FACULTAD DE LENGUAS
LICENCIATURA EN LENGUA Y LITERATURA INGLESAS
TRABAJO FINAL
“Ni Una Menos”:
The Conceptualization of Femicides on Facebook
Rocío Belén Piñero
Director de trabajo final: Dr. Javier N. Martínez R.
CÓRDOBA, ARGENTINA
Septiembre, 2017
ABSTRACT
The present study analyzes the conceptual frames of the phenomenon “femicide” underlying
Facebook interactions. This study brings together Critical Discourse Studies (2008), Cognitive
Semantics (Cienki, 2007; Dancygier & Sweetser, 2014; Fillmore, 2006; Minsky, 1975; Ziem,
2014) and Gender Studies (Bourdieu, 2001; Cabrera Ullivarri, 2011; Segato, 2010; Warner,
1994). The corpus consists of a “polylogue” (Bou-Franch, 2013) made up of forty nine
responses that appeared in the public Facebook event “Ni Una Menos Córdoba”, which invited
to massive demonstrations on June 3rd, 2015 in Argentina. Tentative conceptual frames (Cienki,
2007; Ziem, 2014) are reconstructed on the basis of a discourse analysis of the texts. The frames
are posited taking into account categories and roles that included participants, causes, scenarios
and solutions. The description and interpretation of these elements allowed me to identify
tendencies in the conceptualization of the internal logic of femicides that become manifested
in discourse. Among these tendencies, it is possible to mention the associations of femicides
and gender violence with sexist and patriarchal quotidian practices or with social violence in
general, the definition of femicides as misogynist or gender crimes, and the consideration of
femicides as the consequence of psychopathologies or of dysfunctional families. There are also
variations with respect to the scenario in which femicides take place: in the domestic field or
at any place, and inside or outside families and couples. The analysis of the mental
representations of femicides that underlie discursive production in social media can contribute
to visibilizing and raising awareness on a complex and systematic cultural phenomenon like
gender violence.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I would like to express my gratitude to Javier N. Martínez R., my mentor in this
journey, for his advice, patience and feedback made this work possible.
I am grateful to the State for giving me the opportunity to study at a public university
and be part of the first generation in my family to attend college and get a degree.
I would also like to acknowledge the support of the Agrupación Independiente de
Estudiantes de Lenguas (a.i.e.l.) for my motivation to become a researcher derives, in part,
from my participation and political involvement in that organization.
Finally, this thesis would not have been possible without the relentless company of my
friends, colleagues, family, and especially my parents and my partner, who have always been
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT... 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... 3
LIST OF FIGURES ... 5
LIST OF TABLES ... 5
CHAPTER 1: Introduction ... 6
The Research Problem ... 6
Literature review ... 8
Hypotheses ... 10
Theoretical framework ... 10
Objectives ... 16
Methodology ... 16
Corpus selection ... 17
Organization of the document ... 19
CHAPTER 2: Conceptual Frames Underlying Responses to #NiUnaMenos ... 20
Description of the Polylogue ... 20
Analysis ... 21
Femicides as the Consequence of Sexist and Patriarchal Social Practices. ... 21
Femicides as Gender Violence. ... 29
Femicides as Misogynist Crimes. ... 33
The Escalation of Domestic Violence and Psychopathological Conditions. ... 36
Femicides only as Observable Violence. ... 49
Homicides as the Consequence of Social Violence. ... 57
Summary of the Chapter ... 60
Interpretation: Competing Frames ... 62
Discussion ... 69
CHAPTER 4: Conclusions ... 72
REFERENCE LIST ... 74
APPENDIX ... 81
Corpus ... 81
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Progression of Argumentation of the Analyzed Responses……….20
LIST OF TABLES Table 1 ... 18
Table 2 ... 27
Table 3 ... 32
Table 4 ... 35
Table 5 ... 44
Table 6 ... 48
Table 7 ... 56
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
The Research Problem
According to the Observatorio de Femicidios en Argentina “Adriana Marisel
Zambrano”, directed by the Asociación Civil La Casa del Encuentro, statistical facts reveal
that “a woman is killed in our country every 30 hours” (2015). This study center argues that
the term Femicide is political; it is a denouncement of society´s naturalization of sexist violence. Femicide is one of the most extreme types of violence against women; it is the murder perpetrated by a man against a woman whom he takes as his property (2015, my translation1).
Between 2008 and 2015, 2094 femicides were perpetrated in Argentina and 2518 collateral
victims of these crimes, including children, were counted (Observatorio de Femicidios en
Argentina, 2015). However, as said by the Instituto de Políticas de Género “Wanda Taddei”,
as of February 2017, the number has grown, and almost 60 femicides have already been
committed in our country (Diario Registrado, 2017).
The public notoriety that the issue of femicides in Argentina has reached is striking,
especially in the mass media and social networks. Indeed, the unprecedented demonstrations
that went by the motto “Ni Una Menos” on June 3rd, 2015, were promoted by an ad hoc activist
group via the social media Facebook and Twitter with the hashtag #NiUnaMenos.
Demonstrators demanded to put a stop on the killing of women after several cases came to light
in 2015 (Notas, Rosales Zeiger, May 14, 2015; La Nación, Moscato, May 16, 2015). The
protests gathered hundreds of thousands of people of diverse ideological outlooks throughout
the entire Argentine territory rejecting violence against women and femicides—the most
socially agreed claim—and demanding the intervention of the State on this issue, among other
demands. Others demanded gender equality on every field, blamed sexism and the patriarchal
1 “El término Femicidio es político, es la denuncia a la naturalización de la sociedad hacia la violencia sexista. El Femicidio es una de las formas más extremas de violencia hacia las mujeres, es el asesinato cometido por un hombre hacia una mujer a quien considera de su propiedad.” (Observatorio de Femicidios en Argentina “Adriana Marisel Zambrano”, 2015)
system, and linked the homicides with deeper problems, e.g. sexual, psychological, economic,
political and symbolic types of violence (La Mañana de Córdoba, Soria, June 4, 2015). In the
same line, other demonstrators demanded a social, cultural and political change (Página 12,
Cecchi, June 4, 2015). As the topic generated social sensitivity for several weeks, people began
to express their opinions in favor or against the demonstrations, so the discourses that circulated
in the different media were quite varied. In the case of the social network Facebook, users
discussed the issue of the origins of and the reasons for the demonstrations, its potential
triviality, or the extent to which this cause is different from violence against men, to give some
examples (La Tribuna de los Sin Voz, May 15, 2015).
On these grounds, I am interested in analyzing the mental representations of femicide
that underlie public discourse via Facebook. Furthermore, I intend to analyze the tendencies in
the conceptualization of femicides, taking into account that there was a bombardment of
information in the weeks before the demonstrations, which favored the interaction among
individuals who had a multiplicity of stances in relation to the issue. It is in my interest to study
these representations in the computer-mediated interaction among subjects in virtual social
media, particularly in the public event section on Facebook that called a massive demonstration
through the slogan #NiUnaMenos. The Facebook event section conglomerated thousands of
people of diverse backgrounds, genders, ages and ideological outlooks—most of them
unknown to each other—who argued about the purpose of the demonstrations and expressed
their own stances towards the complexity of femicides and their relationships with other issues.
