Violence, Gender, and Human Rights.
The case of Spain.
By Dr. Enno Winkler
Gender Violence, Domestic Violence, Violence in Society, and the Violation of Human Rights are closely related. If one really wants to reduce “gender” violence, one has to be sincere and take measures not only against men’s violence, but also against women’s violence and the violence in general that is spreading in society.
In 2006, according to the National Statistics Institute, based on data from the Institute for Women, 126 women were killed in Spain- 68 at the hands of their partner or former partner (73 in 2010) – versus 249 men, of which it is not known how many were killed by their partner or ex-partner. It is not recorded. It is not news.
Neither is it known nor recorded, how many children were killed by their mothers or fathers, and how many of the elderly by their children, female or male.
To the “gender” murders – the cases of dead women put in scene in detail in all the media – must be added the deaths by “gender” violence hidden in other areas. They are not news either. For example:
Suicides (real, for unbearable harassment; camouflaged murders, etc.): 730 women versus 2504 men.
“Accidental” Poisoning: 102 women versus 475 men.
Heart Attacks (real, for example because of stressful harassment; or assumed, not verified by autopsy): 9172 women versus 12842 men.
From the statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice we know that in 1988 – when it was not yet common to falsify or conceal these data – in the big cities of the U.S. 318 men (59%) and 222 women (41%) were accused of spouse murder. In Spainthe Ministry of Interior published in 1997-2002, before the assumption of the Rodriguez Zapatero government, the same average ratio of 59% to 41% of women and men killed by their partners.
In this context, German criminology provides an interesting fact: Murders committed by men on average take months to resolve; murders committed by women years, if they are discovered at all.
The 68 deaths of women from violence by the partner or ex-partner accounted for 0.038% of the total 177,234 deaths among women in 2006. But there are activists who refer to deaths from ” machist terrorism” as the primary cause of female mortality. However, in traffic accidents alone 922 women died in 2006. Each of these cases is dramatized -not to say celebrated- in all the communication media. Advertising campaigns (“The next is you!”, a campaign sponsored by OCÉ and Cannon in Barcelona) pressurize women to report any physical, verbal or psychological aggression as soon as possible in order “to save their lives “. The Government of Valencia actually put up posters in the Metro, showing the future victim painted white and the aggressor black, ignoring the racist implication presented. Feminist activists, NGOs, law firms, and communication media incite the making of criminal accusations, often unfounded, and often in order to get free advantages for the woman like keeping the home, children, and many of the financial assets of the man, or simply to heat up the battle against (heterosexual) men. Yet in 2007 the Independent Association of the Guardia Civil (ASIGC) timidly warned they were suffering overload from false criminal complaints. (And in 2010 the General Council of the Judicial Power (GSJ), in a statistical review on the 5 year life of the Comprehensive Law against Gender Violence, found hundreds of thousands of false criminal accusations (as published in a careless slip in the printed version of El País on 5.01.2011, p.31).
In December 2004 Congress passed the Comprehensive Law against Gender Violence, burying itself in the cliché of the woman always victim and the man always maltreater. Appealed against as unconstitutional by judges before theConstitutional Court, the latter – taking refuge in twisted reasoning-, declared constitutional the unconstitutional. The law discriminates against heterosexual men, as it sets for the first time different punishments for women and men, for identical crimes, considering female violence against men as simple misdemeanour, male violence against women, however, as crime. What’s more, assuming that women are always honest, and men lying, the facts, including verbal aggressions like insults, do not need to be proven but only to be supported, which means that the man is considered guilty if he fails to show his innocence. Which brings into question – apart from the principles of equality and non-discrimination – the presumption of innocence, with all its implications, as the Professional Association of Magistrates has warned. Special courts were created for violence against women, where can be attended only women and not abused men, converting Spaininto the only country with special courts for a gender. In order to camouflage the violation of the Spanish Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Deputy Prime Minister María Teresa Fernández de la Vega popularized the concept of “positive discrimination”, defined as discrimination precisely that is positive for someone. By the same logic one could also claim “positive thefts”, “positive violence” (e.g. that which puts limits to female falsehood), and “positive murders”. There are currently 835 courts specializing in violence against women (458 exclusive, with access only for women), collapsed by the number of complaints, with the counterproductive effect that some women in real situation of danger and subsequently killed, could no be attended. Between 2005 and 2007 the autonomous communities and the municipalities distributed 28.5 million Euros to the entities that help female victims. And the government anticipated 247 million for 2008, approved a program of social and work integration for abused women, and set up the 24 hour emergency phone line 016, only for them. In contrast, I don’t know of any action to help maltreated men. Feminist activists, NGOs, law firms, media companies, and public administrations have generated an entire industry of the supposed “battle against machismo,” which provides public money, positions, employment, prestige, and social and political power, thus creating proper interests in maintaining and even increasing “gender violence”. However, in spite of everything, the deaths of women have not declined, and women’s complaints of abuse have soared. Why?
