 as they as they're ready. So my name is Dr. Amanda Chisholm and I'm a senior lecturer in School of Security Studies, a lecturer on gender and security. I'm also the organizer and the chair of this new Voices in Global Security seminar series. This is the second year it's been running and it's designed to showcase the vibrant and brilliant research of our PhD and early career researchers across the school and give it give us a chance to engage in the the different research that is taking place. So today we have Dr. Andrea Espinosa up who is going to be talking on a presentation titled Productive Violence Identifying Narratives Used to Legitimize Abuse. So Dr. Espinosa is a lecturer in the International Relations and Gender Education here in the Department of War Studies. She's also a feminist researcher who focuses on women's and indigenous rights in Latin America, particularly in Ecuador and the Andean region. Her work aims to understand how women interact with law institutions and development projects and her work considers women's active involvement in the interpretation, confrontation and adaptation to normative frameworks. In that sense she is interested in how women react, adapt and or normalize behaviors to survive, endure or disrupt hierarchies in the subordinate of power structures. Her research follows a feminist and decolonial epistemology and relies on ethnographic and arts-based research methods. So Dr. Espinosa has a MSc in Latin American Development and a PhD in Gender and Development here at King's College London and before working as an academic she was a journalist in Ecuador. So Andrea here is joined today by Professor Yelka Bolston who will act as her discussant. Professor Bolston is a professor in Gender and Development here at KCL. Her current research focuses on the transformative gender justice in post-conflict societies. The idea that interventions to address gender injustice such as violence against women and girls should aim to transform the social, political and economic relations that underpin the possibility of violence. And recently Yelka finished a collaborative project exploring the transformative potential of memorial art and symbolic reparation. I want to welcome you both a warm welcome and thank you for joining us today. So Andrea has agreed to talk for about 20-ish minutes and share some slides for then we'll hand over to Yelka for discussant and then open to you the audience for any sort of questions or comments. You can either raise your zoom hand to ask the question live or just type your question in the question answer and I will ask it to Andrea after that. I think that's all clear. Everyone's good to go. Great Sandra without further ado I'm going to pass the virtual floor over to you. Thank you. Thank you Amanda for everything including inviting me and making the summary of my research which is always weird to hear. So I'm going to start sharing my PowerPoint. Hopefully you can see my PowerPoint now. I'm what you're going to see are mostly images. I apologize because most of them or a lot of them have a lot of Spanish there but I think it really goes with the presentation so hopefully that's not a problem. So years ago when I started my research about violence against women and legal systems one of my colleagues asked me why do men hit women? I answer because they can. That answer holds as I will explain today some social norms condone certain type of gender based violence. However during this presentation I aim to add that violence against women is also productive violence as it facilitates the functioning of a patriarchal and capitalist society. Now how productive could it be to perform an act that could easily be judged as a crime and that could that which consequences as car victims in a way that affects their psychological and physical well-being? How productive could it be in a way to do something that can damage networks and disrupt societies? Since the early 2000s international organizations have been working on establishing the socio-economical cost of violence against women and girls. In Ecuador the South American country and focusing for this analysis a 2013 study explained that small business owned women suffer because of things as violence. The document mentions how violence impacts the amount of time that women can give to their enterprises and reduce the amount of money that that they can invest in them. It states that one woman can lose around 54 days dealing with the consequences of violence and her business can lose more than a thousand more than two thousand dollars because of the violence. This is without considering the amount of money the Ecuadorian state has to invest in topics like the protection and prevention of violence. So that's around four thousand million dollars per year. These very quantifiable consequences of violence against women have been also analyzed in India, Uganda, Vietnam as well as the EU, Canada, the United States and the UK. These findings related to the socio-economical cost of violence against women and girls can only be added to the violence of the violation of women's rights that are penalized, offences in national and international law. So then if violence against women so clearly generates losses to the state and individual how can it be called productive? What is productive about violence and why am I deciding to call it this way? When I refer to productive violence I am too disclose to make visible the amount of the level of entrenchment that violence