Macarena Gómez and Aldo Comas call for this movement to stop

Macarena Gómez and Aldo Comas: "Let this movement stop now"

Macarena Gómez and Aldo Comas have taken on the feminist movement with a message that has set social media alight. The actors have criticized women who report online harassment, claimed that "some people have committed suicide" and that "the careers of many men are being damaged". And they capped it off with a plea picked up by Europa Press: "Let this movement stop now".

This is not an isolated outburst. One participant links to an article from Los40 dated 2020 showing that the actress was already criticizing the feminist movement back then. What is striking is not the substance, repeated a thousand times, but who is saying it and with what brazenness.

What they said about online harassment reports

The core is an uncomfortable idea: reporting harassment on Instagram is not reporting harassment. "It's great, and it must be kept... but through the proper channels," sums up one of the threads in the discussion. In other words: if it's a crime, go to the police; if it's a reproach, say it out loud. The actors argue that public exposure is destroying careers and, in the worst cases, lives.

The underlying diagnosis is harsh: "all the guys are terrified". The response has been mixed. Some see a legitimate vindication of the presumption of innocence. Others smell a pattern: the complaint surfaces precisely when the person named does not belong to the opposing side.

Why it is debated whether a victim's word alone is enough for a conviction

The legal crux is ruling 172/2022, of 24 February, from the Incivil Chamber, cited by one participant: the victim's statement can, on its own, rebut the defendant's presumption of innocence, especially in offences committed in private and without witnesses. The doctrine requires three filters — absence of motives for revenge, plausibility and persistence in the accusation — but the summary going around is blunter: whoever is named has a very hard time defending themselves.

From there comes the star argument of the controversy. Starting incivil proceedings on the accusation's word alone and without evidence turns the presumption of innocence into wet paper. The counterargument is an old acquaintance: if intimacy leaves no trace, demanding documentary evidence amounts to never convicting anyone. Two incompatible logics under the same legal code.

The complaint about latecomers

Part of the analysis cannot square the timing. Online harassment reports have been working for years and, they argue, nobody's hand trembled until the finger pointed at certain names. The pattern they describe: first the joke, then the silence and, when the sweep reaches someone close, a sudden conversion to the cause of the presumption of innocence.

One participant brings up the case of Loles León's son, who, according to her account, was ruined by his ex-partner and who, she maintains, changed the actress's discourse overnight. These are not figures. They are stories, and everyone looks after their own.

The issue gets stuck exactly here. Nobody in the debate disputes that harassment exists; what cannot be pinned down is the boundary. When does an accusation deserve a trial and when should it remain a bar-room conversation? With the ruling in hand and social media ablaze, the answer still has not appeared.