The fact is that half of the problem is being ignored, intentionally: women as aggressors (Dr Murray Strauss, University of New Hampshire). That women are not so innocent has been shown in countless unbiased scientific studies in developed countries. Dr. Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at the University of California Long Beach compiled 246 of them, with a total sample of more than 237,750 individuals, demonstrating that women are physically as aggressive or even more aggressive with their partners than men .The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention Report published that in violent relationships half of the aggressions are reciprocal. In relations with non-reciprocal violence, women are the aggressor in 70%. And a study at the University of Bremen revealed that during the process of separation or divorce, in 60% of cases physical abuse was started by women, in 18% by men, and in 22% by both. Erin Pizzey, feminist and founder of the first shelter for battered women, described in her analysis “Working with violent women” her experience with aggressive women whom she calls “family terrorists”. A serious approach to the problem of “gender” violence is offered by web sites as www.mediaradar.org and www.dvmen.org.
“Gender” violence arises from conflicts between partners, as occurs in any relationship between individuals, groups, peoples and states. These conflicts are a normal part of life, and are solved through dialogue, accepting reasoned arguments, respecting the other party, maintaining his/her self-esteem and image. However, when one side closes itself to reason, because of a lack of education, bad character, psychological disturbance, low self-esteem, or wanting to impose itself whatever the cost, or because of stress, frustrations, injuries and failures suffered in life, fear of losing life as a couple or family, or losing their place in society or status, there begins an escalating chain of mutual verbal and psychological aggressions and humiliations, which sometimes leads to physical violence.
That this process has nothing to do with testosterone, but with social factors, is being shown by more and more scientific studies. (C. Eisenegger et al.: Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour, Nature 463, 356-359). In this pattern of behaviour of men and women, something can be changed only when the common history of these conflicting relationships can be worked on together, if necessary with the help of others. However, all constructive forms of communicative solutions to these conflicts, of mediation and counselling / therapy, of reconciliation or peaceful separation, are suffocated from the beginning, when to one of the parties in conflict, the woman, is given the legal and cost-free means of finishing with her partner in a simple and risk-free way: presenting a criminal complaint, and taking away from him not only his home, his parental rights, his material subsistence, and his social standing, but also exhibiting him in public as a nasty aggressor (and herself as the good, poor victim.) Only women can use the threat of police, judicial, and social complaint as a credible weapon, thus turning men into their prisoners.
The maltreated man in contrast finds no support, no telephone, no official institution or NGO that provides attention for him. Nobody, neither the government nor the autonomic administrations nor the NGOs, spends a penny for him. This too is a frank violation of the constitutional provision on equality. He does not report his maltreatment because he knows that by doing so he would close every way to a non-catastrophic solution and deprive himself -contrary to the woman- of his children, family, home, economic livelihood, and social relationships. And because he is ashamed and afraid of a second victimization: the ridicule, humiliation, and rejection that men are subjected to when they report maltreatment. The official “positive discrimination” increases even more his feeling of unjust treatment, defencelessness and desperation. He feels threatened and attacked. And the answer is rage, as it is logical and intended by radical feminism. Finally, sometimes, suicide, murder of the partner, or both acts seem to him be the only solution to get out of the nightmare and end his martyrdom. The real victim is thus converted into the author and the real author into the victim. We do not know how many men commit suicide because of partner problems, but that 38% of the fatal offenders in 2006 attempted or committed suicide. The man who commits suicide because of partner problems is also a victim of gender violence. These deaths are not investigated nor recorded, neither by the communication media, nor by NGOs such as Amnesty International, nor by Health Authorities, the Government, or the UN.
