The appearance of Gustavo Cordera in Gelatina, in the Pedro Rosemblat program, “National Industry”, ended up generating a political and cultural storm. The musician was “canceled” for his controversial phrases of 2016 justifying the violation of women, and now he returned to the center of the debate with an interview that unleashed immediate repudiations, especially the feminist collective.
In the hour and a half that the interview lasted, Cordera talked about different issues but the hottest point was when he was going through social conviction: “Never before in the history of humanity was such an efficient organization, so coordinate and of so much investment for the cancellation and persecution of a person, and of so many years. It was six or seven years where I could not play at any festival, where they did not pass me in any radio.
These words generated a strong repudiation in the feminist collective, because while Cordera was hurt for having been “canceled”, he did not express the same level of affectation due to the damage caused by their statements to the victims of abuse. Instead of recognizing the weight of what has been said, he chose to present himself as a victim of a persecution machinery, reinforcing the perception that his self -criticism remains superficial and self -centered.
When asked about how he spent those years of cancellation, Cordera tried to present himself as someone in the process of introspection. He turned to speeches close to the New Age, spoke of reconnecting with nature and an alleged internal journey. It is worth remembering that in interviews of that time came to say that, in that search, “connected” with a cricket. Now, in gelatin, he talked about how it empathizes and connects with the fish. The contrast is brutal: it seems more willing to empathize with an animal or an insect than with women who denounced being injured by their words.
The pressure and debate that were armed were so strong that Rosemblat himself ended up making a public self -criticism. He acknowledged that “he knew that he was going to generate repudiations” by inviting him and that he underestimated the impact of the interview. He even asked himself: “Is it wrong to have interviewed him or is it wrong how I interviewed him?” That phrase showed that the driver not only received external criticism, but was caught in a personal and professional dilemma about the limits of journalism.