Hence, their interactions are interesting for what they reveal about conceptual configurations,
especially the conceptualization of femicides.
Having presented some of the main aspects of the topic, I formulate the following
research questions: How is the social phenomenon “femicide” represented in the discursive
that involve femicide structured? What discursive tendencies can be observed in the texts
through the analysis of frames?
Literature review
Studies on gender violence, sexist violence and femicides—the utmost expression of
violence against women—have their roots in a history linked to feminist movements around
the world, as a means to promote social change and resist and raise awareness of inequalities
and injustices perpetuated through power dynamics and imposed by the patriarchal system
(Munévar, 2012). These studies have been carried out by a multiplicity of disciplines, e.g.
anthropology (Lagarde, 2008; Segato, 2010), psychology (Kratje, 2013), sociology and legal
studies (Del Mas & Urtazún, 2012; Munévar, 2012) and discourse studies (Cameron, 2005;
West, Lazar & Kramarae, 1997; Wodak, 1997). As regards the latter, studies are mostly related
to the analysis of media coverage of femicides (Antezana Barrios & Lagos Lira, 2014) and
stereotypes, archetypes and objectification of women favored by hegemonic media (Bilbao &
Fernández López, 2015). There are also works dealing with the issue of violence against
women through the discursive analysis of polylogues, i.e. multi-authored and multi-participant,
virtual chains of comments that belong to digital media platforms allowing for commentary
(Bou-Franch, 2013), such as Facebook, YouTube or digital newspapers.
With respect to studies that integrate cognitive and discursive perspectives, Ziem (2014)
is a relevant antecedent to my work. The author carried out a corpus-based analysis in which
he applies the frame-semantic categories to determine the meaning of the metaphor
FINANCIAL INVESTORS ARE LOCUSTS at a time in which that metaphor became popular
in Germany through a political speech. According to him, frames are “corpus-linguistic “tool”
and a semantic representation format that allows a systematic description of the influence of
combines discourse analysis with frame analysis in order to find the “frequency of occurrence
of a linguistic element – in this case, predications” and analyze the ways in which that
frequency “affects the conceptual representation of linguistic units” (2014: 316).
Other works that are direct antecedents include Londoño Zapata (2012), who shows
that van Dijk has been working on a transdisciplinary, sociocognitive approach, mainly on the
study of racist ideology, prejudice and power. Van Dijk has made contributions to the study of
social representations (1994; 2006a; 2008a), the reconceptualization of context and its
imbrications with context models, situational models and mental models in discourse
comprehension and production (van Dijk, 1994; 2006a). Wodak (2006) also proposes a
theoretical framework to combine Critical Discourse Studies with sociocognitive theories. The
author focuses on the discursive study of prejudice and power through the analysis of frames,
schemas, Luhman’s mental models, event models, among other theoretical cognitive concepts.
As regards studies that apply Critical Discourse Analysis to the study of discourse
production in Computer Mediated Communication contexts (Herring, 2001), Bou-Franch and
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (2014a; 2014b) have explored this issue. The authors have analyzed
YouTube polylogues in order to study polarization in relation to patriarchal violence, identity
construction, sexual and gender diversity and violence discourses. Their theoretical framework
was based on van Dijk’s ideas regarding in-group and out-group representation (van Dijk,
1998, 2006b). Chiluwa and Ifukor (2015) have been carrying out discourse analysis of a
hashtag campaign on Facebook and Twitter associated with the claim for the freedom of
kidnapped Nigerian girls. Their aim was to analyze “the discursive features of this campaign
and the role of affective stance in the evaluation of social actors in the campaign discourse”
(2015: 1). These antecedents have in common that the authors have worked within an integrated
theoretical framework that included gender studies and discourse studies in Computed
Since works integrating cognitive, discourse and gender perspectives are scarce, the
study I will carry out is expected to make some contributions on the interdisciplinary
integration of cognitive studies, discourse analysis and gender studies to analyze the issue of
femicides and violence against women in computer mediated contexts.
Hypotheses
- Considering that our knowledge of the world is structured in conceptual frames that get
manifest in language and discourse, it is possible to conceive that frames involving the
concept of “femicide” can be posited and described on the basis of the analysis of actual
texts.
- Given that in computer-mediated contexts, particularly in the “Ni Una Menos”
Facebook event section inviting citizens to the demonstrations in Cordoba, Argentina,
on June 3rd, 2015, stances regarding the issue of femicides in Argentina are likely to be
heterogeneous and polarized, it is conceivable that different and even competing frames
will be involved in the discursive representation of femicide.
- Taking into account that individuals’ frames influence and are influenced by
experiences, including discourse production and interpretation as well as the
sociocultural and historical context, it is possible to hypothesize that discursive trends
involving stances towards femicides can be detected through the analysis of frames.
Theoretical framework
The general approach I will follow in my research is a combination of Cognitive
Semantics (Cienki, 2007; Dancygier & Sweetser, 2014; Minsky, 1975; Ziem, 2014), Critical
Discourse Studies (van Dijk, 2008b) and Gender Studies (Warner, 1994; Bourdieu, 2001;
representation are complex phenomena that need to be interpreted from a multiplicity of
perspectives (Cabrera Ullivarri & Cristi Contreras, 2011), I will take the notion of femicide as
a socio-political category.
I will ground my research mainly on Minsky’s (1975) and Fillmore’s (2006) cognitive
approaches to the study of conceptual organization. As Dancygier & Sweetser state, “[t]he term
frame was introduced to linguistics by Fillmore (1982; 1985) to represent a ‘prefab’ chunk of
knowledge structure” (2014: 17; italics and inverted commas in the original). Fillmore
considers a frame as
any system of concepts related in such a way that to understand any one of them you have to understand the whole structure in which it fits; when one of the things in such a structure is introduced into a text, or into a conversation, all of the others are automatically made available. I intend the word ‘frame’ as used here to be a general cover term for the set of concepts variously known, in the literature on natural language understanding, as ‘schema’, ‘script’, ‘scenario’, ‘ideational scaffolding’, ‘cognitive model’, or ‘folk theory’ (in 2006: 373).
In other words, frames are mental structures made up of conceptual associations that can be
understood as “a general format for knowledge representation” (Minsky, 1975, in Ziem, 2014:
20). I will apply the concept of frame as a means to understand the ways in which individuals
conceptualize femicides, how they interpret these phenomena and how they relate them to other
issues, concepts or events in discourse. The concepts involved in the process of
conceptualization are all by-products of an individuals’ frame of an entity, an event, an
experience or any subject matter. Hence, the analysis of frames contributes to the understanding
of a subject’s interpretation of the world.
Expressions in a text can trigger evocations of certain frames that are representations of
certain idealized situations that individuals experience in the real world. Frames are related to
the expectations subjects have of certain situations, objects, entities, people, institutions or
events, as well as associations and relations among concepts, which are constructions of
projected worlds deriving from their experiences (Ziem, 2014). That is, they are not faithful
(Lakoff, 1987) in that both are idealized and “ignore many possible aspects of the real world”
(Cienki, 2007: 177).
