In a short period of time, two key women ministers have resigned – a New Zealander Jacinta Ardern and scots Nicholas Sturgeon – and the top manager of Youtube, Susan Wojcicki. The surprise in the press was immediately followed by a frantic search for “political” reasons – too heavy responsibilities, disappointed expectations, and so on. – Obviously, given the impulse, with deep sincerity and clarity, with approximately the same words, all three declared in interviews their “apolitical”, that is, the desire to devote more time to the family, to the children, to the husband.
The insinuation made by the two prime ministers of being “human” has also faded. Nicholas Sturgeon speak openly aboutthe brutality of politics”, On wanting to rediscover an essential part of himself that he had to sacrifice, and he did so with an image that must strike with its strength and unpredictability: “Make some time for Nicholas Sturgeon human.” He then added that he hoped his choice would not be judged “selfishness”. And he was not mistaken. What is “self”, “person” in the totality of body, thought, feelings and mind, rather than “citizen”, If not that “private” who only cares about his own interests and has remained outside the public domain for thousands of years? Shouldn’t women be grateful to be included in the roles of power from which they have been excluded for so long?
It’s all too easy to attribute their choice to give up on self-induced exhaustion or deficiency “nature”, Little inclined to civic tasks of great institutional importance, it is more difficult to ask what is meant by “that man” who now demands his share of attention and recognition. If women entered places of power with difficulty, and they no longer considered them a desirable target, but rather a cage no less obligatory than the domestic role of wives and mothers, then perhaps it is not because of that politics that is divorced from life that today its decline, its violence, its “brutality”, Is it related to the field of restricting basic human experiences to “nature”?
Perhaps it is strange that women begin to “defective policy which has its basis in sexual division of action, in erasing from the history of experiences that have to do with the body, its emotions, its limitations, and its needs—such as sexuality, motherhood, childbirth, old age, death, disease, addiction—that is, with the part of the human being that patriarchal culture thought it had left behind, identified with “feminine”? that request “parity” There was no way out that feminism had already figured it out the minute it stopped talking about it “women’s issue”from the “incomplete citizenship of women”, and the “disadvantage to be remedied”, to divert attention to the subjugation of one sex at the expense of the other which goes far beyond “discrimination”, which is now apparently the only obstacle to remaining subjugated and stigmatized.
When they were placed at the center of the queer practices of feminism affiliate The seventies “Body Problems” – cancel female sexMaternity, the duty of procreation, and the reduction of women a “He writes” and not ‘people’, confined to care homes, as a ‘natural’ extension of their ability to generate, to colonize their ideas – it should have been clear that we were talking about the history, culture, and politics of sex that dictated his worldview, and that one could not think of a change in the relationship between Man and woman does not mean in the first place to question the existing order.
in his broadcast on Radio threefrom November 1978 to February 1979in conversation with “last”, Young feminists, in some key words in politics, Rossana Rosanda books: “The first contradiction is, therefore, for women between the time of politics and the time of life (…) they are two separate experiences (…) the woman who traditionally practices politics constantly jumps between one level and another, she lives the two without borders and strangeness.” He added that another idea of politics was needed in which one should not “flattening to the status of “worker”, “exploiter” or “citizen” the diversity and richness of the single person, the one-off relationships that exist between real people (…) Feminists say they want the person not only to be involved but to be exposed in themselves (…) In short, a woman’s life is full of rules, but they are always embodied in a face, a direct relationship, an experience, in the depths sometimes reaching the subconscious. Thicknesses which, when transferred to the political relation, seem to disappear in the abstract figure of the abstract citizen (…) Women feel that their inequality comes from an ancient, assimilated culture, and herein lies the principle of their oppression, before the laws and stronger than the law. (…) revolutionaries or rioters. They are rarely democrats…”.
But how can we call democracy, a system that despite all the changes that have occurred with the passage of time, the basis of which is still the “patriarchal principle” that – he writes Bachofen In the matriarchy – And The spiritual life that is higher than the physicalwhile motherhood is part of the ‘physical component of man’, in relation to other living beings and the ‘mother earth of all things’?
For several years the international network not less I give in memory ofMarch 8th A new, more radical view: women’s strike for productive and reproductive activities, an unprecedented juxtaposition of realities we used to consider separately, such as economic exploitation,social injustice and related experiences “intimate life”, Like care and domestic work, with the burden of violence that has always characterized them. The abandonment of the roles of power that we are witnessing today can also be read in this key, in that it does not speak of a withdrawal to traditional positions, but of a form of “women’s rebellion” Against the brutality of the politics built without and against them.
“Freelance social media evangelist. Organizer. Certified student. Music maven.”