The term “gender violence” for violence against women was devised and disseminated at the Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995 under the auspices of the UN. It is a malicious and deceitful concept for several reasons: First, it avoids the term “male violence against women” or “male violence”, in order to take out of sight from the start the coexistence of female violence, which would have had to be fought also. Second, it alleges that there is a specific violence because of the dependency of women on men, while in reality there are complex interdependencies. Third, it promotes a racist idea, assuming that men’s violence is directed against women as a gender, not just against their partner or former partner. That “gender” violence is not a problem of gender, but of simple human aggressiveness, is suggested already by the fact that there is violence in about 30% of both gay and lesbian couples. And fourth, what is violence? Is it a rebuke that fanatic feminist activists already consider a crime when pronounced by a man, in which case they want it to be denounced and punished? The term “gender violence” in this way unmasks itself as a weapon of the struggle of feminist extremism, under whose name they are actually committing a massive violation of the fundamental rights of the non-female population. I do not know any men’s movement that aims to destroy women as a gender. In contrast, the sexist feminist zeal to stigmatize and criminalize men as such is just that, a gender crime, whose propagation, provocation and consummation should be penalized in a democratic state of law.
Feminist extremism and its totalitarian gender ideology that insists on looking at, describing and treating all aspects of life and society from the perspective of gender, dividing mankind into two opposing tribes of women and men, thus destroying social cohesion and delegitimizing the just demands of egalitarian feminists, has been joined in recent years by the fanatic homosexism of both genders, which perceives the fight against “machist” violence as a unique opportunity to finish with the heterosexual family as the basic model of society. In fact, fanatic homosexism has already overtaken feminist radicalism and has managed to hijack and brainwash important sectors of politics, the communication media, and the justice system.
As befits a totalitarian ideology, feminist extremism even imposes language regulations like Codes and Commandments of “good practices” in the news coverage of gender violence, such as the one signed on 3 of July 2006 by the (female) Vice President of the Government of Castilla y León, which prohibits the publication of certain facts or testimonies of relatives and neighbours, allowing only the testimony of “experts on gender violence”. Moreover, in 2011 the feminist extremism managed to implant the gender perspective into the Law on Science, Technology and Innovation, thus subjecting science, technology and innovation to feminist censorship.
Partner violence is not isolated. It is part of the widespread violence in society: violence between children, by students (one third of the students surveyed in a study of the Catholic University of Valencia admitted to stealing, insulting teachers, and getting into fights), for entertainment (video games , TV), social, xenophobic (social and administrative), labour, economic, political, ideological/religious, by parents against children (when they are young), by children against parents (when they are older), and by the elderly and against the elderly. In the context of this article, domestic violence against children deserves special consideration, as they constitute the largest group of victims, more than double the combined number of men, women and elderly victims. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that the situation of the children is far more dramatic because of their vulnerability and total defencelessness, this situation does not provoke such media and administrative revulsion as “gender” violence. According to the Child Maltreatment Report 2006 of the Ministry of Health of the United States, the perpetrators of child abuse were in 39.9% of cases the mothers, in 17.6% the fathers and in 17.8% both. In cases of the death of children, the author was the mother in 27.4%, the father in 13.1%, and both in 22.4%. These figures also do not support the radical feminist claim that only men are violent and women not. However, it does not occur to anybody to claim that this violence against children is feminist terrorism.
What are the causes of violence? The phenomenon of violence is determined by the genetic background, education, conditioning circumstances, triggering, and finally perpetration. To combat violence one has to influence directly or indirectly all of these factors.
Some stock of aggressiveness is inherent in the psychology of all humans, male or female. How to manage this potential of aggressiveness is learned (especially in childhood) through the example of the members of the family and the social environment, and through proactive education by the family, school, and society as a whole. Treating infantile violence as “kids business”, impeding or objecting the teaching of intercultural and interfaith ethics in compulsory education (thoughthe current ideological corruption gives cause to fear indoctrination in the gender ideology), the omnipresence of violence as “normal” in video games, movies, television, press, and in society in general, and the lack of prosecution and punishment of violence that is not “gender”, constitute education for violence.
