceful, prosperous world will not be realized.

Let — Let this conference be our — and the world’s — call to action. Let us heed that call so we can create a world in which every woman is treated with respect and dignity, every boy and girl is loved and cared for equally, and every family has the hope of a strong and stable future. That is the work before you. That is the work before all of us who have a vision of the world we want to see — for our children and our grandchildren.

The time is now. We must move beyond rhetoric. We must move beyond recognition of problems to working together, to have the comment efforts to build that common ground we hope to see.

God’s blessing on you, your work, and all who will benefit from it.

Godspeed and thank you very much.”

¡Mujer tenías que ser!

Para de Cospedal, Rajoy “estuvo muy correcto”, porque según su opinión, de haber sido más agresivo, al ser él un hombre, hubiera quedado como cuando “un chico le pega a una chica en el colegio”. Rajoy “se esforzó para no ser agresivo”, concluyó.

Parece que, a veces, los políticos se olvidan de su papel pedagógico. De cómo lo que dicen y lo que hacen crean un modelo que es importante para muchos ciudadanos. Que un político se mueva, en la medida de lo posible –sobretodo por medidas de seguridad- en transporte público, use servicios públicos como la sanidad o la educación o incluso que utilice un cierto lenguaje, tienen efectos en millones de personas.

Cuando Zapatero formó un gobierno formado por más mujeres que hombres tenía en mente precisamente eso; la necesidad de dar ejemplo, mostrar que un órgano tan importante para el país como el ejecutivo, el poder podía ser en femenino. Porque como muy bien relata Antoni Gutiérrez-Rubí en una obra que debería ser de cabecera, Políticas, el poder en femenino tiene unas cualidades muy distintas.

En ese sentido, que María Dolores de Cospedal haya descubierto la estrategia de comunicación del PP no sirve a esta causa. Para muestra la cita que abre este post: según la secretaria general del partido, Rajoy no fue más agresivo en el debate sobre el proyecto de presupuestos para evitar dar una imagen de abusón, de hombre contra una mujer que, según se entiende por lo que dice de Cospedal, no estarían en plano de igualdad.

Lo sorpresivo es que sea la propia de Cospedal la que explique esta estrategia de comunicación. Una mujer. Que ocupa un lugar de mucha responsabilidad en uno de los partidos más importantes del país. El mensaje no puede ser más demoledor. Tanto por la lucha por la igualdad entre hombres y mujeres como para el propio PP. Las declaraciones de la secretaria general van contra la línea de flotación del discurso de igualdad del PP, pero sobretodo, es perverso para el propio Rajoy. ¿Acaso significa que Rajoy no se atreve con una mujer?

El debate público exige que sea de la mayor calidad en argumentos. No en el sexo de los políticos. Si el proyecto de presupuestos presentado por el Gobierno es malo, el debate debe centrarse en ello y los ataques deben ser fundados en ello. No pueden establecerse a tenor de si quién los presenta es un hombre o una mujer.

Las mujeres no lo tienen fácil para romper con el techo de cristal y seguramente lo ocurrido en el Congreso de los Diputados se repite diariamente en los pocos consejos de administración presididos por mujeres. Es un flaco favor a la igualdad, pero sobretodo, es un flaco favor al partido que acoge a políticas de la talla de Esperanza Aguirre, Cristina Cifuentes, Alicia Sánchez-Camacho o la propia de Cospedal.

Pero más allá de los valores, ¿es una buena estrategia de comunicación lo realizado por Rajoy? ¿Debe un hombre variar el tono para no parecer agresivo ante una mujer? ¿Un líder de la oposición debe cambiar su tono para oponerse al mismo gobierno, aunque sea con un miembro –que no miembra- del sexo opuesto? Espero vuestras respuestas…

Fijar el mensaje

A río Revuelto, ganancia de pescadores. O lo que es mismo como conseguir desviar la atención de la opinión pública sobre los temas que debilitan a tu adversario protagonizando absurdas polémicas. Así se podría definir la última semana del PP si atendemos a los dos hitos comunicativas que han protagonizado en sólo 7 días: la fotografía y entrevista de la portavoz popular en el Congreso, Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría en El Mundo  y el escándalo de la red de espionaje ilegal que, presuntamente, la Comunidad de Madrid ha puesto en marcha.

El gobierno está contra las cuerdas (o poco le queda para resistir con el chaparrón que cae): cada día aparecen nuevos datos que señalan lo que todos sabemos respecto a la delicada -por usar un lenguaje soft- situación de la economía. Es una lluvia constante de malas noticias, con previsiones de crecimiento contestadas por la propia Comisión Europea, con una amenaza de sanción a España por su endeudamiento excesivo y con la intención de S & P de rebajar la valoración del país en su escala. Los inputs negativos al debate son de suficiente entidad como para entender que, por sí sola, la crisis podría hacer caer el gobierno.

