Believing someone is a matter of faith. It’s a truism to say it, but I can’t think of a better time to remember it. Each one chooses his battles in the same way that he chooses whom to believe. When there is a conflict with two versions, what Enric Gonzalez said in ‘Histories of Rome’ happens to us. The moment he was transferred as a correspondent to a new city and played football, he found himself organically always supporting a team. He chose from an almost involuntary position. Elegy, sometimes with reasons, and sometimes without more. Be careful when that happens with important matters. We react the same.
Among the headlines and the ‘trending topics’ of recent days there are paradigmatic cases of this irrational way of positioning ourselves. Nevenka Fernández and Rocío Carrasco. On Sunday, an article by a man (perhaps a young man, I don’t know) came to me that included the version of Ismael Álvarez, the then mayor of Ponferrada who was convicted of sexual harassment and who was his councilor. So far so good, I also want to know what a man already condemned has to say. I want to know if he finally apologizes or if he is still throwing balls out, or worse, blaming the victim. I started reading it for that reason and, surprise! The author, that Catalan man or gentleman, did not want to limit himself to picking up the version of the condemned man. He wanted, or needed, to also become the protagonist of the article. Everything he wrote there was based on his prejudices. All adjectives free; all the descriptions, from the beginning, from the story raised to provocation of that dress that Nevenka wore when she began her political career … Everything bears the unmistakable stamp of the one who signs those lines. You only write that if you are very self-conscious; if you know you have a marque certificate.
The gentleman or gentleman complains at the end of his text that in this society the word of the woman goes to mass. We are talking about 2002, then, it should be remembered, Me Too was still many years away, at that time the feminist movement was residual and calling someone like that (a feminist) was little more than an insult. He says that now, when he already knows that Álvarez was convicted, when all the evidence was provided. With that it shows, first, that choose to believe a man’s version of a woman’s. Because if. Although the evidence and Justice have said otherwise. And second, that the Justice that condemned the former mayor in an unprecedented sentence, is brought to a halt. That gentleman or gentleman, I think, he is a misogynist, and wants to elevate his misogyny to common sense. And look, no, we are in 2021.
He chooses to believe that condemned man rather than the victim recognized by Justice. Because yes, because he feels like it and adjectives it to the point of nausea. Just like if I moved to Italy, maybe I would choose Lazio (or Inter Milan, who knows). The worst thing is that his entrails, his entrails (because that is that article), choose the usual: the version of man.
The curious thing in this case is that despite the conviction and the evidence, that gentleman or young man is against Justice when surely, like many who comment here, they bark against Rocío Carrasco appealing precisely to those laws that sometimes, as in the case of Nevenka, they are not even enough. We deal with a paradox. With people so lost that they defend something and at the same time the opposite. Rocío Carrasco has taken evidence but the Justice, still, just still, has not given him the reason (something tells me that he will give it). And it is wrong, because it does not accept the law and Telecinco cannot be a Court. Okay. Now it turns out that Nevenka took advantage of the law, Justice gave him the reason in an impossible moment (those rookies early 2000) and they are not doing well either.
What is the way out? Death with Miolatan? Or whatever, that death, as Ángeles Caballero recently recalled. Is that the exit that congratulates everyone? Death as Carmina Ordóñez? In that drama, only then will we agree.