has in everyday life. When discussing productive violence we are discussing gender-based violence and violence against women and girls not as something exceptional but as a practice with a purpose to subdue and control women girls and feminized bodies. While studies effectively argue about the amount of money and opportunity lost to violence they render invisible that with high levels of violence one in every three women experience some type the world keeps going around. In Ecuador six in every ten women have experienced some type of violence during their lives and the state keeps being a functional state. Moreover it is categorized as an upper middle income country with potential of growth and prosperity according to the World Bank. In this sense the subordination of women and girls implemented using violence in its many forms allows society to function as it had always has by establishing patriarchal structures set to extract free labor and create and enforce structures of obedience. The previously depiction of violence as a loss of money and opportunity are a structure around the idea of future gains and future opportunities available to the state and individual lost because of violence. However those changes in patterns or behaviors are meant so any change to those patterns and behaviors are meant to be an improvement in an already working system. The patriarchal society and state its systems of production and organization function in a way that are already effective self-reproducing and self-defending. The use of the concepts of productive violence allows us to explore who is benefiting from violence against women and girls and feminized bodies and have a better understanding of why is so widespread and normalized. Gago Verónica and Argentinian scholar explain that one of the main advantage to account for the specific economy of violence against women, lesbians, transvestites and trans people is that we can move beyond the interpretation of violence as a crime or as isolated pathologies or deviant behavior. After all as it is written in many graffitis in Latin America and the world he meaning the perpetrator of violence is not sick he's a healthy son of patriarchy. Violence against women, girls and feminized bodies allows an effective function of a society that extracts free labor from women, enforces norms about sex and sexuality and perpetrates hierarchies that will enable the governance of certain bodies. In that sense we can understand productive violence as a facilitator to a desirable purpose. Violence becomes expected, accepted and even desired. In the case of gender-based violence and violence against women and girls used to provide punishment or irregular for irregular behavior, teach a lesson to unruly bodies, create or restore social hierarchies and reproduce social norms within a group. There is normality and acceptance in the infliction and experience of violence in those cases be it physical or psychological. It creates a maintain and order within a group. To illustrate I will use three examples. When I was growing up so this is violence against women and girls and the idea of a destruction of free labor. When I was growing up there was a common joke among adults what is the best way to give women a little more freedom? The answer was expanding the kitchen. The joke reinforced women's role within reference, the women's role within the household and their experience and how they exist within the home boundaries. The kitchen was that place intimate tied to women competence. The kitchen is a space tied to women's unpaid and under value reproductive and productive roles. As explained by Federici, the power difference between women and men and the concealing of women's unpaid labor and their the cover of natural inferiority have enabled capitalism to expand and to foster male workers patterns of devaluating and disciplining women and children to maintain their power and respect to capital. Women cook, women clean, women serve. Women work in the household is one of their unpaid responsibilities and womenly duties even when they have work outside the home. Violence plays a role an important role in maintaining those dynamics. It is not just that violence it is not just the violence of a blow, a kick, a smack meaning physical violence, but the symbolic violence experienced in the shame of not fulfilling a duty or failing in an expected role. In Ecuador, according to a national statistics published in 2019, 44.9 so 45 percent of the Korean women older than 15 years believe that women are responsible for the household chores. This percentage is higher in Indian women and women that have not completed primary education. Furthermore, in a national survey published in 2011, so that's where you're looking at now, 7 percent of married women considered that not obeying their partner or husband will be a viable reason for a man to hit his partner. In addition, 11 percent believes that not taking good care of the children is another possible reason that could justify a man hitting a woman. One example of the role of violence in regulating personal relations appears in my research. I research indigenous women experience in reporting violence within the indigenous communities and in the state justice system in Ecuador. One common question asked within the community in cases of intimate partner violence was have you been good, meaning a good wife, or have you been neglecting your household, your husband, or your children? The question appears