Esta premisa aún toma más fuerza si atendemos al mal funcionamiento de la comunicación del gobierno: cada portavoz dice una cosa diferente. El optimismo del presidente Zapatero choca con Solbes, que afirma no tener más instrumentos para acabar con la crisis. Mientras, Leire Pajín le da otro ángulo al asunto, Miguel Sebastián se atreve a parafrasear a Kennedy y pedir a los españoles consumir productos del país. Rocambolesco todo ello: cuando más unión necesita en el mensaje, más se disgrega.

Pero no. El gobierno no cae ni siente, de momento, el aliento del segundo clasificado en su nuca más allá de las periódicas encuestas que anuncian una posible victoria del PP pero que también señalan la debilidad de la ex vicepresidente de Aznar. Para evitar que el aliento les ponga nerviosos, el propio PP sabe jugar sus cartas … erróneamente.

Empezamos con la famosa foto de Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría (SSS). Algunos afirman que es el retorno de SSS a la primera línea de la política, tras ver como no podía hacerse un hueco informativo. Pero esta premisa se olvida de un aspecto: aunque la resurrección en política es una máxima, no se puede hacer de cualquier manera. Sobre todo si esta acción se interpreta como desesperada e inadecuada. Desesperada porque manifiesta muy poco análisis del contexto y de las consecuencias e inadecuada porque atenta de lleno contra el mensaje del PP. Para entendernos, la foto hace el mismo favor a la estrategia y al mensaje de los populares que si apareciera el tendero de confianza de Rajoy manifestando que cada día de la semana el cabeza de cartel popular se come dos latas de caviar iraní para cenar. Qué contradicción se generaría con el mensaje de austeridad, ¿no creen?

¿Por qué la foto de SSS es una contradicción? Porque la imagen sofisticada y pseudo erótica que transmite se aleja de la que ella misma ha querido generar siempre: la de la mujer JASP (Joven, aunque sobradamente preparada) que trabaja sin descanso por los españoles. ¿Significa que ya no lo es? No, pero resulta frívola. Más cuando desde las bancadas populares se hace todo lo posible para afirmar que se trabaja sin descanso mientras el gobierno no lo hace. ¿Significa que SSS no tiene un lado erótico, que no tiene intimidad para hacerse fotos así? En absoluto, puede hacer y posar cuando quiera. Pero debe entender que cuando aparecen en la portada del segundo diario más leído de España, tienen un efecto directo en muchos ciudadanos que se preguntan muchas cosas.

Hay, también, una cuestión de discriminación de género en todo este asunto y que sólo el tiempo sabrá valorar. Por una mujer política se espera, tradicionalmente, que responda a un patrón masculino de autoridad. Antoni Gutiérrez-Rubí nos mostraba en “Políticas” que no ha sido así en muchas de ellas, líderes que han sabido imprimir su propia estela de liderazgo. Quizás SSS cree que esta es la vía, pero sin duda no tiene nada que ver con otras mujeres que han sido el centro de la crítica de los sectores más conservadores como Carme Chacón.

En definitiva, estas interferencias en el mensaje se pueden ahorrar. Sobre todo si se ponen en el mismo campo que tanto criticó el PP en pleno. ¿Recuerdan unas fotos de las ministras socialistas del primer gobierno de Zapatero para la revista Vogue?

El espionaje en la Comunidad de Madrid es otro tema. Nos muestra como una filtración sobre un tema tan delicado como éste se pone en primera página sí o sí. Es un caso de corrupción política grave y aunque el liderazgo de Aguirre no está en peligro, supondrá algún que otro problema a la Presidenta. Más que nada porque las personas que han sido objeto de las investigaciones de ex-policías y ex-guardias civiles son cargos de otras facciones populares contrarias a la de Esperanza Aguirre.

Este issue tendrá dos efectos: uno interno, en las relaciones de poder entre las facciones y otro externo, cuando se depuren responsabilidades a medida que las investigaciones vayan adelante. Siempre y cuando los jueces y las huelgas lo permitan.

En todo caso SSS y la red de espionaje de Esperanza hacen un favor de los grandes al gobierno de Zapatero. Las maniobras de distracción las lleva el PP de casa, como si invitas a alguien a cenar y no sólo trae el vino, sino toda la comida. Si el gobierno usara esta ventaja competitiva ya sería de escándalo, pero son conscientes de que para enriquecer el debate hay que poner una nota disonante de vez en cuando.

Quizás la marca Loctite debería pensar en una nueva campaña de marketing para este 2009. Loctite: lo fijamos todo. Incluso el mensaje del gobierno. Y el mensaje del PP.