By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The murder of 22-year-old Colombian model and influencer Maria Jose Estupinan, shot in her home by a suspect disguised as a delivery man, has sparked outrage and comparisons to the recent killing of a Mexican influencer. Estupinan, a domestic violence survivor, was about to receive compensation for the abuse before her death. The incident underscores the alarmingly high rates of femicide in Latin America and the significant challenges faced by victims in seeking justice. The Colombian National Gender Commission is investigating, alongside authorities working on similar cases, highlighting the widespread gender-based violence throughout the country.
Read the original article here
The recent murders of María José Estupiñán Sánchez, a Colombian model, and Valeria Márquez, a Mexican influencer, have ignited a firestorm of debate, particularly concerning the use of the term “femicide.” Both young women were tragically killed, Estupiñán shot at close range outside her home, Márquez gunned down during a live stream, each incident raising serious questions about the nature of their deaths and the larger context of violence against women.
The circumstances surrounding Estupiñán’s death are chillingly precise. A man, disguised as a delivery person carrying a box of chocolates, approached her. As she accepted a chocolate, he opened fire, the entire scene captured on surveillance footage. This meticulous planning strongly suggests a premeditated act, fueled by something more than a random act of violence. Investigators believe her murder may be connected to her recent testimony in a domestic violence case against a former partner, a case in which she was close to receiving a significant financial settlement. This points towards a possible motive rooted in revenge, retribution for her pursuing justice.
The killing of Márquez, just days prior, adds another layer of complexity to the conversation. Reports suggest she may have been involved with a cartel member, a connection that immediately introduces the perilous reality of life intertwined with organized crime. This raises questions about whether these deaths should be solely categorized as “femicide,” a term specifically referencing the killing of women because of their gender.
The intense public reaction highlights the deep-seated frustration and fear surrounding violence against women. Yet, a significant portion of the conversation centers on whether the label “femicide” accurately reflects the full picture. Many argue that while the deaths are undeniably tragic and deserving of condemnation, labeling them as such risks overshadowing the crucial context surrounding each case.
Several commenters questioned whether the killings are directly related to the victims’ gender or instead are consequences of their involvement with dangerous individuals or organizations. In Estupiñán’s case, the strong evidence linking her murder to the domestic violence case suggests a personal conflict rather than a purely gender-motivated crime. Likewise, Márquez’s suspected ties to a cartel highlight the inherent risks associated with that world, risks that affect both men and women.
The debate isn’t about minimizing the gravity of these murders; it’s about the precision of language used to describe them. It acknowledges the broader issue of violence against women while questioning whether applying the term “femicide” indiscriminately might detract from the unique circumstances and potentially obscure other critical underlying factors.
While acknowledging the widespread problem of violence against women, some argue that applying “femicide” in cases where other clear motives exist risks trivializing the term, potentially diluting its impact and misrepresenting the nuanced realities of these tragic situations. They raise the point that the victims’ choices and associations played a role, regardless of whether those choices were forced or freely made.
The online discussion reveals a stark division, with some seeing the deaths as undeniable examples of femicide, a reflection of the systemic violence faced by women globally. Others contend that while the loss of life is horrific, labeling these deaths as femicide solely based on gender overlooks other significant contextual details, such as the potential involvement of organized crime or personal vendettas. This nuanced discussion highlights the importance of carefully examining the circumstances surrounding each case, rather than relying on generalizations.
Regardless of the specific label, the tragic deaths of Estupiñán and Márquez serve as stark reminders of the pervasive dangers faced by women, particularly in regions plagued by violence and organized crime. The debate ignited by these killings underscores the need for a more nuanced and sensitive approach to understanding and addressing violence against women, carefully examining individual cases to avoid oversimplifying complex issues. The focus should remain on ending all forms of violence, regardless of gender, and promoting justice and safety for everyone.