before, during, and after any formal procedure to investigate judge or punish violence. The question presents two clear ideas. Violence is something that can happen as a punishment for bad behavior and good behavior could contribute to avoid violence. In this scenario, violence is not the problem. The issue is the unfulfillment of gender expectations. If violence is always a lumen possibility, the primary tool to avoid it is to act in ways that comply with social expectations. In that case, when violence is not provoked, an act of violence would be considered abusive or detrimental to the community. So, my second point is violence enforced norms of sex and sexuality. Following the pattern I established in the previous section, I will reference another popular phrase in Ecuador. In a literal translation, the expression will sound like tie up your cow or put your cow in a safe place as my wool is running free. In that sense, anything that could happen to the cow, meaning a woman, is her fault, an order fault of the family because they didn't take the precautions to make them safe. As explained by Rita Segato, for many, instead of a crime, rape constitutes a punishment and the rapist, instead of a criminal, often perceives himself as a moralizer or an avenger of morality. In that sense, sexual violence is socialized, not necessarily as a crime, but as a teachable moment about the wrongful behavior that would be conducive to the punishment of sexual violence. Also, from that perspective, a victim of sexual violence is not just a body being punished by a theatrical prop used to enforce the value of purity and decency. According to Ecuadorian national statistics, 53, 57.3% of women think that women must behave and dress modestly not to provoke men. The statistics are quite high in different ethnic groups and different levels of education. National statistics also state that 15% of Ecuadorian women believe that women most have intercourse with their husbands and partners when their partners want. Sexual violence is not a theme that appears directly in my research, not because it was not present in the community I visited, but because there was little reference to it. Although one of the few examples was the case of a rape of a young girl by two brothers. The man who told me the story makes sure to mention the girl's parents allow her to stay for long times in the pastures and she used to hang around the voice too much in a way that could be misinterpreted as romantic interest. Again, sexual violence was explained as triggered by a girl's bad behavior. Additionally, the bad behavior did not only point to the victim, but also to the victim's keepers or protectors, meaning the family. They also failed in protecting their women. The victim of sexual violence and her story are a cautionary tale about the importance of family need to protect women and women need to be modest and cautious to avoid violence. Similar to the previous sections, violence fulfills a purpose. Violence offers a teachable moment. My final example talks about the governance over some bodies. My final example of violence as a medium to obtain desirable outcomes is much more explicit as it involves an actual monetary transaction. In Ecuador since 2013, the state has discovered 268 centros de homosexualización. That is centers to cure homosexuality. These organizations, some were acting with the permission of local authorities, used rape, physical attacks and verbal abuse among their methods. In 2016, the disappearance of a 15-year-old boy made visible the regular operation of these organizations. The adolescent was institutionalized by his mother because he was having bad behaviors in reference to his sexuality. The adolescent mother paid for a clinic that would change for the voice but behavior. There were other reported cases. Paola Cirit was institutionalized in one of these centers for two years and she was raped almost daily. Paola Concha survived 18 months in another center where she was handcuffed to a pipe as part of her treatment. In these particular cases, violence is an explicit part of a transaction. It is part of a service. It contributes to imposing rules over unruling and deviant bodies. In Ecuador, the depenalization, so this is not a criminal activity of homosexuality, was established in 1997 by a sentence of the constitutional court. While the law was changed and continued to change in expanding the rights of the members of the LGBTQI community, social norms still condemn homosexuality as adivian behavior. Gay couples have problems renting property, validating their marital status, and accessing healthcare. As questions, all expressions of structural violence, understanding the productive terms of violence, being physical, psychological, structural, or symbolic, allows a working system to be revealed. Violence applied to some bodies under certain circumstances with particular goals works benefiting individuals and institutions that exist to perpetuate that violence. The heteronormative and patriarchal family members need to retain their power. The state institutions need to retain their moral legitimacy and the capitalist and colonial system of production need to extract free labor and their value in free labor. These three examples, oops, yes, these three examples aims to explain that assistant mediated bad violence works and is not exceptional. It is entrenching normality. It establishes modes of obedience that perpetuate the power dynamics of one group of individuals