Luis Diaz

Latin America is one of the most unequal continents in the world. This inequality translates into marked limitations in the possibilities of having a decent life for a high percentage of the population. Within the groups that are affected, women are undoubtedly even more so, because, in addition to shared economic and social inequalities with other vulnerable groups, they face discrimination based on gender. In Latin America, political protest has been undertaken by women who wish to denounce and abate the injustices of which they are victims. These struggles have been analyzed by different thinkers. For the most part, feminist theories deal with the struggle of women against the oppressive behavior of patriarchy from the State or society. Others highlight the ability of women to contribute to social changes from socially accepted roles such as mothers, daughters, wives. These approaches ignore the difficulties experienced by female activists within the political mobilization. In this essay then we seek to document, analyze, and theorize about the patriarchal practices suffered by women activists - qua women- within the social organizations in Ciudad Juárez, as well as the forms of resistance they have opposed.

The present contribution aims to clarify the ethics involved in the notionof territory, coined by Deleuze and Guattari in Mille plateaux, whose philosophical notes are taken from Spinoza’s and Nietzsche’s works. We will see that this project is sufficiently consistent and united, according to its immanent and materialistic lines. However, this ethics finds its limits, not in its internal constitution but in its tacit iden- tification with politics. Our authors conceive the existential field as crossed by political effects, therefore, all ethical acts would be, by their accounts, a political act too. And these acts will be the more perfect –more ethical and more political– the less they deal with traditional state policy. This involves reducing policy to the political, which we believe is a mistake; because, what applies to the singular-collective existence cannotcount nor compete as a substitute of the collective institutional policy.