We have been hearing the views of Iñigo Errejón on the accusations of male violence in all media and social media for a few weeks. In addition, many controversies are emerging: how we should denounce women, how our sexual relations should be, recognition, silences of those who know something ...

We want to reflect on the women who have decided to testify about the violence we have suffered.

Four years ago we had Cristina Fallaras at the conference Building the memory in the face of the Machistan violence. In this space, he taught us the difference between abstraction and identification mechanisms. How we talk abstractly about male or gender violence, which makes it difficult to understand violence and identify the cases that occur to us. In this context, the #proposal, with a antecedent such as #metoo, promoted the report of the violence that women suffer or suffer in our lives, overcoming the figures they know, share, incarnate and listen to, decustomize and do not generate empathy.

Already at that time, millions, yes, millions of women from different parts of the world responded to this hashtag. That thread that began to be thrown in 2018 is still an echo, not only on social media, but it has been the space in which the accusations against Errejón began to be made public.

As we said at the beginning, we want to think about the women who have testified to the violence experienced. Women who have not complained, in many places, are doubting, directly or indirectly, the way in which they have decided to publicize these violence. To maintain anonymity. These doubts reflect a hierarchy among the victims: those who denounce "good", those who "face", those who are good victims and those who "do things as they should".

Women who have faced violence are victims of violence, regardless of whether or not they have filed a complaint. The victims, not from the point of view of passivity or lack of prominence, but from the recognition of damage. Denunciation is a right of victims or survivors, but choosing the way forward is an autonomous decision of those who have experienced such violence. Whoever faces this violence decides how to do it, and he will also decide when sharing his narrative.

In this context, many women decide to count it in spaces and paths that feel safe, among friends, in feminist groups... or, as has been happening lately, in social networks, because they are speaker spaces, constructing and disseminating a collective story together with the testimonies of other people.

However, for the complainants it has also been a social judgment, their denunciation has gone viral in a few hours and from what has happened, access to details about the sexual tastes of adults or the debate about the times to make it public, have once again cast doubt on the voice of women, embarking on the analysis of strategies to deal with male violence in all political and social spheres.

We want to acknowledge the bravery of all these women, who are often questioned. Recognition of all those who have decided to break the silence, knowing that in most cases it is difficult to make public the testimonies of reports of colleagues, family members or friends. Recognizing their value for counting as they want, building this collective memory and facing the questioning of the women's testimonies. Recognizing the value of millions of women who have decided to count the violence they have suffered, moving from individual actions to the realization of male violence as a mechanism of control and control of women, which is still in force today.

It would be interesting to change the focus. Do not ask what happens to women not to denounce them, not to blame women again, but for public institutions to ask themselves what they are not doing right for women not to denounce.

According to data from the European Survey on Gender Violence, we see how in Europe less than 25% of women victims of physical or sexual violence reported. In this context, many researches show the revictimization of women in social, police or judicial services. The spaces that should be protected for victims and survivors become places of questioning, lack of adequate resources and reproduction of institutional violence.

In recent years, we have talked a lot more about truth, justice and reparation. This case, like many others, shows some progress, but also many shortcomings in the commitment to guarantee these rights for women.

Right, believe the voice of women. To call into question the global movement that puts on the table the continuous and everyday violence that we live by the mere fact of being a woman.

To commit to a feminist justice that focuses on the victim based on anti-punitive reflection and not on punishment, that does not re-victimize and that puts into practice agile and effective mechanisms against Machian violence in all its diversity.

Recognition of the right to reparation, recovery and full reparation and guarantee of non-repetition.

For all this, we should ask ourselves what institutional and social responsibility we have to work that reparation and transformation. And the demands of the victims and the survivors. That would be the first question to ask. What do you want? How would you feel observed? In some cases, public dissemination may be sufficient; in other cases, what is needed is to arrive at a judgment, to resign in time or to forgive clearly and publicly ... There will be as many choices as survivors.

In any case, in the construction of models of comprehensive care and in the definition of their demands for reparation in the face of violence, from the most common to the most extreme, the victims and the survivors should be protagonists and axes.

Let's see what belongs to others.

María Viadero Acha, Mugarik Gabe