over another. As I have presented here, these practices of violence might not be perceived and interpreted as crimes, but as practices that teach, guide, restore, and improve. To talk about productive violence also allow us to think about a working system that is constantly innovating. As part of a functioning system, the use of violence and what we understand as productive violence is constantly changing. For example, in the 1930s, in Ecuador, a man could kill, harm, or hit his wife is he found her cheating. That is not an option anymore. However, the creation of new technologies has allowed the possibility of punishing unfaithful women in different ways, such as revenge porn. Time has changed how violence is inflicted by its role in punishing undesirable behavior is still present. To think about productive violence also aims to recognize that if human rights, women rights, LGBTQI rights, and feminist agendas are pushing forward to demand equality, participation, visibility, and autonomy, the patriarchal system is pushing back. For that perspective, Gago presents a relevant reflection. She explains that contemporary societies are experiencing a desestabilization of the modes of governance in the monogamous heteronormative family. In part, because now women are more prone to express a greater desire for autonomy, and the male provider figure is appreciating. In that light, the evaluated masculinities find themselves in a desperate and violent search to legitimize themselves. But this desperate search for legitimization goes beyond the evaluated masculinities or wounded expressions of the patriarchal state. Old individuals indirectly benefiting from working structures of domination participate in the innovation of a system that legitimizes violence. Finally, the concept of productive violence allows us to explore how the threshold of socially and legally accepted gender-based violence are established. If I interrogate productive violence, it is also relevant to think about unproductive violence, what is unproductive violence. I refer to unproductive violence as something that is considered illegitimate, negatively sanctioned, and that is considered harmful to the community and a threat to the individual because it provides undesirable outcomes. The threshold of tolerance towards violence against women and particularly intimate partner violence is set by the tension between these two categories. That which is unproductive is not accepted while that which is productive is. As this threshold is socially constructed, it is dynamic and subject to change over time. Going back to the previous examples, unproductive violence is a violence perpetuated to wood women, to decent women, to modest and pure women that were not asking for it. Thank you. I think I can stop my presentation there. Finally, let's horrible slide there. Great, thank you so much. Elka, are you able to jump in with any sort of reflections? Yes, yes, yes, definitely. Thank you so much, Amanda, for having us both. Thank you, Andrea, for your wonderful presentation and the images really pulls out the meaning as well. Just a couple of comments specifically on what you presented today. So I think that the idea of productive violence is really useful because of your starting question. People ask about why do men hit women? Wow, it seems so illogical considering that often about the women they're supposedly love. So what do we do with that contrast? We tend to perceive violence as something that destroys, that is destructive, that it hurts, it harms, it breaks, it's something destructive. And the numbers that you mentioned at the start of your talk also indicates that actually it has economic harm as well at a national level. So it's useful to ask, but what does it give those who are beat and what kind of structures, why are these structures so persistent? And your answer is, well, because it actually produces something, violence produces something, and then what does it produce? Well, it produces dominance, subordination produces a hierarchy between men and women, not only between men and women, hence it produces sexual boundaries, heteronormativity, that is related to the power of heterosexual men. No, you counter anything that is not heteronormative and very importantly that this domination, this patriarchal domination creates labor, no, it's free labor in the kitchen, as you so very clearly indicated. So in that sense, violence is indeed, it produces something. But then also then again that question about the intimacy of these forms of violence that you refer to, particularly intimate partner violence, domestic violence, family violence, which suggests that this is a disciplining violence, no, it is a sort of, it's legitimate because it disciplines people who are, who behave outside the normative framework of a community, basically. So this disciplining is not only directed at women who transgress, who don't behave according to those normative patriarchal frameworks, but very often also to children and particularly, of course, to children in other lessons because that's when the sexual transgression becomes an issue. So there is this, violence as a disciplining tool that produces, maintains, perpetuates these hierarchies, no. So I think that this sort of violence as disciplining would sort of make that link between productive violence, what does it produce, and the intimacy of that violence, i.e. it's so very often within the home. No, it's not a state that disciplines or there's