Skip to content

Caetés é uma marca do interior brasileiro de todos os tempos

No romance Caetés, Graciliano Ramos revela relações humanas impregnadas pelo vício da rotina e morosidade, em uma pequena cidade do interior, Palmeira dos Índios. O que quebra essa linearidade é o envolvimento de João Valério, personagem principal que narra a história em primeira pessoa, com Luísa, mulher do patrão dele.

São os serões na casa dos Teixeiras, encontros no bar do Bacurau, uma procissão ensaiada que todos sabem que irão terminar dentro da igreja local. Nesses ambientes, cada um se aprisiona em um jogo de observação da vida alheia e pouco espaço um dá ao outro ou a si mesmo. Valério e Luísa namoram. Ele levado pela obsessão. Ela pela inocência. Não há julgamento de consciências. Mas demora pouco para o envolvimento dos dois voltar ao lugar da normalidade, de algo nada especial.

Leia mais…

Anúncios

A absolvição do vestido

Abro o guarda-roupa. Única mulher entre três irmãos sempre vivi desde cedo o desafio de como lidar com a diferença. Olho os vestidos com certa insegurança.  O machismo salta de lá de dentro e comenta.  “Ah, se tiver bonita e de vestido é porque é frágil ou quer atrair o sexo oposto”. Nem uma coisa e nem outra. Visto-o para encontrar uma amiga em um desses caranguejos de Salvador.

Pegar táxi ou ônibus? O vestido me leva para o táxi. Mas antes me faz observar algumas mulheres na rua. Uma passa manejando o salto na calçada de pedra portuguesa que compartilha o espaço com desníveis de terra,  os inconvenientes buracos. Uma das mãos passa pelo braço do rapaz com camisa comprida de botão. Ele com o peito estufado dá o suporte para a moça. A outra mão sempre a verificar se a saia justa não subiu mais do que deveria. Um palmo acima do joelho e pronto. Não poderia deixar de pensar, “Ah, ela está acompanhada de um homem”.

Outra mulher passa com um vestido longo, solto e estampado. Dessa vez o saltinho permite que ela caminhe independente. Cabelos lisos no estilo sem criatividade de quem se livrou dos cachos naturais. No batom vermelho não vi fraqueza. Mas poder. Nenhum homem está mexendo com ela, pensei. Achei estranho. Como ela reagiria a um assédio gratuito de quem vê na beleza do outro a licença para clamar uma posse?

Pego um táxi. Ao entrar sozinha no bar, cabelos soltos e de batom, logo sou alvo dos olhares da mesa repleta de barbudos, bigodudos, sem barbas, pernas cabeludas e bermudas com chinelas. Com o olhar eles dizem, “Como você está linda”. Sigo em busca da mulher que me aguarda. Caldo de camarão e iscas de peixe. Logo optamos por uma caminhada na orla. Ver o mar e a lua. Duas atrações gratuitas que geralmente pouco valorizamos nas horas vagas.

De surpresa veio um toque no meu ombro. Vejo um rapaz saltitando mantendo o ritmo da malhação enquanto acompanhava meus passos.  Um quê de nonsense à cena. “Oi tudo bom? Como tá você? Vai ter festa lá em Cruz das Almas? O forró vai ser ótimo”. “Desculpa, mas acho que você está me confundindo com alguma outra pessoa”. É um erro querer dar uma resposta lógica dentro de uma situação ilógica. Ele continuou falando. Esqueci que estava de vestido. “Meu irmão, pegue seu caminho e parta”. Lembrei do vestido e saiu um “você vai perder o pique da malhação”. Ele respondeu qualquer coisa e seguiu. Logo à frente, o incansável maratonista da paquera começou a puxar conversa com outra moça. Ela não estava de vestido.

Rimos do acontecido e continuamos a falar sobre viagens, planos, trabalho. A lua do lado oposto ao mar dava ares de mistério aos prédios altos. Outros homens passavam caminhando, de carro ou pedalando. Mulheres acompanhadas ou sozinhas. Nada de comentários. Bicicletas patrocinadas por um banco alegravam poucos ciclistas protegidos por sinalizadores laranjas contra os carros. Pareciam barricadas do órgão fiscalizador de trânsito para garantir o livre caminhar e pedalar. Havia ali uma tentativa de trégua para uma guerra civil?

