Tano, Gustavo, and Martin commit suicide in order to give their families money in the beginnings of economic collapse. The Argentina implemented neoliberal economic policies in the late 1980s in order to bring itself out of a recession, yet these reforms led to its total collapse in 2001. Much like the men in the story, the state was doing what it thought it needed to do in order to survive, yet for both, this ended in disaster.
The men make decisions they think will help and protect their families. For example, Martin is scared to tell his wife that he lost his job and they could no longer afford their lavish lifestyle, so he avoids doing so, and she never finds out until his death. On the other hand, Tano steals money from terminally ill patients in order to get money for his family. He also suggests that they commit suicide and make it look like an accident in order for their families to get insurance money, which could help them make it through the impending economic collapse. Although these acts are not necessarily illegal, besides the insurance fraud, they are not ethically correct; yet, the men see no other way to support their families, and feel they must.
Similarly, Argentina is forced to implement neoliberal policies into their government in order to become economically stable. As these policies were implemented in the late 1980s, economists knew that they would not be sustainable and eventually lead to another recession. They were correct, and the stock market crashed in 2001. Argentina felt it needed to implement these reforms to pay back debts, stop hyperinflation, and get out of the recession.
The decisions of the men and of Argentina led to demise, despite their intentions. I think Piñeiro uses this to comment on the decisions many Latin American countries are forced to make in order to save themselves economically. Through the use of the male characters, readers/viewers develop empathy towards the questionable decisions they make. By equating the men and the state, Piñerio transfers the empathy towards the state. Government officials knew that linking the Argentinian peso to the US dollar was a mistake, yet they did so anyway, because it is what they thought was a solution. Outsiders may criticize the decision, but, government officials did what they thought was best, much like the men of Thursday Night Widows.
Hi Kiri! I like the way you described the men as a reflection of Argentina. I agree, especially considering that Argentina, like many other Latin American countries, is managed by elite classes, whose interests align with enriching themselves and attracting foreign investors. In the case of Thursday’s Widows, we see the men as an “embodiment” of those who manage Argentina, they are all rich, with good connections, and pretend to be confident and assured of their social standing. But they are corrupt, despite trying to do better. In parallel, the same can be said about the Argentine government, which in a cycle of corruption and harsh political and economic regimes, tried to adopt policies which they thought could alleviate the nation, but instead ended up creating a recession. In both cases, they know what they are doing is wrong, but they continue to do it anyway as to gain temporary benefits. I think that is the point of Piñeiro’s critique. I do not see it too much as empathy. Rather, as assigning responsibility to those who purposely did harm, as to enrich themselves or gain power, while knowing they were hurting others around them.