Following Minsky’s ideas (1975, in Ziem, 2014), Ziem argues that frames are
composed of “slots”, which are the “potential reference points (that) correspond to the
predication potential of the expression that the frame evokes” (2014: 261). This means that a
“frame” approach also enables the usage of labeling tools for the organization of the frame.
These “slots” are empty, so they are occupied or specified with “values”, which are concepts.
These slots can take the form of semantic roles such as Event, Agent, Patient, Attribute, Action,
Cause, Consequence or Solution, as well as the different assessments and values attributed to
a particular event, which in this case will be that of femicides. Hence, the analysis and
reconstruction of frames as part of a cognitive-discursive approach provides insightful material
to posit the organization, and internal logic of conceptualizations.
With respect to Critical Discourse Studies, van Dijk (2009) states that it is “not a
method, but rather a critical perspective, position or attitude within the discipline of
multidisciplinary Discourse Studies” (2009: 62, emphasis in the original). Van Dijk (2009)
understands the concept of discourse as “a multidimensional social phenomenon”, which can
be
a linguistic (verbal, grammatical) object (meaningful sequences or words or sentences), an action (such as an assertion or a threat), a form of social interaction (like a conversation), a social practice (such as a lecture), a mental representation (a meaning, a mental model, an opinion, knowledge), an interactional or communicative event or activity (like a parliamentary debate), a cultural product (like a telenovela) or even an economic commodity that is being sold and bought (like a novel). (67).
In the same line, the author considers discourse a “social construction” and a “practical, social
and cultural phenomenon” (van Dijk, 2005, in Londoño Zapata, 2012: 23). This assertion
implies that, apart from considering the “syntactic, semantic, stylistic and rhetorical
dimensions” (Londoño Zapata, 2012: 23), it is necessary to take into account that “texts are
languages) and social practices (including orders of discourse) on the one hand, and social
agents on the other” (Fairclough, 2003: 38). In Critical Discourse Studies, interlocutors are
considered social, political and ideologized subjects with identities, beliefs and social roles,
who interpret, act on and transform social reality (Londoño Zapata, 2012: 24). In this sense,
analyzing discourse from multiple perspectives involves the understanding of discourse as
social and communicative practices (Kress, 2010: 114) that are inextricably bound to social
situations and to interlocutors’ interpretations of the world, ideological outlooks, and cognitive,
cultural, social, historical and political aspects.
The incorporation of a gender-based theoretical framework in this study will involve
the application of concepts related to gender relations and practices in general and to gender
violence and femicides in particular. The first notion is the patriarchal system. Patriarchy is the
symbolic system that maintains the social order and hierarchical positions as regards genders
and it is “the unconscious structure that drives affections and distributes values among
characters in the social scenario” (Segato, 2010: 14; my translation2). The acceptance of
patriarchy as the natural order also involves the acceptance of naturalized social, political,
cultural, symbolic forms of gender violence and masculine domination (Bourdieu, 2001). This
means that the patriarchal system already constitutes gender violence in itself, and it is the root
of it. This historical male supremacy stands over symbolic social mandates that encompass the
imposition, legitimation and acceptance of pre-established roles, practices and values. Segato
(2010) sustains that “mandates” refers “to the imperative and to the necessary condition for the
reproduction of genders as a structure of relations between positions marked by a hierarchical
differential and a paradigmatic instance of all the other status orders—races, classes, nations
2 “…la estructura inconsciente que conduce los afectos y distribuye valores entre personajes del escenario social.” (Segato, 2010: 14).
or regions” (2010: 13; my translation3). In this sense, the feminine gender has historically been
subordinate with respect to the masculine gender, which assumes a superordinate role and a
more powerful position in most social fields.
Segato considers that it is important both to break the dichotomies masculine-feminine,
male-female and men-women, and to “separate the biological dimension from the, added,
cultural dimension, that of ‘gender’” (Segato, 2010: 62; my translation4). Segato, following
Rubin (1975), adds that “gender” is “the variable, cultural and historical construction of a set
of performances and predispositions that are ideologically associated with the duality of
genders due to the dominant representations” (2010: 62; my translation5) that derive from the
dualism of biological sex. As for the concept of “heteronormativity” (Warner, 1994), it
involves the naturalized norms and assumptions rooted in patriarchy that regulate the social
order. This set of norms determine the default relations between one’s sex and anatomical
characteristics and one’s gender, sexuality—heterosexuality—, behavior, practices and roles.
Preciado (El País, 2010) insists on the idea that “gender is violence in itself, that the norms of
masculinity and femininity, as we know them, produce violence” (my translation6).
As regards the concept of femicide, Radfort and Russell (1992) define it as the
misogynist killing of women perpetrated by men, and consider it as hate crime and as a type of
sexual violence, a phenomenon that is associated with cultural, historical and political frames
of patriarchal Western societies. Current discussions in the academic and political fields are
related to the differentiation between “femicide” and “feminicide”. In the context of the
Mexican crisis regarding femicides, Lagarde (2005) considers that the second term is “the set
3 “…al imperativo y a la condición necesaria para la reproducción del género como estructura de relaciones entre posiciones marcadas por un diferencial jerárquico e instancia paradigmática de todos los otros órdenes de estatus—racial, de clase, entre naciones o regiones.” (Segato, 2010: 13).
4 “…separa[r] el plano biológico de la dimensión cultural, agregada, del ‘género’…” (Segato, 2010: 62).
5 “…la construcción variable, cultural e histórica, del conjunto de comportamientos y predisposiciones ideológicamente asociados con la dualidad de géneros por las representaciones dominantes.” (Segato, 2010: 62). 6 “Creo que el género mismo es la violencia, que las normas de masculinidad y feminidad, tal y como las conocemos, producen violencia.” (Preciado in El País, 2010)
of crimes against humanity, including crimes, kidnappings and disappearances of girls and
women in an institutional collapse. It is a fracture in a rule of law favoring impunity. That is
why feminicides are crimes of State” (2005:155; emphasis in the original; my translation7).
This means that the concept of feminicide implies that mainly the State is responsible for the
systematic and massive killing of women. Close to Lagarde’s definition, Segato (2006) adds
that they can be considered as corporate and “idiosyncratic crimes” that result from
asymmetrical power relations and the territorialization of the female body. For the purposes of
this study,I will not make such distinction and just refer to the killing of women as “femicide”.
Cabrera Ullivarri and Cristi Contreras (2011) incorporate new sociological aspects to the
traditional definitions of femicide, its causes and potential perpetrators, and include it as a
manifestation of gender violence:
It is a way of masculine domination, power and/or control that ends in a woman’s death, regardless of the way, the place or the weapon with which the crime is committed, the victim’s age or the murderer’s sex (…) We take as femicides women’s suicides provoked by recurrent abuses and/or any other type of violence (economic, sexual, physical, psychological), perpetrated by one or more men and/or women, and based on the types domination mentioned above. The causes of femicide are: verbal and physical abuses; physical and emotional violence; jealousy; control, attacks and intimidation; torture; vengeance; slavery; food denial; harassment, sexual assault and rape; forced heterosexuality; unnecessary gynecological surgery and/or genital mutilation; cosmetic surgery and/or unnecessary plastic surgery (2011; my translation8).