Na balaustrada próxima, um grupo de homens aparentava ter voltado do mar. Arpões à tira colo, alguns sem camisa e cabelos molhados. Conversavam e riam alto. Era notável que nós já havíamos atraído a atenção deles. Continuamos caminhando. De lá sai: “Ah, como eu queria ser o vento para acompanhar vocês”. Olho para as outras. Elas estão de bermuda. Penso que o “vocês” referiu-se não só a mim, mas a todo o grupo. Esqueço que estou de vestido e deixo escapulir um “mas não é barão” entre risos sem graça. Ele mostra a língua e dá um sorriso de lascívia para provar que é um macho reprodutor sexuado.  Meu vestido me faz pensar, será mesmo que ele cumpriria esse papel querendo eu descarregar a tensão do corpo em um gozo momentâneo ? Ou o flerte foi apenas o jogo de poder entre caçador e presa tão banalizado nas ruas dessa cidade? Diz para eu ignorá-lo. Argumenta em pró de sua inocência nesse julgamento infame e aponta que o problema está do lado de lá. Ondula solto com a brisa.

PEC das domésticas, divisão do trabalho e gênero

O debate sobre a PEC das domésticas ficou marcado por argumentos (a favor e contra) centrados no fator de classe. Muito pouco ou quase raro li algo sobre como a questão do gênero está no cerne da problemática do trabalho doméstico no Brasil. No opinário nacional, houve uma divisão entre patroas e empregadas, entre vilãs e mocinhas. Uma certa compreenssão mais ampla desse cenário, onde apenas se vê personagens femininas, é necessário para a superação dessa dicotomia. De qualquer maneira, deve-se destacar que foi necessário um reconhecimento financeiro para que o trabalho doméstico, por muitas vezes invisível aos olhos, fosse valorizado e dado como importante, pois assim funciona as coisas em sociedades monetizadas.

Sem dúvida, a divisão do trabalho impõe relações de poder a depender do que cada um faz ou de quem é chefe ou subordinado, o que por via de regra, tem limites estabelecidos por um contrato social regido por direitos e deveres na forma de lei, no caso a CLT no Brasil. De forma mais ampla e bem sucinta, há os que veem a relação de poder sendo estabelecida entre os que têm ou não têm os meios de produção, o que restringe a liberdade dos que não têm. Para outros, os empregados são livres para aceitar ou não a vaga, e portanto são livres para trocarem a força de trabalho deles por dinheiro da forma que quiserem. Em relação à PEC das domésticas, um grupo focava no abuso de poder dos empregadores, nos resquícios da sociedade escravocrata brasileira que adora ter serviçais e na necessidade de ampliar os direitos dos empregados, enquanto outro considerava o aumento dos encargos trabalhistas como um problema ou até mesmo uma audácia de uma classe social menos favorecida. Apesar de parecer antagônicas, as duas perspectivas têm um ponto em comum que é o foco no aspecto de ‘classe’, deixando de lado outro que é fundamental: a questão de gênero.

Por muito tempo, os papéis de homens e mulheres foram estabelecidos pela separação entre as esferas doméstica e pública. Lavar, passar, cozinhar, limpar o chão, serviços domésticos sempre foram vistos como trabalhos menores e femininos, pouco ou não remunerados, assim como cuidar da família e dos filhos. Para manter a casa, pagar as contas e adquirir bens, a força de trabalho masculina precisava vivenciar o espaço público – e depois da circulação da moeda – ser transformada em dinheiro. Portanto, atividades associadas ao feminino sempre foram difíceis de serem vistas pela economia tradicional que tem, geralmente, conceitos elaborados por homens. Isso faz algumas economistas feministas afirmarem que o trabalho da esfera doméstica é desconsiderado por não contar nas estatísticas do PIB nacional (O’Brien e Williams, 2010, 287) e portanto a revelação do trabalho que não é visto pela chamada economia tradicional é indispensável para a criação de novos conceitos (Ibidem). Existe até quem sugira categorias de trabalho definidas pela classificação: ‘mercado de trabalho formal, mercado de trabalho informal, produção de subsistência, trabalho de cuidados (da família/do outro) não pagos , trabalho voluntário’ (UNIFEM, 2005, 23 IN Ibidem- em tradução livre). Nesse caso, pode-se perceber que a maior contribuição da PEC das domésticas não é introduzir direitos a uma classe, mas sim, ao valorizar o trabalho doméstico pelo dinheiro (encargos, FGTS, horas extras) em uma sociedade monetizada,  fazer com que  homens  assumam responsabilidades dos afazeres domésticos.