violence towards those perceived as others, or a judicial violence or a carceral violence, no, it's intimate partners, no. So that's one point that I wanted to make about the productivity of violence. Now, if we take that point around disciplining a step further, then I think something that came out less from your presentation, but that I know of course of your research, and it's there in your presentation as well, is that you've looked in your, your main data of your research looks at indigenous communities, no. And then there's one of the last slides that you showed recalls the lashes, no, as a lash as a as a disciplining tool, literally. Now that has all kinds of colonial connotations, of course, no. So there's this question of what kind of tools of discipline, it also goes back to discipline. So the lash is being used to discipline men and women who are in an inferior position. This is a colonial practice towards peons, towards slaves and workers, laborers who are perceived as indigenous in a colonial society, or as a subordinate colonial society. And a lot of these practices have a sort of post colonial refurbration in indigenous communities. And so not not only in a national level where the president is waving his his belt in order to make a point about his heart stands towards corruption, but also within indigenous communities, the lash has become this very symbol of community discipline, and even of domestic discipline knows pretty normal in in in many communities until very recently, and perhaps even today, that the lash is a completely acceptable way of disciplining children, no. And then even also in certain contexts to discipline women as well, no. And that then brings me to another point that that is sort of in your presentation, slightly perhaps suggested is sort of the difference between what might be formal productive violence within frameworks of justice, or within frameworks that that are very clearly sort of carried by a majority of a particular population as legitimate, hence community justice via all kinds of procedures, violence that is perpetrators as part of such processes in schools against children with a lash and so on, and then slightly more informal forms forms of discipline, such as domestic violence, which which carries this ambiguous level of to what extent are certain forms legitimate or illegitimate and sexual violence is a very clear example of this ambiguity, I think, because there is this there's always this question. So is it about women's behavior or girls behavior? Did she watch she to liberal in her behavior? What was she wearing? No, or is it actually in that as a question? Does it all also count who the perpetrator of that violence is? I is there difference between a member of a family who disciplines women and girls, even in a sexual manner, because that's that sort of violence is often also used as a form of disciplining, or if it's someone external to that intimate set of relationships, and hence it cannot be seen anymore as a legitimate form of disciplining. This is something that I've been thinking about myself know in the difference between women talking about the husband who who is violent towards them and and sometimes very violent, I would really physical harm and a police officer or a soldier who is violent. And that those forms of violence are interpreted differently because they have different levels of legitimacy. That was my thinking. But then again, if you look at how husbands respond to violence from external or from others, then still often women are being seen as culpable. No, you see that in the courts all over not only in Ecuador or in Peru, but also in the UK. No, and then it's still about what was she wearing. No, so these sort of these these ambiguous let you to me let you to machinations or violence. And when it is destructed seen as the unproductive or productive, those are the terms that you're using is is also interesting to sort of see where the line lies between these two. And lastly, I guess that sort of related to all this between between this question of on one had the intimacy of violence and the productivity of violence and the legitimacy of disciplining violence is then, you know, refers back to an old feminist claim is that women within the patriarchy women and children are seen as property of men. No, and that is something that that that's I haven't heard really in your in your research and your presentation, but that might merit a little bit more thinking to what extent, both informally, i.e. on the normative level, and formally, i.e. in law, are women and children still seen as the property of men. And that perhaps the work of Veronica Gago is also interesting in this sense, I think, who you also cited extensively, because she makes that link between embodiment, women's bodies, land, and exploitation. No, so so how how you how men appropriates or particular sectors appropriate women's bodies and land with it with a very similar patterns of exploitation and productive violence, no, but productive for whom. I'll leave that that. Thank you very much, Andrea. Thank you for those comments. Those are really great to think about. How shall we proceed like I would really like to make comments or the comments because they're they're quite good. Yeah, let's let's have a conversation here because there's so far no one's put anything in the question box. So yeah, let's just have a broader conversation here. So please, Andrea, the floor is yours. Oh, perfect. I have a problem