As the authors argue, femicides have multiple causes related to the different types of gender
violence, and agency is not limited to subjects who perceive themselves as men.
7 “[E]l conjunto de delitos de lesa humanidad que contienen los crímenes, secuestros y las desapariciones de niñas y mujeres en un cuadro de colapso institucional. Se trata de una fractura del Estado de derecho que favorece la impunidad. Por eso, el feminicidio es un crimen de Estado.” (Lagarde, 2005: 155)
8“Es una forma de dominación, poder y/o control masculino que termina con la muerte de la mujer, sin importar
la forma, el lugar y el arma con la que se produce el crimen, ni la edad de la víctima, ni el sexo del femicida. Los femicidios no presuponen necesariamente una relación previa del algún tipo entre los implicados. Incluimos como femicidios los suicidios de mujeres que son provocados por reiterados abusos y/o cualquier forma de violencia (económica, sexual, física, psicológica) perpetrada por uno o más hombres y/o mujeres, basadas en las formas de dominación mencionadas. Serán causas del femicidio: Abusos verbales y físicos; Golpizas físicas y emocionales; Acusaciones de celos; Control, Asaltos e Intimidación; Tortura; Venganza; Esclavitud; Negación de la comida; Acoso, Abuso y Violación Sexual; Heterosexualidad forzada; Operaciones ginecológicas innecesarias y/o Mutilación genital; Operaciones en nombre del embellecimiento y/o cirugías plásticas innecesarias. (Cabrera Ullivarri & Cristi Contreras, 2011: 14)”
Objectives
General objectives
- To promote the study of femicides and their representation from an interdisciplinary
perspective, including Cognitive Semantics, Discourse Studies and Gender Studies.
- To advance the application of the theoretical constructs of Cognitive Semantics to
the study of discourse.
Specific objectives
- To establish how frames about femicides are organized.
- To account for the discursive production of speakers in relation to the issue of
femicides in the “Ni Una Menos” Facebook event section in the days before the
demonstrations in Córdoba, Argentina, by studying the configuration of underlying
frames from a discourse perspective.
- To describe discursive tendencies by analyzing the proposed frames on femicides.
Methodology
I have followed an inductive approach and a qualitative methodology to carry out my
research. I have analyzed and interpreted the interlocutors’ discursive production in the
polylogue that appeared in the “Ni Una Menos” Facebook event section. On the basis of the
contents of the texts, I reconstructed the representational structures called “frames”. I have
concentrated on classifications, causes, consequences, subjects involved and their roles,
internal and external influential aspects, related issues, among other aspects that I have come
across while doing the research analysis. The following step involved a description of the
discursive tendencies in the polylogue or chain, considering that the polylogue I have chosen
relationships between propositions and lexical relations reveal frames that structure the
conceptualization of one aspect of reality, i.e. femicides.
Corpus selection
In an open-to-public Facebook event section, polylogues are initiated by participants
who want to comment on the purpose of the event or any related issue, and the post is open to
other participants’ voluntary comments. Subjects can interact with each other, generate
responses or make reference to other participants’ contributions in these posts. The fact that the
event was “open-to-public” indicates that all Facebook users can have unrestricted access to its
description, and can post a text, make comments and invite other users to the event. In its
Event’s policies, Facebook defines a Public Event as an event that is “visible to anyone on or
off Facebook. Anyone can see things like the event description, photos, event discussion and
videos” (Facebook, 2017). The stances of the texts in this polylogue are quite heterogeneous,
considering that massive event invitations have the potential of reaching a considerable amount
of subjects. It is relevant to say that the subjects that interact in the postings are, in general,
adults unknown to each other, of a wide age range and of diverse gender identities, sexual
identities, ideological outlooks and social positions.
For this research, I have selected one polylogue from the “Ni Una Menos” Facebook
event section that invited citizens to the demonstrations on June 3rd, 2015. This Facebook event
invitation was created in May, 2015, and there were more than a hundred thousand people
invited. The polylogue has the characteristic of being a virtual interaction among subjects in
the week before the demonstration, i.e. between May 26th and June 3rd. Hence, the corpus is
composed of fifty texts that function as contributions by different participants in a real
communicative situation.The total amount of Facebook users participating in the polylogue is
The following table presents the categories used to classify responses: Argumentative
Responses, Meta-discursive Responses, Digressive Responses and Repeated Responses.
Table 1
Distribution of Responses9
Type of Response Total
Argumentative 32
Metadiscursive 8
Digressive 8
Repeated 1
TOTAL 49
With respect to Argumentative Responses, text producers present their arguments in
agreement or disagreement with the stance and arguments expressed in the triggering text. The
focus is mainly on the ideas in the text and not on the quality of its production. Meta-discursive
Responses pass value judgment on the quality of the content of the triggering text, and do not
provide arguments in favor or against stances. Responses that only include short expressions
like “comparto” (“shared”), “bellísimo” (“beautiful”), “aplausos” (“claps”) or “gracias”
(“thanks”), are also included in this category since they do not develop an argument to support
it. In Digressive Responses, the content of these responses is unrelated to ideas proposed in the
triggering text or to the issue of analysis in this study. In Responses N° 38, N° 39 and N° 40,
for example, two participants deviated from the main topic and made comments related to their
lack of knowledge on the issue. They also refer to short exchanges among Facebook users over
an unrelated issue. The Repeated Response is a response that appeared twice due to failures in
the system.
Organization of the document
In Chapter 2, I present the framings of Femicide I have identified in the polylogue.
Chapter 3 deals with the interpretation of the analysis from a critical perspective. In Chapter 3,
the results from the study are also discussed in relation to the ideas that ground this thesis. The
final chapter presents the main conclusions deriving from the analysis and the interpretation of
CHAPTER 2: Conceptual Frames Underlying Responses to #NiUnaMenos
Description of the Polylogue
As was stated previously, a polylogue is a multi-authored virtual chain of comments
co-constructed by multiple participants in digital media platforms (Bou-Franch, 2013). The
following figure shows the progression of responses in the polylogue with respect to their
adherence or opposition to the stance in the Trigger, that is, the text that initiates the Facebook
discussion. Only Argumentative Responses—the analyzed responses— were included in the
graphic.
Figure 1: Progression of Argumentation of the Analyzed Responses
The largest dot in Figure 1 represents the Trigger of the polylogue, that is, the point of
departure in the exchange of arguments. Each of the small dots refers to an Argumentative
Response in the order in which they were produced in the chain. At the top are the responses
that support the stance in the Trigger, and the responses presenting arguments against the
Trigger are placed at the bottom of the graphic. Rising and falling lines indicate that the
polylogue responses were characterized by a continuous exchange of arguments and
counterarguments among the text producers. Responses were categorized as being in favor of
the Trigger when they presented explicit adherence to the stance in the trigger and when the
arguments included coincided with the ideas in the Trigger of the polylogue. With respect to Trigger
Responses in favor of the Trigger Responses against the Trigger
responses against the Trigger, the criterion used was the opposite of the one for supportive
responses. In the following section, I will develop the analysis of the corpus I have selected.