Estudos de gênero em Relações Internacionais e Economia Política Global apontam que escolas do Realismo, Liberaslimo e Marxismo não conseguem enxergar questões relacionadas ao gênero na divisão internacional do trabalho (Ibidem, 284). Apesar da entrada e ascenção das mulheres no mercado de trabalho (remunerado- fora de casa), isso vem ocorrendo em paralelo com outros problemas, como por exemplo a ausência de mulheres em cargos de gerência e remuneração menor para mulheres, mesmo que elas assumam cargos e funções idênticas a de colegas homens, o que é chamado de “glass ceiling” (teto de vidro, em português) (Ibidem 291). Pesquisas tentam desvendar se isso decorre da cultura masculina do ‘clube do bolinha’, do preconceito de gênero ou porque ao longo da carreira se torna mais difícil para a mulher concilicar trabalhos das esferas públicas e domésticas (Ibidem). Em todo o caso, se a mulher revolucionou ao  entrar no mercado de trabalho colaborando com a força produtiva, o que precisa ocorrer  é a entrada dos homens na esfera doméstica para assumir responsabilidades em cuidar da força reprodutiva de forma mais contudente. E ao que parece, a PEC das domésticas irá colaborar com isso. Agora, as mulheres que não se enganem, se ficarem esperando por concessões masculinas, e não desafiarem o status quo, o velho ciclo da mulher criada e educada para servir nunca irá acabar por completo.

Referência: O’Brien, Robert e Williams, Marc (2010) Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics. 3rd edition, London: Palgrave Macmilliam (Chapter 10- Gender)

Intellectual Property Rights and Free Trade: First Question to Rebecca MacKinnon

Interview with Rebecca MacKinnon, Author of the book “Consent of the Networked: The worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom” and Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation during Global Voices Summit 2012 in Kenya.

– First Question: Some of the main arguments to justify IPR are that IPR would increase innovation and creativity since Research and Development (R e D) industry sector would be willing to invest money on research and that creators are entitled to receive the rewards of their creation. Do you agree? How would you analyse that enforcement of IPR brings about ‘restriction’, or instead, ‘access’ of knowledge worldwide?

Rebecca MacKinnon: … (Beginning of interview part of data lost). If you get too restrictive on Copyright, again, you know, so, like, you crack down on Megaupload in an way, so there are all those collateral damages against innocent people, the way you handle penalties, like criminalizing… Do you criminalize uploading or commercial… Are you criminalizing everybody who download a pirate movie or you’re just criminalizing the people who are uploading it, and obviously making money out of fired movies. How are you devising penalties and it is a real trench towards criminalizing people and activities in a way it is completely not proportion to the harm it is done by a lot of people who are not motivated commercially anyway. So one issue is who are you going after and how you develop these incentives or disincentives, you know. There is this whole kind of issue on the industry, has the industry completed failed to adopt its business model to adapt to the realities of the Internet and so on. So, yes, the penalties and the enforcement, the rules and the constrains need to be consistent with people’s right to free expression. To the fact they are kids and they’re doing stuff and they don’t even realize it is illegal, or it is not that big deal. Are they going to put them in jail or kind of bankrupting them or disconnected them to the Internet just because someone in their family download (something).