with with the idea of intimacy as something that happens. And this is one of the things that I have been really questioning about this, because all the examples look very intimate, like, because that's also the scope of my research. So the connection between intimate partner violence within the household or the violence of a parent deciding to discipline their children through these centers for curing homosexuality. And it all feels intimate, feels like disciplining a body and another body in a very close context in the context of the home. But I was thinking about the home as the most as the smallest productive unit. So that's the unit that I research, but that unit is part of an of a bigger productive system, like it's just the most the smallest part of a productive system. And one of the things that that's really why I didn't want to use particularly the example of indigenous communities, because then it feels even a small even it feels like the family unit within a particular ethnic group. However, this is intertwined with different levels of violence or how violence is perceived in different groups in society. So when you were referring to, and I really like the idea of formal and informal productive violence, so what it formalized through things as law and what it appears a little bit more informal, which is the family. But I won't say just the family, but society as the broader society. Because that's also interesting between what is a state in law and what is government rhetoric. So there is also the difference between the state at something that has laws and regulations and constitutions and so on, and the government and the rhetoric generated around those legal implements. And I think that those tricker down to the smallest unit that I'm calling the family. So it also goes back to the idea of the intimate is international and the intimate is public. Because it's not contained within the boundaries of the family. It talks about the conditions of the communities and the bigger society and definitely the rhetorics of government. And we can see that in the way government in Peru or in Ecuador have a very conservative rhetoric that resonates with a particular set of voters, if we're thinking about how people vote in relation to these topics. And I think that becomes very, very visible now in the way, because abortion is a big point in the agenda in Latin America. So those discourses become very, very obvious. And the connection between the government and their discourses and the family and how it feels within the family, it also becomes a little bit more visible. So yeah, I don't know. The intimacy and the boundaries of the family, that's something that I want to challenge. I think that's the big point there. Because I like that. I agree with you that the boundaries of the family should be challenged because the private is public and the other way around. But so with intimacy, I tend to think about how certain beatings hurt more than others. So if you're very close to someone, a lot of women in abusive relationships say that actually the words humiliation hurts more than the actual beatings. And why is that? Because that is about your sense of self, your subjectivity that is being harmed, your confidence, your freedom, your freedom in a very, not in an abstract way, not in a structural way, but in a very individual way. Can you go and visit the neighbor freely, yes or no, without being beaten? And that's what I mean by intimacy. That is very intimate. If somebody who says, who loves you and who has sex with you, then says, but you cannot do this because I say so and otherwise I beat you, then that seems to be of a different level than if an unknown person, I don't know, if you get violently robbed on the street. That's a different experience because of the level of intimacy. So that's what I mean by intimacy. At the same time, I completely agree with you. And that's why I think it's so difficult sometimes to understand violence against women because of that intimacy, no? But I completely agree with you that the boundary between the personal and the political is absolutely not that clear at all. Absolutely. I wonder, so you make a really, really good question there, like how certain beatings hurt more than others. And that's, we can talk about that in the framework of embodied experience and how this is perceived by the individual. But I also wonder why the type of concierge beating was something more like the limiting of rights within a society. Why that doesn't hurt as much? So why, I mean, yeah, it's complicated because it's a different type of violence. It's not a violence that is perpetuated over the body, but it's perpetuated over the self. So every time that rights, women's rights of children rights or LGBTQ community rights are getting narrower, it is completely an infliction of violence upon those bodies. However, somehow that that type of violence hurt less to the individual and to the society. And I, so there is an expression in various, I don't know how to say that in English, but it's like just an echocayo. So there is so much, you have such a hard skin. There is so much damage done over the autonomy and the sales and the idea of representation within a society of certain groups that you are not expecting anything from the state. So when things are taken away, like freedoms and rights are taken away, somehow that doesn't hurt. And that for me is extremely problematic because if you are not feeling the hurt, you don't want to burn