Though I was not able to quite comprehend the complete context of Evita’s speech, I found her political journey and relationship with the Argentine people to be a very intriguing part of this week’s readings. We have discussed feminism, gender roles, and gender politics thoroughly in this course, which made this section in the text so riveting. Peronism is a bit of a difficult concept to grasp, especially because “right wing socialism” seems almost like an oxymoron to my possibly naive understanding of the political spectrum. Regardless of her husband, Evita seemed to be immensely respected and adored by the “descamisados”, and did a great deal of charitable work which made her popular to the public of Argentina even after her death and embalming. She is a particularly interesting figure given her beginnings as a radio star and how she continued to utilize technology in her husband’s political campaigning. It seems almost natural, then, that conservatives would use her sexuality and fame to pin her as someone who “slept her way to the top,” when in reality she appears to be a feminist icon who stood for what she thought was right and made use of the resources she had, both within and outside of herself. It was heartwarming and exciting to read of the public’s cries for her to be the candidate of vice presidency, if for no other reason than it is less usual to hear a woman be encouraged in politics in such a passionate manner. I would be interested to hear other’s views on Evita and her feminism (or, if others see if differently, lackthereof,) and I would also appreciate some clarification on the context of the election and of the speech.
As a focus question, I ask: Arbenz and both of the Perons were figures that held great popularity, and perhaps benefited from their popularity more than any other single facet of their leadership (for example, Peron’s ability to be freed from prison). What were the differences between the two that allowed Peron to be successful for an extended period of time?