So, there are a lot of issues related to proportionality, actual justice of the situation, collateral damage inflected on some parties. The way in which copyright law, regulations and treaties create opportunities for abuse by people who just want to stop certain other people from speaking in certain ways. They can use copyright as an excuse. In the US there are a couple of examples. One has to do faily recently with a blogger who reverse engineered and application that runs quite a lot of mobile phones in the united states, that was logging people’s personal information in a way that people were not aware. I have to remind myself of the name of the application. It was collecting people’s personal information and tracking and sending it back to the carriers in a way that was not transparent. The people didn’t realize it. He reverse engineered this, he wrote about it, and he linked to…There is a company that developed this application that were signed to mobile phone carriers and so on. He also included… I think he uploaded the PDF of the manual, linked to the companies website. It was all publically available information. This created a lot of negative publicity for the company. They sent him a DMCA down request, based on copyright infringement, because he had used their user manuals, as an exmple of what it does. You can I think very clearly argue that this is a serious case, that this is a case of public speech public debate about people’s privacy and how thier information is being logged. This is not about…he is not trying to re-sell this manual for commercil gain, but they went after him for copyright violation. Fortunately the EFF, I forget whether it was ESF or ACLU in this case….EFF sent a letter to the company saying you guys are just a bunch of bullies. They just completely dropped the whole thing. This kind of thing happens a lot with these takedown requests with people who don’t know that they can get the EFF to send a letter pro bono on their behalf to these bullies saying that you have no case. Screw off!

Another case a few years ago related to voting machines in the United States. Diebold is a company that makes voting machines. There were some internal company e-mails and memos discussing defecs in the voting machines, that leaked, that several people put on their websites. Diebold went to the ISPs with takedown requests, again based on copyright, and the ISPs took it down. You can argue they have as much right to publish this as wikileaks does. Wikileaks have had problems in the United States but nobody has ever brought a case against them in the United States. Nobody has been able to make a viable case that makes a credible argument that they don’t have first ammendment rights to exist. There have been other extra legal pressures but in this case it was blatant use of copyright law to takes down features in the public interest for people to know about what is happening about their votes, and how their votes might get…twisted. These are two cases where you have parties that want to cover up or stop sertain criticism. This is not what the copyright law is intended to protect, using copyright law in this way. I don’t have specific cases, but if you talk to Way Wan from Hong Kong she can talk to you a bit about cases in Hong kong and elsewhere in Asia where copyright law gets abused politically. There are also issues in some juristictions about the ability to make backup copies, cache-ing and so on, and whether that even ends up violating the copyright laws that are put in place. There are a lot of issues.
TB: How can we make sure what is public remains public and what is private………..?
RM: First of all I think copyright law needs to be subjected to rigorous free speech risk analysis before being enacted. You really need to do a human rights risk analysis, a free speech a civil liberties risk analysis. You need to really veto it, before it is enacted, to ensure you don’t have unintended consequences. This is why it is really important that copyright law, treaties and so on be formulated with the participation of all stakeholders.

RM: In the United States what happens, and what happened with Sopa and Pipa? It was that the copyright lobby wrote it, drafted the law and handed it to congressional staff, who then had their bossed sign off on it and this is what ended up circulating. The precursor to Pipa was the Senate before Sopa came out, something called Quaka which is the precursor to Pipa. Quaka came before Sopa and the protection to IP came after that. I actually had a conversation with some congressional staff, and some other groups that went in to talk to these staff about Quaka. We said this is very bad for internet freedom. We were actually talking to a staff member of a senator who is very big on Internet freedom. Very supportive of the idea of Internet freedom. We asked did you guys start working on copyright consult with the other staff that work on Internet freedom. And they said no it did not occur to us. Because we see this as a jobs bill, it didn’t occur to us what the Internet freedom implications were. The way these laws get made, certain interest groups are driving them, there is just not enough consultation with consumer groups, with public interest groups that work on civil liberties and technology issues, that work on media freedom issues. It is like they are trying to sneak it by. With treaties it is even worse because with ACTA, it was the copyright lobby teling the administration what they wanted in this treaty. It got modified over time, basically because enough of it got leaked. The Europeans and I think the Australians leaked various versions. There was enough public outcry that it ended up getting modified. Still of course people don’t like it anyway. Again it is one set of stakeholders who have a lot of influence, with legislators, with trade negotiations, beurocracy, that they get these things forward. Up until recently I think the public for the most part hasn’t been paying too much attention. What is interesting now is that it is coming more forward on the public radar screens so hopefully there will be more pressure, both the beurocracies and the law makers will realise that if they dont do broader consultation they will have wasted a lot of time, and come out looking really bad.