it all. You don't feel like going out to the streets and doing something makes any sense. So that's also my my problem with expressing the idea of intimacy and just consider intimacy as the fuel to think about why is this wrong. It's also wrong when we are not feeling something because there is a reason why we are not feeling. We are so used to that certain type of violence that there is not triggering anything else. And that is problematic. I think in countries that have a colonial experience and have experience of violence in the broader context of society, violence becomes something that it's not hurting anymore. And that numbness is a problem. Yeah, absolutely. That's great. Will you also explain actually in your explanation now what comes out very nicely, I think, is the idea that a lot of restrictions on rights actually does affect individual subjectivity, individual sense of self. And that could be defined as an intimacy. That's not how I meant it previously, but you're right, of course. I think that that's a good interpretation as well of the intimate understanding of the self of your own subjectivity. And if those rights are being constantly infringed by particular laws or particular policies or or violences and structures, then that is a very intimate form of violence. Absolutely. Yeah. I do want to jump in there quickly when we're talking about intimacy, because I also is there a risk of conceptually collapsing these different forms of violence, like through the legal system and infringement on political rights, mobility for an, you know, the sexual-based violence that's done on the body. This is not a fully formed thought, but I am a bit troubled by because there is something very, I think, yeah, I'm not sure. I wonder what you feel you can get conceptually by lumping intimacy in that regard with the state intimacy with the actual, you know, the physical material violence, sexual violence that's done on someone's body. Oh, that's that's an interesting thing. I don't want to lump them together, like the collapsing of the two, the embodied experience all the way that the half is on value and the understanding and normalization of certain things. It has another type of explanation. However, what I and that's why it's so difficult to talk about violence. And I find it extremely difficult. It's because they are intertwined. They talk to each other, like they and you can see that that's also interesting in how narrative work, because when you talk to someone that has been abused by their husband, there is also the connection with the state and the normalization of abuse when they are not going to talk to the police. And that experience of, but why am why am I going to go there if they are not going to do anything if they are not going to believe me. And then he you and that is also a connection with political discourse that in a court we have a very, very conservative government at the moment that have talked a lot about women's roles in abuse. So how they provoke abuse for themselves in political discourse. It also again becomes something that it's normalized that it's interiorized that it becomes incredibly personal. But again, I don't think this collapse, I think they are intertwined and they talk very closely and they can be definitely seen in different stages of how women deal with violence, because also women deal with violence in different times. So it's not the same in the moment you are receiving a kick a blow with Mac, or the moment that you process that as trauma, or the moment you you take that outside of your bedroom and talk to a friend, or the moment you want to go to the state and use any of the institutions of the state to to mention this. Or when you think about this in relation to the public discourse of the government. So all these things have a different experience and definitely have a different way of being analyzed and a different impact on women and their body. However, I see them as all intertwined and all collapsing back in the horrible experience of a woman. Maybe they collapse in the idea of they are awful and they make the experience. Yeah, they go back to the idea of creating subordination and inferiority in women. I agree with you, Andrea. I also think that they're very much interlinked and that the use, or I find it useful to link them explicitly, because they link in their very often in their ideological goal and increasingly in contemporary Latin America and other parts of the world. This actually is becoming a political idea and a political movement where patriarchy and patriarchal violence is very much linked to a particular politics that basically is very explicitly pro inequality and that violence is a legitimate means to enforce that inequality. See Brazil and other particular right wing governments and movements in Latin America particularly, no. So because of that link and because of that explicit sort of legitimizing certain forms of violence in order to dominate over certain groups, that is the use of seeing them in the same picture, but for different goals, if you look at it from a judicial perspective, you have to, you know, then there's a whole range of different interpretations of different forms of violence and likewise in terms of institutional violence and so on, but linked, yes. I want to say again, thank you so much. It feels wonderful to have another of these conversations and we haven't had this type of conversations in a long, long time because of COVID and because, yeah. It feels