Breathe
Five women and a cantina: beyond the Indio Azteca anecdote
The laws and regulations in force consider discrimination -and a reason for sanction- the exclusion of a person from any commercial establishment because of his or her sex, gender or affective sexual preference.
Sandra Romandía
In 2014 I was walking with a friend through the Ikebujuro neighborhood in Tokyo when we suddenly decided to stop for a beer and take a break from the tourist bustle of these intense trips. It was midday when we saw a small bar with a wooden facade that caught our attention and we decided to go in. The surprise came when the waiter, who looked like a waiter, signaled us to leave and showed us with his finger that there were only men there. Without wanting to cause a disturbance we left and days later a friend who lived in Japan sadly explained to us about these macho measures that persisted in her country.
My friend and I were astonished to realize that this was exactly what happened in Mexico almost three decades ago, before 1980, when the prohibition for women to enter cantinas was lifted. We are from the generation that grew up seeing the signs "no access to uniformed men, minors, indigents and women" as something "normal"; but we are also from the era that analyzes and wonders to what extent women have been relegated in the public space by decision of a macho system that excluded us -with the backing of the law- from rights such as voting, wearing pants, participating in the armed forces, getting divorced or having an abortion.
This week I had the privilege of spending a few days in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, to be present at the International Book Fair.
One of those days, friends and collaborators of this space decided to look for a historic, traditional and popular place to eat. We found on the internet the cantina "Indio Azteca", with 102 years of history, very close to where the FIL activities were, so we decided to eat there: a botanero with excellent food, it said in some reviews. What we didn't read, and what we found out from a friend from Monterrey before arriving, was that women were not allowed to enter. We didn't believe it and decided to go there to ask and, by the way, record what happened.
As was well known in the social networks, we were prevented from entering with various arguments: "women have never entered this place", "if they enter they may be harassed", "there are only bathrooms for men", "if they enter they will bother those present", "the wives of the clients may get angry".
I, a northerner from Sonora, am aware that for decades several of these types of places for the sale of alcoholic beverages were traditionally men's spaces. But I have also witnessed how young women decided, after the prohibition and under the protection of federal and local laws that guarantee non-discrimination, to be present in these places as a way of vindicating the right that for centuries and years was denied to them.
The one who was identified as the captain of Indio Azteca probably got so tired of listening to our questions about what legal framework allowed them to deny access that after 10 or 15 minutes of denying access he allowed us to pass.
Upon arrival some diners complained loudly. "Old ladies already arrived, it can't be!", "the only place where I was comfortable without old ladies".
The five of us "invaders" of the place had a beer, a selfie and decided to cross over to another historic cantina called Zacatecas, to eat in a more serene atmosphere.
I must say that my experience with the Neolonians that week was totally pleasant: I found them to be hard-working, sincere, fun people who are generating a cultural change with high-level events such as the FIL Monterrey.
My astonishment came when I observed the contrasting reactions on social networks about the anecdote at the Indio Azteca, about which I would like to point out: we did not go to make a protest, we never verbally or physically assaulted those who prevented us from passing, and it was not a planned event.
One of the counter-arguments shown in networks was that they were defending "tradition" over non-discrimination, and that it was just an act of exhibitionism.
It is understandable that not everyone knows the laws that protect our human rights because we do not have time to know everything. But this anecdote seemed appropriate to show that we live in a country where, first of all, Article 1 of the Constitution states that "...Any discrimination based on ethnic or national origin, gender... is prohibited". No, a cantina is not a "private space", as some Internet users pointed out when justifying that the owner of any establishment can decide who enters and who does not. Before the law, it is a commercial establishment that is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sex or gender. Something very different are the "dress codes" to which the consumer can finally adapt; but it is impossible to stop being a woman to have access to a store.
The Federal Law to Prevent and Avoid Discrimination clearly states this in its Article 9, as well as a similar section in the local law.
Is tradition an argument for allowing this discrimination to pass? Why can't women have access to a historical establishment? Is this a relevant topic in the public conversation? Yes, because it describes a system in which women could be overruled just because they were women.
Some other comments, mainly on Twitter, pointed out that men would then take the women's spas and women's restrooms, something that is totally different: those are regulated spaces to take care of privacy, a concept equidistant from that of a public food and beverage consumption center.
Is the women's subway car something similar? In reality these should not exist, nor should harassment and abuse towards us. Have any women come to bars to harass, mistreat and abuse men so that it has been decided to exclude them? The answer is no.
Power groups will always respond with aggression when they see the threat of losing their "territories". So it is not just the simple story of five women who entered a bar that for 102 years blocked the entrance to women of our sex, but the background that leads, not only that prohibition that they defend as "tradition", but in the aggressive and sexist reactions towards those who come to debate and reflect on whether there should continue to be separatist spaces in a world that should be moving towards equality.
Comments ()