Intellectual Property Rights and Free Trade: Second Question to Enrique Armijo

Second Question: Coming to the point of international/global public policies related to the Internet, we can see that there have been a series of negotiations to implement or strengthen laws concerning enforcement of IPR. Those laws allow countries to promote the enforcement of IPR by means of trade sanctions.
-Firstly, in general, how can those international/global polices can affect the use of Internet and why this matters?
-Secondly, talking specifically about the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA), how can ACTA affect the use of the Internet, and why this matters?

EA: I will speak generally, because I am not expert enactor of TRIPS or anything like that, but I think that the reason that countries have moved to the international stage in protecting intellectual property is because (of) the rise of digital files. I mean the digitisation of songs, of movies, of videos, what it has removed from counterfeiting is degredation. So in other words in analogue days if I made a tape of a song and you made a tape of my tape, and gave that to someone, and someone made a copy of your tape, eventually what would happen is that the sound would degrade. A digital copy of a song is the same as the original, and the digital copy of a digital copy is the same as the original. So these recreate the formal creative industry, by that I mean the motion picture association, the association of recording artists, probably with some justification, think that conterfeiting of digital content and then importation of that content into the united states presents a real threat to their business. So that’s why I think you see more attempts at co-operation on the global scale for protecting intellectual property.

TB: Would you have any suggestion of how to deal with these new structures of (the) internet, and to intellectual property being respected that dont affect somehow the innovation or creativity? The second question is, due to the different features and to the difference between states, how can one law, specifically one law international, global, be differently implemented, depending on the different needs of different countries?
EA: The second question is exactly what is difficult about this because generally in treaties, sometimes what happens is that the treaty adopts the rule of the most restrictive country. So if your country has a copyright term of 10 years, and my country has a copyright term of 18 years, I am not going to agree to reduce my term to go down to your 10, so you will come up to my 18. So that’s really difficult, and the internet goes to the point I made earlier about digitisation of content and distribution of counterfeit content. There are so many potential copyright infringers now, in the wake of the internet, everyone is an infringer, because everyone has a laptop, everyone has bandwidth, and it is so easy to stream content, or to take it. I think what is happening is apart from the state work that you have been focussing on, the international stuff, there is also a kind of user driven enforcement of copyright. On You tube there is an entire procedure where you can flag content, a video that uses copyrighted content. One of the reasons You Tube does that is because it is impossible for them to police whether content is copyright; they don’t want to assume the resposibility for videos that get posted; thousands of videos every minute, for copyrighted content. What you have seen on the internet is ways for copyright holders to try to self help in trying to protect their content as it is used online.

Intellectual Property Rights and Free Trade: First Question to Enrique Armijo

Interview with Enrique Armijo, Assistant Professor of law at Elon University during Global Voices Summit 2012 in Kenya.

Question: to what extent does TRIPS contribute to creativity and access to knowledge and free trade worldwide? TRIPS is a landmark in the right to intellectual property because it was the first time states started making use of trade sanctions to re-inforce intellectual property rights. My thesis will also analyse arguments put forwarded and accepted by states and organizations to justify how intellectual right of property should be promoted. My first question is about arguments to justify intellectual property, some of the main arguments to justify IPR are that they increase innovation and creativity since research and development and the industrial sector would be willing to invest money, in that creators are entitled to receive the rewards of their creation. Do you agree, or how do you analyse IPR? Does it bring restriction or access to knowledge worldwide?

EA: I think the question frames the debate perfectly. Unfortunately there is no good answer to the question. In the US we have the constitution which is the source of the grant of an exclusive right for creative material. It is true that when you talk to artists they argue that intellectual property, the protection of intellectual property encourages them to create. To have an exclusive right in a sound recording or a composition gives them the right to profit from it and if they did not have that right to exclusive protection they wouldn’t be able to earn as much or at all. What’s interesting is that people, artists in the united states are working around the intellectual property system, giving up some of their intellectual property rights for free, putting their music up for streaming, or free download or pay what you wish type systems, recognising that even with an exclusive right to intellectual property, the real revenue comes in in performance. So there are arguments on both sides. Personally I tend to lean towards exclusive but short exclusivity, exclusive but short rights to intellectual property in terms of copyright.
TB: Do you mean short time in terms of period of time?
EA: Yes in the united states we have, the way our copyright law is structured is that it is life plus x number of years. The x number of years has become quite long, so a shortened term of exclusive rights to intellectual property I think would be better for the creative community at least…

