The connotations of Mexico’s political and social discourse pertaining to the treatment of its citizens are applicable to harsh terms that at times demonize the country entirely. In fact, the majority American perspective has subjective views of said country that agree to that. Although some aspects of their ideology are comprehensible, blinders such as the media and the enforced democratic prowess serve as great catalyst that help shield people from its positives as well. If taken off, Mexico’s true victories will be seen such as the immense involvement of women in the social and political spheres. Contemporarily, feminism in Mexico has been advantageous to the country as a whole and due to the recent rapid shift to the left the American view will not be as reasonable and should continue to change as Mexico becomes objectively better. 
	Under the pretense of the political history of Mexico it has been difficult for women and minorities of various backgrounds to articulate theirs issues considering the overall troubles the county has faced. A great time for politicization with ascent of independent social movement occurred during the 1970’s where many criticized state corporations and military challenges from armed guerilla warfare. The “authoritarian” of the Mexican state developed a political system “nourished” by revolutionist and populist discourse to define the mestizo nation, a European mentality. This was a brief yet major radical change to the left that changed the political discourse of the nation. Carlos Salinas de Gortari was elected president in 1988 that marked civil organizations as solidarity implementing the notorious concepts of neoliberalism as well as many other Latin American countries at the time. Around this time socialism fell and the deregulation of working conditions took place as well as the launch of many social programs. Since the Gortari’s regime encouraged fraudulence in the government in 1994 conservative neoliberalism began to the collapse due to the approval of the Salinismo regime which raised “an open and violent confrontation with the drug economy”. This was also the time when the Zapatista movement was created since the negative impact of the government by neoliberalism affected them and other minorities the most. The war on drugs was not the only major issue. In fact Salinas signed for NAFTA which caused greater control of private foreign investment, more sales of the government industries, and the termination of state programs that provided health and social well-being, common programs women mainly used. In 2000, Vicente Fox was elected fraudulently and continued the neoliberal policies causing the income of equality to widen.  In 2004 Zedillo took presidency and continued to enforce the NAFTA policies which in correlation increased the massacre ratio since more funding and power was given to the military as well less restraint. These federal policies “increase corruption, instability, and human rights violation”. By 2006 there was a civil war against the “common enemy” or the drug dealers. The people most affected by this were indigenous people, migrants, and women.
	Although the political choices caused much corruption, the people affected by it the most were hardly involved in the decisions that took place. Gortari’s policies brought issues of poverty, citizenship, equality, legal advice and civil rights. Much of the Zapatista community particularly the women had higher massacre rates resulting from the presidents’ reign. There was more terrorism in the indigenous communities such as in Santa Maria Ostula and in Michoacán State. Mexico originally had a “thriving industrial sector” and was a major “agricultural producer”. Since Mexican sociology had become more diverse and neoliberalism became a dominant ideology at the time it raised more violent “political repression, electoral corruption, and structural reforms” disadvantaging its potential thriving economy, its workers, and their families. Mexico became a smallholder agriculture and a competitive global economy which increased the struggle of unions for fertile ground and to be a part of the majority political party. Insufficient political representation for middle class and lower class resulted in lack of urban housing and services, environmental contamination and “polarization in distribution of income that [greatly] affects women”  financially and health-wise. 