Conditioning situations of violence are of both internal origin (mental disorders like low self-esteem; lack of self-control; frustration; malice; sadism; genuine criminality), or of external origin (poor education; violent environment; drug addiction; physical illness; maltreatment, harassment, threats , and discrimination, of any origin; family or partner stress; school, work (temporary employment, camouflaged slavery), housing (confinement in small apartments), economic, xenophobic stress, etc.).
The release of the aggression may be involuntary, as in the emotional outburst, or intentional, to impose oneself, get satisfaction, take revenge, free oneself from a threatening or asphyxiating burden, or obtain goods, power, and social, employment, economic, and political positions difficult to obtain legally, without capability or effort.
The perpetration of the violence finally occurs as a verbal, psychological or physical aggression, or a combination thereof.
I believe that a thorough and responsible analysis of the situation is urgently required. Things should be put in their place. If one really wants to reduce partner violence one has to be sincere and take measures not only against men’s violence, but also against women’s violence and the violence in general that is spreading in society.
What can, what must be done?
|Specific measures: De-genderize and de-ideologize laws, aid measures and the fight against partner violence and make them more effective.|
|1)||Not preventive punishment, but preventive assistance. Change preventive punishment against the male gender for help for both genders. Simple partner conflicts should not – with the “help” of ideologized or economically interested individuals or groups- trigger human tragedies. Instead of adding fuel to the fire and encourage unfounded criminal complaints or other destructive actions, better protection for the victim is achieved with measures of peacekeeping, mediation and guidance, and with new techniques such as location devices and tele-alarms. For this purpose there must be impartial centres, not only against male violence, but against any violence between people, consisting of psychologists, social workers, psychosocial educators, and lawyers, which can be attended by any maltreated person, whether man, woman, child or elderly, on equal terms and without humiliation, to be heard, to seek advice, be helped to recover or improve their self-esteem, ask for mediation/intervention, get support for reconciliation or -where appropriate- for the acceptance and overcoming of separation (which can also open new and better opportunities for both parties in conflict), without feeling defeated, or to file a criminal complaint. In case of objective danger the centre should have the authority to initiate ex officio police and judicial measures. The 24-hour telephone line 016 must assist all victims of violence, regardless of sex or age.|
|2)||Public economic, organizational, and care resources must be distributed to institutions and organizations that assist women, men, children and elderly in an equitable manner, and not to entities that abuse these resources for profit or to fund their particular ideological struggle, inciting hatred and generating more violence. These resources must be subject to the orders of the Government’s Act of 2003 and the Equality Act of 2007, which require a report on gender impact, in order to modify and correct them according to their effect on equality between men and women, without sexist bias as it happens today.
The scarcity and wide dispersion of the economic resources, on the other hand, and the further fragmentation of the aid by the organizations and institutions involved, make it difficult for victims to know where, from whom, and for what specific purpose they could seek help. This suggests the need for a financial, institutional and local concentration of the fight against violence and help for victims. For 2009 it was agreed to set up offices to attend victims of violence in 3 hospitals of the Valencian Community. These offices were scheduled to have the assistance of a psychologist or social worker, plus a lawyer, in order to provide, right from the hospital, a first guidance for eventual legal proceedings. Why not expand this initiative and focus the medical, psychosocial, family guidance, educational, legal etc. help, hitherto exercised by the health centres, public centres of family guidance/mediation (in Valencia even the government does not know where they are), and a chaotic myriad of organizations, institutions and administrations, in Comprehensive Centres for Coexistence, based in the principal health centres? Comprehensive Centres for Coexistence which – taking advantage of the opportunity – do not attend only “gender” violence, but the violence against people in general that is increasingly endangering the stability of society?
