Pablo Motos, the "shit" of the Equality campaign and the more than one million euros

• TV The new controversial campaign of the Ministry of Equality: El Xocas, Pablo Motos and Betis, pointed out

• Opinion Irene Montero's new video: from 'yes is yes' to 'who is who'

Surely until this Thursday night very few viewers were aware of the existence of the new campaign of the Ministry of Equality for the

and, even less, they were aware that in this campaign, the campaign of "the more than a million euros, characters like

or

were singled out.But yes, the campaign, carried out by the

agency , provoked on the day of its premiere, this Monday, a wave of criticism and the reaction of El Xokas, who announced legal measures against it.

's reaction was missing , and the reaction came last night like a tsunami towards the Ministry directed by

.

But let's go in parts to understand the indignation not only of the presenter but of his entire cast of collaborators who attacked a campaign that has cost, as

revealed last night, "

."

The campaign is a succession of scenes that begin with a live broadcast from a streamer who lets it slip that he has a friend who only drinks juices when he goes out to parties "to hook up with drunk girls."

A scene that clearly refers to

and the confessions that the Galician made about a friend of his who pretended to be drunk while drinking juices to take advantage of women at night.

On Tuesday, a day after the premiere, the streamer responded harshly against the Ministry and against Minister

: "I never talk about the Government because they are speeches that divide, but you make me lose faith.

. Because that ad was paid for by me and all the taxpayers and

. And the measures I'm going to take are something private. I hope this kind of thing ends soon."

In the next scene,

television presenter appears asking a guest if she sleeps in sexy or comfortable clothes.

Although you have to go back to 2016 to link this scene with

, there were not a few who quickly identified that scene with the interview that

did to

that year in

.

In that interview, the presenter asked the actress the same question, that she went to

precisely to present a Christmas campaign for the

brand of sexy Christmas underwear.

Pablo Motos: "It's indecent"

For those of us who saw the campaign, it was clear that

' response was going to arrive.

And he arrived last night at the collaborators table.

After the interview with

and with

,

,

and

at the table, the presenter brought out all the artillery against the veiled attack and the signaling of the

.

I do not know very well why he started with the law of yes is yes, with which since the program this week they have been very critical, nor why speed was mixed with bacon.

One house is the controversial law and another thing is a campaign that mercilessly seeks to point out certain personalities.

I imagine that since the Pisuerga passes through Valladolid...

"As you know from this program we have strongly criticized the law of only yes is yes", the presenter started very seriously.

"The

has spent more than a million euros of public money on a television campaign to call me a macho. I know, I know that it is vulgar because they point to everyone, but it is that I have been made an announcement.

Spending more than a million euros from the Spanish while the country is as it is is indecent", sentenced the presenter to then point out that despite everything, this had its funny part.

Fun, what is said to be fun is not.

He then took the opportunity to show the headlines of the media in which it was pointed out that the Ministry directed by

pointed out in its new campaign

,

and the

fans .

A campaign that, in the words of the Ministry itself, aims to challenge "men as the cause of violence against women and, at the same time, as an essential part of ending this violence."

Next, the presenter gave way to the part of the campaign based on that 2016 interview. In the campaign you can see a slimy presenter who asks the question and a guest who turns to the camera and sentences:

. "

"I asked this question in 2016 to

, but

came to present a campaign for sexy underwear and pajamas," warned

.

And then the moment of that interview - "I have recovered the moment so that you can see the slimy tone that the campaign has used and what really happened" -.

Indeed,

asked

if she slept in sexy clothes or in comfortable clothes.

The moment was like this: "Sorry, it's not an intimate question, it's journalistic:

"

To which

, without seeming uncomfortable at any time and laughing, replied: "Not very comfortable because in the end what is comfortable becomes not very sexy because

."

"As you can see, neither am I being slimy nor is she uncomfortable,"

replied .

And just in case it was not clear,

puts back the moment of the campaign in which the guest turns after the question and warns that this question would not be asked if she were a man.

"The Ministry of Equality is lying. Let's see how many times I have asked similar questions to men."

And a series of videos of

asking very similar questions to male guests like

,

or

.

"Well, I just have to add your honor. I don't want to get angry, but...", the presenter concluded.