Analysis
In this section, I present the four framings of Femicide detected in the polylogue:
1) femicides as the consequence of sexist and patriarchal social practices; 2) femicides as the
consequence of the escalation of domestic violence and psychopathological conditions; 3)
femicides only as observable violence, and 4) homicides as the consequence of social violence.
They are expressed in the texts of at least two participants in the polylogue, and they are
characterized by different aspects of femicides and gender violence from different perspectives.
In each case, I present the starting response that manifests each frame. In all of them, there is a
discursive analysis of the response and the proposed frame for that response. The analysis of
the frames and the texts that manifest them are presented in the order in which they were
mentioned above. The order in which they are presented responds to the need to place the
frames closer to or farther from the Trigger’s frame, which is the first one that is presented.
After the corresponding analysis, there is a description of the corresponding tentative
frame. Each frame is made up of the slots Event, Scenario, Participants, Roles, Causes and
Solutions, which are filled with the “values” (Ziem, 2014) assigned in each case.
Femicides as the Consequence of Sexist and Patriarchal Social Practices
On May 26th, 2015, a Facebook user posted a quote retrieved from the Facebook page
“Maternar en tribu”. What follows is the analysis of the triggering post of a polylogue on the
The Trigger of the Polylogue
Carina Martinot Estevanez10
26 de mayo a las 14:58
Piden ni una menos, pero mientras la hija mujer ayuda en la cocina, el varon mira los simpson con el papa. Piden ni una menos, pero la nena hace danza y el nene juega futbol,
Piden ni una menos pero el papà no cambia ni un pañal porque llega cansado de trabajar, como si estar en casa con lxs niñxs no fuera trabajo.
Piden ni una menos, pero mamà va a todos lados con lxs niñxs y papà ni a la plaza "porque no se las arregla"
Piden ni una menos, pero al nene se le pide que no sea bruto al jugar "porque es una nena" pero con los varones puede jugar a "las piñas" como si no fuera violento.
Piden ni una menos pero a los 11 les compran los zapatos de taco, festejan cumpleaños "Spa".
Piden ni una menos pero sin preguntar que quieren, regalan muñecas a las niñas y naves espaciales a los varones...
Piden ni una menos pero al hijo varon se le pide que "proteja a su hermana" como si la proteccion no debiera ser mutua, pero a la nena se le pide "que le haga caso" a su hermano varon....
Piden ni una menos... pero les dicen "princesas" a las nenas pero al varon "mi rey"
Antes de pedir, deberiamos REPENSAR cuanto de todo esto que pasa es nuestra responsabilidad. Quienes tenemos hijos varones tenemos un gran desafio por delante. Los varones no son "mas rebeldes" "mas traviesos" " mas desobedientes" .... no... a los varones se les da mas libertad, mas poder.... y a las mujeres se las cria obedientes, sumisas y debiles mirando a las princesas de Disney, hipersexualizandolas mirando Violetta, diciendoles que se peinen, se arreglen, no se tiren al piso...
Si realmente queremos q mo haya #niunamenos criemos varones sensibles, no machos. Mujeres q conozcan y acepten su ciclisidad no histéricas.
Eduquemos varones para no violar en vez de mujeres cuidadosas para no ser violadas compartido del muro de Maternar en tribu.
[They ask for not one less, but while the female child helps in the kitchen, the male child watches the simpsons with his dad.
They ask for not one less, but the girl takes dancing lessons, and the boy plays football,
They ask for not one less, but the father doesn’t change de diapers because he comes back tired from work, as if being at home with the kids wasn’t a job.
They ask for not one less, but the mother goes everywhere with the kids and the father not even to the square “because he can’t manage”
They ask for not one less, but the boy is required not to be rude when playing “because she is a girl” but boys can play “fistfight” as if that wasn’t violent.
They ask for not one less but at 11 they buy them high heels, and they celebrate “Spa” birthdays.
They ask for not one less but without asking them what they want, they give dolls to girls and spacecrafts to boys as presents…
They ask for not one less but the male child is asked to “protect his sister” as if protection didn’t have to be mutual, but the girl is asked to “obey” her brother…
They ask for not one less… but they call girls “princesses” but the boy is called “my king”
Before demanding, we should RETHINK how much of all this is our responsibility. Those of us who have male children have a great challenge before us. Boys aren’t “more rebellious” “more mischievous” “more disobedient”… No… Boys are given more freedom, more power… and women are raised to be obedient, submissive and weak, watching Disney princesses, being hypersexualized watching Violetta, telling them to style their hair, to get dolled up, not to lie down on the floor…
If we really want #notoneless, let’s raise sensitive men, not machos. Women that know and accept their cycles, not hysterical ones.
Let’s educate men not to rape instead of educating women to be cautious so as not to be raped Shared from the wall of Maternar en tribu)]11
10All Facebook users’ names and profile pictures have been modified so as to preserve their identity. 11 All translations of responses are mine.
The Facebook user that initiates the polylogue, Carina Martinot Estevanez, is not the
author of the content of the text, but there is appropriation of it by incorporating that text into
her post. Hence, by deciding to recontextualize it, the subject is, to a certain degree, responsible
for the circulation of the content since this recontextualized text develops a whole new
spectrum of diverse meanings. Considering that there is not any comment added to the quoted
piece of discourse, there is adherence to the discursive content of the text.
The first part of this text is characterized by its parallel structures, which include two
coordinated clauses linked by the coordinating conjunction “pero” (“but”), and which is
preceded by the repeated statement "[p]iden ni una menos” (“they ask for not one less”). The
second clause of each sentence includes specific quotidian events for girls and boys. The two
clauses establish a contradiction between what society demands in discourse—to put a stop on
femicides—and what society actually does in practice. To expand on this idea, there is
exemplification of habitual and naturalized practices regarding gender roles for adults and
children that are associated with patriarchy. These practices are attributed to social groups that
accept and perform them, but that deny their sexist nature at the same time. The conjunction
“pero” signals that there is an opposition between the rejection of gender violence and social
practices. The chain of statements “piden ni una menos, pero…” (“they ask for not one less,
but…”) constitute paradoxes since the rejection of gender violence and the adherence to gender
equality involves that subjects’ social practices should not perpetuate power relations between
men and women. However, the instantiations of violent gender practices stated in the clauses
after the conjunction “pero” contradict the efforts to achieve the gender equality that is claimed.
These paradoxes convey the idea that there is denial and ignorance of the complexity of the
phenomenon of gender violence, and that it would be too difficult to reduce femicides if
violence ingrained in habitual gendered practices is not eradicated. In this sense, the concrete
statement "pero la nena hace danza y el nene juega al fútbol” (“but the girl takes dancing
lessons, and the boy plays football”). That example is associated with the expected,
stereotypical habitual actions and games for girls and boys.