|3)||At least as long as the focussing on gender equality continues in society, every law and every administrative measure must be subjected to an unbiased test of its impact on equality, not only of “gender” equality and not only with respect to economic aspects, but everything which the equality of Article 14 of the Constitution refers to. The legislation on partner violence has to be adapted to the Constitution, the European legal framework, and the human rights enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The penalty for harassment (also sexual harassment), verbal and physical aggression and homicide must be equal for men and women. False accusations must be punished to the full extent of the law, and the incitement to make false accusations must be typified and be punished as the crime itself. Equality is not achieved by imposing a racist ideology and creating inequality. There is equality when gender doesn’t have social, legal, professional or political relevance, because everybody has the same rights and opportunities, and when the communication media not only lament the killing of a woman by a man, but also the killing of a man by a woman. The current “Comprehensive Law against Gender Violence” disqualifies Spain -and any other state with such legislation- as a democratic state of law.|
|4)||The communication media must stop lending themselves to the ideological struggle of a crazed gender group. They must report and record aggressions and violent deaths, whether men, women, elderly or children, seriously, independently, and in a balanced way, avoiding the promotion of sexist hatred or inciting imitation. The consumer pays for information and not for indoctrination (www.HumanRightsAction.org/information). Otherwise these media are just another promoter of violence.|
|Encourage all actions or omissions that create social justice and ensure the psychological and physical, cultural, social, and material well-being of people, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, or confession, thereby reducing their conflictivity. Develop, teach, propagate, and practise the culture of peaceful coexistence in the family, in the fields of education, training, work, entertainment, information, politics, faith, and in private and public life in general. Include in the compulsory education a simple code of universal, inter-ethnic and inter-faith ethics (www.HumanRightsAction.org/ethics). And, last but not least, why not change the Ministry for Equality into a Ministry for Equality and Coexistence, extending the meaning of equality to all people?|
There are many women who suffer violence from their partner or ex-partner. But there are also many men who are in the same situation.
The fight against “gender” violence cannot be won as long as the existence of female violence and the high level of violence in general in society are denied, and as long as each new death of a woman is rewarded with more money and more jobs for a corrupted feminist sexist group that takes advantage of the violent climate to add grist to its mills and stigmatize and criminalize the other half of humanity, heterosexual men.
Apart from the human and social cost, and apart from the direct public spending on this paranoid sexist crusade, has there been yet a calculation of the economic losses due to the destruction of the existence, projects and enterprises of the affected men and their impact on the Gross Domestic Product of Spain?.
According to Dr. Murray Strauss violence against women will not end until women also stop violence.
The current self-interested solutions are counterproductive and urgently need profound reflection, review and reorientation. So that there will be less suffering and fewer deaths of women, – and men, children and the elderly.
Copyright 2008/2011 Dr. Enno Winkler
Personal postscript (22.08.1910)
The above contribution was researched and written in its first version between 2007 and 2008 for the Spanish newspaper EL PAÍS (Madrid), but rejected on 12.12.2008 for lack of space, a scarcely credible pretext in view of the endless flow of belligerent feminist articles for which however there is space.
Despite the alleged lack of space, the edition DOMINGO of EL PAÍS published on 4.01.2009 a sort of response of 5 whole pages, headed by a photo of men’s feet wading through a puddle of blood, and the headlines “Why do they continue killing them” and “Blood of women.”
Given the non-publication, the article that tried to examine without bias the problem of “gender” violence and the violence in general in society, and on a personal level establish a way of rational communication with my wife, was made known in 2008 to the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Equality, the political parties, other communication media, and public and private organizations via post or email.
The Spanish newspaper EL PAÍS is hispanic leader in the feminist and homosexist disinformation. It discriminates, lies, manipulates and hides information and opinion, deceiving and offending the reader who pays for information and not for indoctrination. It incites hatred and, therefore, sexist violence, destroying couples, families and lives. Which is not only malicious, but also, I consider, criminal.
Some citations that exemplify the editorial line and sexist language of EL PAÍS:
1 —“… the little girls see that the poor kid has all his parts dangling in the air, with the resultant danger that they are bruised to communion wafers, amputated with a saw or stoned with lapis lazuli.” (Maruja Torres, EL PAÍS Semanal, 6.12.2009, p.8).
2 — “…it has been shown that false criminal complaints, PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome), (and) violence by women … are not true” (Miguel Lorente Acosta, Government Delegate for Gender Violence and paid by the Ministry of Equality, in an article typified as “Analysis”, EL PAÍS, 31.05.2010, p.39).
3 — “There are still many women who do not know that they are maltreated” (Maria Quintana, EL PAÍS, 02.01.2010, p.33) (that’s why Minister Bibiana Aido announced in June 2010 that she is going to intensify awareness campaigns.).