The blunder of the Ministry of Equality with Pablo Motos

Angry, he was very angry, of course.

In particular, the scene used by the

has nothing to do with reality.

But, did the presenter do the right thing in responding to the Ministry of Equality about a campaign that few had heard about?

Or was it giving it a place in

to give it publicity that by itself it had not achieved despite, even, the controversy?

The reality is that neither

behaved like a slob in that interview, nor did

feel uncomfortable - and if she was, she did the role of her life - nor was the question inappropriate.

had gone to

because she was the image of that sexy underwear campaign and she was going to present it.

In other words, the question was pertinent and at no time was it treated in a macho way or that it offended the guest.

In fact, prior to that question, it is

himself who states that men have three types of underpants, "those to go to work, those to go out and the loose rubber ones to sleep in."

On that occasion, precisely not.

The

erred in choosing that moment and erred in how it used it.

The background, not because it is undeniable that there are many interviews in which uncomfortable and macho questions are thrown at the guests, but precisely that of

, no.

The agency that has carried out the campaign of the

and the Ministry itself, have screwed up to the hock.

They have gone to the easy, to the shocking, but to what was not like that.

In fact, if the intention of the

was to point out and lynch

, he only had to travel one year after the interview with

.

To the year 2017, when the cable girls

were invited to

,

,

and

.

That interview did bring a tail, so much so that it was the starting signal for the image of

as that of a macho and "slimy" presenter.

herself

- and also

- harshly criticized the presenter days later for the type of questions he had asked during the interview: "I would have liked to have told Pablo other things. But I don't think

is a exception in society. We suffer from this constantly, in other television programs. I simply believe that it is a reflection of reality, of what I live in my day to day. Pablo made the comments that we hear every day at the bar , anywhere. These are 'micromachismos' that in the end are becoming 'macro' because fortunately we have the magnifying glass on it. I think we have to fight a lot against that".

The commotion of that interview was tremendous and, yes, that interview was macho.

In fact, since that interview,

' attitude towards the guests who have passed through

has undergone a radical change.

How many times since then have pages and pages been written again -as then- describing the presenter as macho?

It has been possible to write pages and pages criticizing other things, but rarely like that interview.

Pablo Motos

asked those questions that the

wanted to point out in his campaign, but the Ministry preferred to go easy, to "sexy" because, perhaps, it was more complicated to reflect those micro-machismo with the questions from that interview with

in which

asked them if the girls knew how to twerk, if the girls got along or turned green or with which Hollywood actor they wanted to have a sex scene.

Much more shocking, without a doubt, to play a question about sexy underwear and

.

But if

went with a machete against the Ministry of Equality, much more so was

program for five years

and who was more than clear last night: "I have been a scriptwriter for this program for 5 seasons and He is extremely careful so that no one feels offended in this program. There are great jokes from this team that sacrifice themselves so as not to bother."

Juan del Val sentences the Ministry of Equality

also

joined the 'host': "It strikes me that those of us who know the world of advertising know that there is a lot of work there. Here the client is the

and the agency is the one that gets this advertising To do this publicity there must be a guideline and I am very scandalized that this type of publicity is done from the

".

And, of course,

, whom it is difficult to label as contrary to the

: "Yes, I would like to say that I am very sorry that

. I think it's the politics we're in and I hope it's not the one we're going to."

And finally,

: "I find it outrageous that for a program that we have a good time, they go after you and spend a million euros on a campaign that seems like shit to me (...) She came to campaign for underwear,

."

But if

was pissed off and enraged, even though he didn't want to appear so,

was even more indignant .

As a scriptwriter of the program that

is pointed out like this , more than

himself , it touches not only the presenter but all those who are in charge of making the program every day: "Feminism is being loaded with this type of campaigns The problem is when they tell you, 'it's your turn to offend'. This is a specific campaign against a specific person and it is structured that way because they take criticism very badly. And if you take it that badly to do something so rude and vulgar to do something like that you have a problem understanding democracy".

Pablo Motos

did not want to make more blood, the blow had already been enough or, at least, the relief had already been enough.

But he did want to finish off with a phrase that is the same as the one that should make society think the most, but also the

.

There he left it: "

. It is neither of one nor of the other."

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

• Paul Motorcycles

• Irene Montero

• antenna 3

• the anthill