The statement "pero al hijo varon [sic] se le pide que 'proteja a su hermana' como si la
protección no debiera ser mutua, pero a la nena se le pide 'que le haga caso' a su hermano varon
[sic]..." (“but the male child is asked to ‘protect his sister’ as if protection didn’t have to be
mutual, but the girl is asked to ‘obey’ her brother”) is related to the dominant and submissive
roles that children assume since they are little. In relation to the connection between femicides
with gender practices, Bourdieu posits that
The biological appearances and the very real effects that have been produced in bodies and minds by a long collective labour of socialization of the biological and biologicization of the social combine to reverse the relationship between causes and effects and to make a naturalized social construction ('genders' as sexually characterized habitus) appear as the grounding in nature of the arbitrary division which underlies both reality and the representation of reality and which sometimes imposes itself even on scientific research. (Bourdieu, 2001: 3)
These expected roles and practices constitute the social mandates that reproduce the gender
order, and, as a consequence, perpetuate the asymmetrical power relationship between genders
(Segato, 2010).
As I have said previously, in this text, examples of stereotypical practices, roles and
attributes are included to be questioned. In many instances, the text producer resorts to other
voices’ ideas, which are generally the hegemonic ones, as a point of departure in order to refute
them. The text producer argues that in a patriarchal culture, girls are conceived as defenseless
and vulnerable individuals that need the protection of strong and protective masculine subjects.
In these cases, the instantiations described in the text reveal cultural paradoxes in relation to
what is considered unrelated to the issue of femicides or gender violence in general, such as
the ways in which children are raised, and what is permitted and considered “natural” or
expected behavior for each gender by the opponent voices, which are subtly represented in the
Besides, apart from the roles performed, there is reference to the expected attributes of
girls and boys. Boys are expected to be “mas [sic] rebeldes” (“more rebellious”), “mas [sic]
traviesos” (“more mischievous”), “mas desobedientes” (“more disobedient”) and have “mas
[sic] libertad” (“more freedom”) and “mas [sic] poder” (“more power”), while girls are
expected to be “sumisas” (“submissive”), “debiles” [sic] (“weak”), “obedientes” (“obedient”)
and hypersexualized. These last examples that are between inverted commas are inclusions of
hegemonic voices. They are preceded by the adverb “no”, which is used to deny the content of
the quotes. For example, in the fragment “[l]os varones no son "mas [sic] rebeldes" "mas [sic]
traviesos" " mas [sic] desobedientes" .... no... a los varones se les da mas [sic] libertad, mas
[sic] poder...” (“Boys aren’t “more rebellious” “more mischievous” “more disobedient”…
No… Boys are given more freedom, more power…”), the text producer rejects what is between
inverted commas, namely, the hegemonic representation of boys, and presents the reasons why
boys are expected to assume powerful and active roles since childhood. The assumption that
boys grow to be powerful and dominant implies that society as an agent gives boys—patients—
a privileged position because of the patriarchal system. Society as an agent models children as
to what is socially expected. The urgent request to the opposing voice through inverted commas
also emphasizes the contradiction in the lexical items generally used to describe the expected
behavior of each gender. Moreover, the adverb “mas” [sic] (“more”) indicates that there is a
comparison between boys’ and girls’, which implies that there exists a binary division of gender
roles proposed by the hegemonic voice. Negation in this case is used to refute the opponent’s
argument, which is that girls and boys develop those attributes and capacities naturally, and
that those differences are clear-cut and biologically set. On the other hand, the text producer’s
stance is that, if boys and girls behave like that, it is a problem of upbringing and not because
The third person plural marks in verbs, as in “piden ni una menos” (“they ask for not
one less”), “regalan muñecas” (“the give dolls as presents”), “les dicen ‘princesas’” (“they call
girls ‘princesses’”), indicate that the actions are attributed to other subjects, in which the text
producer is not included. Reference to “they” implies the inclusion of an opposing voice whose
stances may be associated with a generalization of hegemonic normative behavior, and a
detachment from sexist discourse. As regards perspective, in the last part of the text, there is a
change of person in “deberíamos REPENSAR” (“we should RETHINK”), “quienes tenemos
hijos varones” (“those of us who have male children”), “si realmente queremos que no haya
#niunamenos” (“if we really want #notoneless”) and “criemos varones sensibles” (let’s raise
sensitive men”). In these cases, the change from third person, which is used in the first part of
the text, to first person in the last part implies a change from exclusion to inclusion. Through
the use of first person plural, the text producer includes herself in the group that demands for a
social change in the way children are raised, including education without stereotyping, binary
and static roles, or gender violence. The text producer stays at a distance while describing the
instantiations of everyday gender, patriarchal violence.
There are at least two opposing voices regarding the analysis of gender violence in
general and of the causes and effects of femicides in particular. One of these voices is the one
that associates femicides with deeper, complex phenomena related to gender violence and the
patriarchal system. In this sense, there could be a link between the most extreme effect, i.e.
femicides, and a system of complex causes that are naturalized and rooted in everyday
socio-cultural practices described in the text like the discrimination between girls’ and boys’ types of
games, toys and clothes. The opposition to the pathologization of gender-based violence
through the categorization of women as “histéricas” (“hysterical”) is another example of a
counterargument to labels that circulate in patriarchal discourse. The presence of another voice
other voice represented in the text also acknowledges femicides as a problem and claims for a
stop on them. Nonetheless, in practice, it implies denial or at least ignorance that there is a
relationship between the killing of women and the social practices involving stereotypical
binary roles that are ingrained in upbringing. In the fragment “[a]ntes de pedir, deberiamos
REPENSAR cuanto [sic] de todo esto que pasa es nuestra responsabilidad” (“Before
demanding, we should RETHINK how much of all this is our responsibility”), there is
attribution of major responsibility to society, including the text producer herself, in the way
society imposes gender roles on children and subjects are expected to assume and perform
them. In relation to the last point, associating femicides with subtle, naturalized and symbolic
practices implies that gender violence and femicides are causal, systematic events rooted in
sociocultural practices.
In the following table there is the basis of the frame that comprises the main roles and
relations among concepts underlying the text previously analyzed in relation to the rationale
behind femicides. The table is organized in terms of the Event—Femicide—, the Scenario in
which it takes place, Participants involved and their Roles, the Causes and the Solutions.