amazing. Thank you for the time. Andrea, do you have paper on this as well too? I'm sorry? Do you have a paper? Is there an actual paper on this or was this a presentation without a paper? This was a presentation without a paper and that's why I really, that's the reason I say yes to do the new voices because it really forced me to put pen to paper. So and the idea was okay, let's bring this out of my PhD thesis and transform it in something that I can publish. So this is my first, my first step towards the proper blown up paper. Can I, Luis wrote a question in the Q&A section of this Zoom meeting, so I thought it might be, it's actually, it's a good point, Luis. So you're asking the term productive is, it has a positive connotation. Is that not a risk in how you label violence, the positive overtone? So I'm curious what you think, Andrea. Oh, I really love that question because it means, so I have had this conversation about productive violence is a topic that I have discussed with Yelke previously and that I have discussed with my feminist research group a lot and I have to defend the use of productive quite a lot because it is provocative. Productivity is something that is very much considered in positive terms. However, one of the points that it needs to be clear is that I think also productivity is, should not be considered always positive because if we are thinking in broader terms, every type of exploitation is productive and we can see now in that my change and everything right, everything we are considering productive is effective, but the bottom line of what are we producing and who is benefiting this is definitely worth asking and that the idea of productivity allow us to see, to be critical to a system, to be and also to pinpoint where who is gaining within the system, but it's definitely something that I need to make clear. So the idea of productivity needs to be challenged not always positive and almost always as extractive. You know, I didn't even question that because I guess I must be so versed in Foucault that I just assumed that's what you're talking about Foucaultian politics, what politics is this doing as opposed to yeah, as a positive connotation. So yeah, that's a good question for me to reflect too. I guess then that matters the disciplinary background that you're coming from too, right? Yeah, I do wonder too in that terms and this might just be a concept like have you also thought about feminist work of using reproductive as well? What is this reproducing as opposed to productive or was that something you thought about or think that that's a ridiculous idea? I haven't thought about that. So I was very much focused in the idea of productivity and yeah, I was not thinking about the reproduction or reproduction as productive to the productive system. So the repetition of behaviors and social norms and the creation of a pattern, it means to be productive. I think it's a fabulous question, Amanda. I haven't thought about it either, but I think it's a fabulous question and particularly if you think as a lot of domestic violence is seen or has its roots in, which is not the same of course, but it definitely has its roots in kind of disciplinary regimes that are seen as completely legitimate and that we see or saw or still see in schools as well as in homes, that is actually part of reproductive labor. And a lot of women, we don't really talk about this too much perhaps, but there's a lot of mothers beat their children as part of this disciplining regime of part of their reproductive caring work. And that if we wanted to know that does feed in to practices of domestic violence as a normalization of using violence as a form of disciplining and communication. So I think that's a great question, Amanda, and something to think about a little bit further violence as reproductive as well as productive. Yeah, and that's interesting too, just Yelka hearing you say that is that it also, I mean, I wonder if it has potential to challenge how we think about care work too, right? That happens if this is part of, you know, in feminist political economy ways, reproducing the next workforce or labor force that's in terribly gendered as well too, is this some of, you know, violence that goes into the care work, which seems counterintuitive as well, right, that care is supposed to be nurturing the wall. So so is the family, we imagine it to be a caring space as well. And that that could help you to think about think about what intimacy or the act of intimate violence looks like in these different spaces, right, when we link it to, yeah, when we link it to feminist political economy of reproducing new workforces with with the idea of care and that goes along with that as well too. Sorry, I mean, you might not choose to do that at all, but I think that's that that would be an interesting line of inquiry as well. No, it's great. And also you just mentioned something that I found very valuable, the idea of how we imagine, so that how we imagine family, we imagine things working how and that's something that we share in different societies, the family as nurturing, but also within the family, this idea of producing and reproducing normative forms of obedience are there, like it's almost like what you are imagining and where it's happening. And that it's interesting to explore, yes. Yeah, great. I can't wait to see this like materialized into a fantastic paper. So you'll have to come back and update us on your brilliant work. Sure. Fingers crossed.