4 — “The SAP (Parental Alienation Syndrome) was invented in 1985 by a certain Gardner… (American psychiatrist. According to Gardner, if a child says his father has abused him, it is always because of SAP, that is because the mother, so perverse is she, has brainwashed the child.) This insane syndrome has been universally discredited by the scientific community.” (Rosa Montero in an article headlined “Terror”, as part of the campaign of EL PAÍS against joint custody. EL PAÍS, 08.06.2010, back cover).
5 — “The increased number of women killed by their partners or ex-partners coincides with neo-macho campaigns … Some of the murderers have committed suicide afterwards. They could have started with the latter, say I. “(Rosa Pereda, EL PAÍS, 15.06.2010, p.27).
It is exactly this last course of action, however, that the majority of dead maltreated men take, they commit suicide “before”. They take their lives and go in silence and alone, swelling the innocent statistics of suicides and accidents. And it occurs to nobody to ask why they did it. Criminals such as abusers, inciters of hatred, and real murderers do not usually commit suicide. Those who kill first and only then commit suicide often do so out of existential desperation and because of not being able to bear dying while the cause of their hell enjoys her “victory” and a new life. Pathological feminism doesn’t want to know or publish this.
I attach the modification of an Appeal published online on 10.12.2009:
Minister Aido announced in November 2009 that her ministry of Equality is working to increase the protection of children exposed to macho violence (an idea that was relaunched by the newspaper EL PAÍS on 22.08.2010, p. 26-27).
But why not also protect children exposed to violence from their mothers? According to the Child Maltreatment Report 2006 of the Ministry of Health of the United States, the aggressors in child maltreatment cases were in 39.9% the mothers, in 17.6% the fathers, and in 17.8% both. In cases of the death of children, the author was in 27.4% the mother, in 13.1% the father, and in 22.4% both.
For what purpose is the Ministry of Equality spending so much public money to hide, alter or falsify social realities and scientific data? And the communication media? Isn’t it their democratic duty to inform correctly and permit a serious discussion, instead of censor, manipulate and withhold information and opinion?
It is scandalous that a government that distributes millions in taxpayers’ money for the “alliance of civilizations”, in its own country spends even more to divide and confront the genders that formerly did not perceive themselves as differentethnicities, thus destroying equality and social cohesion. Is it a mere coincidence that the government does not invest anything in family mentoring/mediation?
Reading almost every day belligerent feminist publications inciting racial hatred against the male gender, and having fresh in the memory the media lynching of the young Diego P.V., who proved to be completely innocent and constitutes only the tip of the iceberg of maltreated and destroyed men, makes it essential to take action against this collective psychosis fostered by the government and the media. For example:
1) launch a billboard campaign throughout the country, to be paid for by the ministry of equality, with the slogan
Gender equality, yes!
Gender racism, no!
2) create an Institute of the Man and an Observatory of feminist violence, with a state budget equal to that of the Institute of the Woman and Observatory of macho violence (20 million Euros of public money).
3) get accustomed to speak of “feminist violence” and “homosexist violence” as counterpoint to the stereotype “machist violence”, already implanted in the minds by radical feminism / homosexism.
4) carry out awareness campaigns also for Spanish men who still do not know that they are maltreated, with funding provided by the ministry of equality.
5) enable on the Internet an open list of “I too was maltreated by a woman in my life”, in which men and boys all around the world who were once maltreated by a girlfriend/wife/mother/daughter/sister can sign up. This would correspond to thecompletely unscientific methodology that was employed by the UNO and the EU for its statistics on maltreatment of women by men. Men, however, were not asked by the UNO or the EU if they were once maltreated by women.
6) require equal treatment of undocumented foreigners. Not only women who denounce their male partners should obtain legal residency, but also men who denounce their female partners.
7) demand a law of equality of gender quotas for newsrooms, teaching staffs, university students, courts, health care, etc., where women are already majority. Half women, half men.
8) file criminal complaints against the Minister of Equality for incitement to sexist hatred and gender racism, and for embezzlement of public funds/violation of the norms of the law on the gender impact of public financial resources.
Maltreated man, maltreated children, and broken families clearly lack visibility. Let’s put it! And let’s replace in proportions of equality the sexist racists, opportunists, “heroes”, and useful fools who have abducted the editorial staffs, educational institutions, and administrations, from where they are poisoning society with impunity and inciting sexist hatred and thus violence.