Ni Una Menos: The 3 June 2015 Manifesto

Saying no is a right; being able to maintain that refusal requires other people and institutions. This relationship organizes the Argentine collective Ni Una Menos’s manifesto of 3 June 2015. The Spanish document moves from naming femicide as political violence to identifying failures of protection, then sets out nine demands. It turns collective grief into a question of responsibility: what must change so that a woman’s decision does not leave her exposed?

Refusal needs somewhere to go

The first part challenges possession: the belief that a man has a right over a woman’s body and choices. Sexual respectability, judgments about appearance, compulsory motherhood and obedience are connected to the conditions in which refusal is punished. Femicide is presented as the extreme end of a social relation, rather than an inexplicable private tragedy. Naming it politically challenges the normalization of violence without making every killing identical.

The manifesto affirms refusal of an unwanted relationship, pregnancy, sexual act or prescribed way of life. Yet it immediately places that autonomy within a network of affection, social support, state assistance and activism. Leaving or resisting can be a moment of particular danger. The argument does not demand greater courage from isolated women; it asks how a decision can be sustained over time. Support is part of the practical content of autonomy.

This is why housing and shelters matter alongside protection orders and access to justice. A person may be formally entitled to leave while lacking a place to live, representation or support for children. In the document’s nine demands, these are connected institutional tasks. Reading only its slogan against killing would miss the organization of everyday life that makes survival and decision possible.

A law without implementation is not enough

The second part discusses Argentina’s Law26.485, adopted in 2009, and demands comprehensive implementation, a national plan and adequate funding. Its criticisms describe the situation addressed in 2015; they are not a current inventory of Argentine law or services. The text also calls for official statistics. A demand to make violence countable is politically different from treating whatever records already exist as a complete account.

The critique of reporting is especially concrete. Requiring women to report and then ratify that report, while leaving proof and witnesses entirely to them, can add institutional harm to violence. A formal route to justice may therefore reproduce distrust and transfer the work of protection back to the person seeking it. Training, coordinated proceedings and legal representation are proposed as responsibilities of institutions, not personal skills a victim must acquire.

Journalism is another site of responsibility. The manifesto objects to coverage that scrutinizes a victim’s clothes, friendships or sexuality, invades privacy and repeatedly stages the killer’s methods. Public visibility does not automatically challenge violence; its framing can normalize domination or turn suffering into spectacle. The demand is for accountable reporting, rather than silence about violence.

The closing programme also includes gender-aware sexuality education, support for children, professional training and monitoring of implementation. It explicitly rejects treating femicide solely as a security problem, even while requesting police and judicial protection. This tension should remain visible. The manifesto proposes a coordinated response; the existence of its proposals does not prove they were implemented or resolve disagreements about punishment and state power.

Medina’s study of three founding members’ narratives asks how the movement connects violence, precarity and collective action. The manifesto offers a distinct source: what the collective publicly demanded at a specific moment. The Istanbul Convention provides a separate legal comparison concerning services, resources and institutional responsibility. The two documents arise in different jurisdictions and genres; their pairing does not establish direct influence. Together they help keep the question open beyond a slogan: who must provide the conditions that make refusal livable?