Table 2
Trigger’s Frame: Femicides as the Consequence of Sexist and Patriarchal Social Practices
Event Scenario Roles/Participants Causes Solutions
Femicide Domestic field Heteronormative families
Agents: Machos
Indirect Agents: parents and society Patients: Women Indirect Patients: children
Gender violence Naturalization of violent gender practices Patriarchy
Denaturalization of gender roles Change of gender practices
Table 2 represents the Trigger’s frame for femicide. The Causes can be simplified to
violent gender practices learnt since childhood and the patriarchal system, i.e. structural and
games, clothing and behavior according to gender constitute some of the underlying causes of
gender violence, and, eventually, of femicides. A femicide is represented as taking place at the
domestic field—home—, in which there are Direct and Indirect Agents and Patients. Direct
Agents are machos who commit the murder. Women are conceptualized as Direct Patients, that
is, they are the ones who are murdered. The utilization of the motto “ni una menos” (“Not one
less”)—is interpreted as not one more woman killed. The use of the grammatical feminine
gender in “una” already implies that it is women who are killed and not men. Indirect Agents
and Patients refer to participants involved in the leading circumstances towards the most
extreme instantiation of gender violence—femicide. In the case of Indirect Agents, society in
general and parents in particular in heteronormative families are responsible for imposing
stereotyped gender roles to children, who are the Indirect Patients since eventually they may
become either direct perpetrators (Agents) or victims (Patients) because of the ways in which
they are brought up. In this sense, as Preciado (El País, 2010) argues, the logic of gender is
violent in itself because it is in the practices of the feminine and masculine roles where gender
violence is produced. The solutions proposed are the denaturalization of gender roles and the
change of gender practices from childhood. This frame is also shared by some of the
participants who agree with the stance presented in the Trigger, though in some instances there
are subtle divergences that will also be described in this study.
Although I have considered the existence of Direct and Indirect Agents and Patients, it
is possible to identify two different frames in this text. The first one encompasses the event
femicide, i.e. the event in which a woman is killed. The other frame precedes and comprises
the latter in the sense that it constitutes a cause. That frame is the frame Upbringing, which
takes place in heteronormative families, and in which the naturalization of gender roles and
violent practices take place (Warner, 1994). The Agents or Patients in the frame Upbringing
responsibility for femicides, and that is the reason why they are Indirect Agents. On the framing
of upbringing, children are Direct Patients in the sense that society and parents—Direct
Agents—impose gendered models on them.
Femicides as Gender Violence
Next, let us focus on one example of a Response supporting the stance expressed in the
Trigger that is also relevant for the progression of the polylogue as regards argumentation. In
this case, the text producer focuses on more explicit instantiations of gender violence to support
the need for a demonstration to visibilize the issue.
Response N°42
Daiana Camilletti Yo no entiendo lo siguiente.. Si hay [gente] que no esta a favor de esta marcha, que no entienden, cuando dice no entiendo porque es para las mujeres tendria que ser para todos, es porque NO estan comprendiendo lo que pasa en realidad, vivimos en un mundo violento SI!!!! Pero este evento, ESTA MARCHA no es para terminar con la violencia del mundo! Esta marcha es para decir que las mujeres estan cansadas de morir por ser mujeres, si sus cabezas no entienden eso no molesten!!! Si tanto les preocupa la violencia en gral organizen una marcha para otro dia que diga basta de violencia (el 2 de octubre es el dia de la no violencia) pero no pongan en duda la necesariedad de abordar esta tematica con uñas y dientes porque mientras algun@s dudan a NOSOTRAS nos matan, nos prenden fuego, nos rompen la quijada de una trompada, nos violan, nos venden como esclavas, y eso nos pasa a las mujeressssssssss por eso esta marcha!!!! Es como si debieramos explicarle a cada ser humano de este planeta que decimos, mejor dicho GRITAMOS BASTA!! No nos maten masssssssssss 28 de mayo a las 10:46 · Me gusta · 10
The capital letters of the noun phrase “ESTA MARCHA” (“THIS
DEMONSTRATION”) in “ESTA MARCHA no es para terminar con la violencia del mundo!”
(“THIS DEMONSTRATION is not meant to stop violence in the world!”) has an emphatic
contrastive effect. That noun phrase establishes a contrast between the motifs of the current
demonstration and the motifs that some claim it should have. It means that this demonstration
has the specific aim of demanding that no more women be killed. In the fragment “porque NO
estan [sic] comprendiendo lo que pasa en realidad” (“because they are NOT understanding
what’s actually going on”), negation signaled by the adverb “NO” negates a proposition
attributed to another voice, namely, that violence and homicides are genderless. Another
instance in which the text producer questions a stance is in the quote without inverted commas
“cuando dice [‘]no entiendo porque [sic] es para mujeres tendría que ser para todos[’]” (“when
they say [‘]I don’t understand why it’s for women only it should be for everyone[’]”). Through
the utterance that follows the quote, “porque NO están comprendiendo” (“because they are
NOT understanding”), the text producer is questioning another voice’s stance. This is the voice
of unidentified subjects who deny the existence of a patriarchal system that diminishes and
subdues women, and who advocate for a consideration of all forms of violence regardless of
individuals’ genders. To say “no entiendo porque [sic] es para mujeres” is presented as the
consequence of “NO estan [sic] comprendiendo lo que pasa en realidad”.
In these utterances, the text producer establishes a distance between “we” and others.
In the statement “[s]i tanto les preocupa la violencia en gral organizen [sic] una marcha para
otro dia que diga basta de violencia” (“If you’re so worried about violence in general, organize
a demonstration for another day to say stop violence”), the text producer challenges the
opposing voices to mobilize themselves, fight for what they think is the right cause and avoid
interfering with what others consider to be the most pressing and rightful cause. The use of
voices. Through the emphatic use of the pronoun “NOSOTRAS” (“US [women]”) in capital
letters and the use of first person plural, the text producer identifies herself with women who
are subjected, or are potentially subjected, to a series of dehumanizing violent practices. Those
practices are expressed in the fragment “a NOSOTRAS nos matan, nos prenden fuego, nos
rompen la quijada de una trompada, nos violan, nos venden como esclavas” (“they kill US,
they set us on fire, they break our jaws with a punch, they rape us, they sell as for slaves”). The
violent practices of machos—the agents—described are not only physical but also sexual and
symbolic. The cause of these practices is their gender, that is, the subordinate and objectifying
position the feminine gender occupies in a misogynist society, as it is expressed in “eso nos
pasa a las mujeressssssssss” (“that happens to us, womennnnnnnnnn”), which implies that men
do not suffer from gender violence. This means that men’s superordinate, social patriarchal
position allows them to exert violence over women’s bodies. The practices previously
mentioned set women as the patients of violent actions. That meaning is expressed by the use
of the object pronoun “nos” (“us”), in the sense that they are considered disposable objects that
can be beaten up, raped, and sold as goods. Solutions to stop gender violence are
demonstrations, awareness-raising, speaking up and claiming for a stop on femicides—
“GRITAMOS BASTA!! No nos maten masssssssssss” (“[we] SHOUT STOP!! Stop killing
usssssssssss”).
The two assertions “lo que pasa en realidad” (“what’s actually going on”), and “[e]sta
marcha es para decir que las mujeres estan cansadas de morir por ser mujeres” (“This
demonstration has to do with saying that women are tired of dying for being women”)
constitute the main argument of the text producer, which is that women are being killed just
because of their gender. In the representation that is offered, the main cause of femicides is the
feminine gender. The preposition “por” (“for”) in “morir por ser mujeres” (“dying for being
of women. By foregrounding women’s role as patients, an implicit contrast between homicides
of women and homicides of men is established. Men are not killed and do not suffer from
gender violence. Women are conceptualized as victims—patients—of a system that
distinguishes between dominant and submissive roles according to gender. These associations
of roles and practices with men and women suggest that patriarchy constitutes the underlying
frame of the frame Femicide.