Intellectual Property Rights and Free Trade: Third Question to Ethan Zuckerman

Third Question: To finalize, I would like to problematize the role of modern democratic state regarding those current issues!! In a geopolitical context, it is very common to divide the globe between North (former metropolis, exception to the U.S. or what become to be known as ‘developed’ countries) and South (former colonies or what become to be known as ‘developing’ countries). When come to the point to debate about implementation of international public policies (affecting copyright and patent), the state has legitimacy to represent their citizens internationally. Most say that the dispute concerning the sharing knowledge and the transfer of technology is a dispute between the global North and the global South. Do you agree? Talking more specifically about ACTA, an agreement mostly led by the US government. Can ACTA restrict or increase the access of knowledge and technology to all US citizens.

EZ: I am not a huge fan of the North/South framing that you are proposing. I think it is a oversimplification of the issues. I think what’s ended up happening it is because so many industries that rely on Intellectual Property are in the North and because this is a certain of battles happening in the international circles where nations individually have votes and the ability to certain to make decisions on. I think that there is an enormous amount of pressure from particular governments in the North, mostly from the United States, on governments on the South. But, I really think what this is, it’s a state, in this case the United States, that is subjected to significant, subjected to a really significant corporation capture, trying to do the best for those corporations, you know, they are trying to do the best for those corporations in Japan, in Korea, in Europe. I don’t think this is the North lining up and saying, hey, let’s screw the South. The other interesting thing about this is that when you put these aggressive restrictions into place it actually becomes a very interesting tool for the South to figure out how to use, to deal with knowledge that is produced within that context. I think there are enormous concerns around the issue of Intellectual Property. And I understand why the side that want to question the current system, a side which I’m on by the way, wants to frame it in North/South because then it becomes very equitable, we’re on the side of the empowerishing and the poor, if we only get rid of those restrictions we ll have all the access we need, I just don’t think that is that simple.

TB: Just to clarify I don’t agree with that framework. It is just because I have to divide more or less the dispute between North (developed)/South (developing) and I haven’t been able to find actually a concept that, you know…

EZ: I think one way to say, it… I don’t know this is a battle between nations so much as it is a battle between producers and consumers. And nations where producers have a lot of political power are going to end up in one side of it whereas nations with a lot of poor consumers are going to end up in a different side of it. I think if we have the opportunity to really rethink Intellectual Property and policy, we’d probably have a serious conversation about how we balance creator’s right, consumer’s right, access to knowledge, access to medicine. I think if we are going start from scratch, we can sit down and try to come up with some principles and try to balance all those interests. Instead we are coming into a system that is terribly skewed in one direction. And because it is terrible skewed in that one direction, we find ourselves sort of fighting a gorilla action. And so, my friends who want to fight the copyright lobby, the Intellectual Property lobby are working with blind groups, because it is one way to get an exception, it is to say, you can’t put those all rights management on this because it is going to restrict access for the blind. I think the access to knowledge movement which essentially says, look if you really going to make textbooks this incredible expensive and protected by copyright, how do you deal with the developing world? The flip side it is also we have also people who try to create te alternative, and essentially say, can we create that content out there under the Creative Commons, it is available to be shared, maybe we can build around rather than trying to fight the copyright industry. I understand why we tend to bring it in to the very big North and South. But I think in many ways we do better just sort of being clear. If you are Walt Disney and you own a lot of content, if you are GlaxoSmithKleine and you own a lot of content. You want as strong protection anywhere in the world as you get them. If you are Nigerian and you have a hundred million of citizens who are under the age of 21 and in need of education, you want education material as cheap as possible. If you are South African and you are dealing with HIV/AIDS on a crisis level you want access to vital medicine and it seems to me like, we should be thinking about that balance of wants and needs rather than turning again into the Neo-Colonialism.

TB: Thank you!

EZ: Absolutely!