The emphatic use of the adverb “SI” in capital letters in “vivimos en un mundo violento
SI!!!!” (“we live in a violent world, YES!!!!”) indicates that the text producer admits the
existence of other types of violence. The adversative coordinating conjuction “[p]ero” (“but”)
in “[p]ero este evento, ESTA MARCHA no es para terminar la violencia con el mundo” (“But
this event, THIS DEMONSTRATION doesn’t have to do with stopping violence in the world”)
signals an opposition between the existence of different types of violence and the need to fight
against one type of them—gender violence.
The following table represents the frameFemicides as the consequence of sexist and
patriarchal social practices. The characteristics of this frame are very similar to the frame
underlying the Trigger.
Table 3
Frame: Femicides as Gender Violence
Event Scenario Roles/Participants Causes Solutions
Femicide Unspecified Direct Agents: Men
(machos) Direct Patients: Women
Indirect Agents: Society
Dehumanizing violent gender practices Patriarchy
Awareness-raising Demonstrations Change of gender practices
Table 3 represents the frame Femicide that underlies the reasoning in the text that was
text producer focuses on the role of women as victims of gender violence, it is possible to infer
that macho men are considered the Direct Agents in the sense that they are the actual
perpetrators of the killing of women and are the ones who are not killed because of
gender-related reasons. Women are conceptualized as the Direct Patients—“a NOSOTRAS nos matan”
(“they kill US”). “[A] NOSOTRAS” (“US”) constitutes the direct object of the action verb
“matan” (“kill”). The omission of the subject in Spanish suggests that it is men who perform
the act of killing and women are the ones who are affected by it. Society in general is
conceptualized as Indirect Agent in that it imposes and reproduces gender roles and violent
practices. In this representation, the Causes are the dehumanizing violent gender practices—
“nos prenden fuego, nos rompen la quijada (…), nos violan” (they set us on fire, they break our
jaws (…), they rape us”) and patriarchy—“eso nos pasa a las mujeressssssssss” (“that happens
to us, womennnnnnnnnn”). The Solutions are awareness-raising, demonstrations and changes
in gender practices.
In this text, the frame Patriarchy underlies the framing of femicide. The Participants are
macho men, who are in a superordinate position of power with respect to women. Women are
in a subordinate, passive and weaker position with respect to men.
Femicides as Misogynist Crimes
This Response and the following one have several aspects in common with the
Trigger—in fact, the text producer adheres to this response—, but the focus is on a different
aspect of the issue.
Response N°44
mucho más profundo y sensible de lo que parece...un tipo que le pega y/o mata a una mujer, es un misógeno sin más que decir
28 de mayo a las 14:04 · Me gusta · 2
[beautiful, wonderful and pretty all the words, and wishes that this embarrassing and stigmatizing scourge comes to an end, the only thing I’m going to ask all the participants in the forum is that we don’t get carried away by the, perhaps, quasi-commercial enthusiasm for this issue, we don’t have to lose the focus of the demonstration, it’s even much deeper and more sensitive than what it looks like… a guy who beats up and/or kills a woman is a misogynist, and that’s it]
Femicides are characterized as a “vergonsoso [sic] y estigmatizante flagelo”
(“embarrassing and stigmatizing scourge”) and a “problemática” (“issue”) which are the result
of the acts of misogynist men. The stigmatizing attitude affects women who suffer from
physical violence—“le pega y/o mata” (“beats up and/or kills”)—, while the source of
embarrassment can be the agents, i.e. the violent subjects and society in general for being an
accomplice. In this case, femicides are not represented as a unidirectional cause-consequence
event since subjects involved and causes are multiple. Hence, femicides constitute a complex
sociocultural issue in need of solutions.
The characterization of a violent male subject as “un misógeno” [sic] (“a misogynist”)
involves the idea that violent men despise the feminine gender. If they are considered
misogynists, there is a counterpart that includes women, who, in the eyes of misogyny, are
considered to be in a subordinate, objectified and oppressed position. Therefore, in this
representation, the cause of femicides is misogyny. In the clause “es mucho más profundo y
sensible de lo que parece” (“it’s even much deeper and more sensitive than what it looks like”),
there is claim for a non-superficial interpretation of gender violence, which implies that
violence is the result of systematic and rooted causes. Even though it is not made explicit in
the response, the claim that the cause of gender violence is misogyny involves the association
The text producer continues expressing his ideas in the following response, which
expands on more aspects of the issue.
Response N°45
Juan Ortiz ...un misógeno, y merece tooodo el peso de la ley posible, es más debería estar encuadrado, como lesa humanidad, así de una!!!!
28 de mayo a las 14:16 · Me gusta
[…a misogynist, and he deserves the fuuull force of the law onto him, and in fact it should be considered a crime against humanity, just like that!!!!]
The text producer holds that the solution to femicides is the imposition of severe
punishments to violent men—“merece tooodo el peso de la ley posible” (“he deserves the
fuuull force of the law onto him”)—and that femicides should be considered crimes against
humanity. This means that femicides should be considered different from other homicides since
they are more cruel and involve other cultural issues. The claim for the consideration of
femicides as crimes against humanity—“debería estar encuadrado, como lesa humanidad” (“it
should be considered a crime against humanity”)—means that they should be at the top of the
violation of the human rights.
In Table 4, there is a representation of the frame Femicide as a misogynist crime. The
following frame characterizes the ideas in the texts produced by the subject Juan Ortiz.
Table 4
Frame: Femicide as a Misogynist Crime
Event Scenario Roles/Participants Causes Solutions
Femicide Unspecified Direct Agents: Men Direct Patients: Women
Indirect Agents: the State and society
Misogyny Patriarchal social structure
Intervention of the legislative and judicial powers
Table 4 represents the frame Femicide as a Misogynist Crime whose scenario is not
specified. The relationship among Participants in this frame is synthesized in the following
fragment retrieved from the text: “un tipo que le pega y/o mata a una mujer” (“a guy who beats
up and/or kills a woman”). Men are conceptualized as Direct Agents—they perform the acts of
violence; women are conceptualized as Direct Patients—they are the recipients of gender
violence. Society and the State are conceptualized as Indirect Agents in the sense that they are
both responsible for the perpetuation of gender violence as a stigmatizing scourge and for the
lack of more severe penalties to violent subjects. In this frame, the Causes of femicide are
misogyny and the patriarchal social structure that allows misogynist acts to occur. The
Solutions in this case are the intervention of the legislative and judicial powers in the
observance of the law and the implementation of more severe punishments, as femicides should
be considered crimes against humanity.
The Escalation of Domestic Violence and Psychopathological Conditions
In the following text, there are some ideas in common with the Trigger’s stance, but the
text producer holds a different view as regards the leading causes of violence and the degrees
of responsibility of participants in the escalation of violence.
Response N°14
