Michela Marzano

thumb|Michela Marzano Maria Michela Marzano (born 1970) is an Italian researcher, philosopher and writer. Politically connected to the Italian left, she was elected a Member of the Italian Parliament for the Democratic Party in February 2013. Quotes The more women try to assert themselves as equal to men in dignity, value and rights, the more men react violently. The fear of losing even a few crumbs of power makes them vulgar, aggressive and violent. [...] These are men who do not accept female autonomy and who, often out of weakness, want to control women and subjugate them to their will. Sometimes they are insecure and have little self-confidence, but instead of trying to understand what exactly is wrong in their lives, they blame women and hold them responsible for their failures. Gradually, they turn women's lives into a nightmare. And when women try to rebuild their lives with someone else, they seek them out, threaten them, beat them, and sometimes kill them. Paradoxically, many of these crimes of passion are nothing more than a symptom of the “decline of the patriarchal empire”. As if violence were the only way to avert the threat of loss. To continue to maintain control over the woman. To reduce her to a mere object of possession. But when the person you love is nothing more than an object, not only does the relational world become hell, but love also dissolves and disappears. From “”Why men kill women“”, “'Repubblica.it”', 14 July 2010. As those who identify moral dilemmas and try to resolve them by advancing moral principles, values and norms know well, every dilemma, by definition, is dramatic, desperate and hopeless. When faced with a moral dilemma, one always makes the wrong choice; whatever decision one makes, one always ends up regretting what one has said or done. :*From a speech to the Chamber of Deputies, 9 July 2013, quoted in Chamber of Deputies – XVII Legislature – Stenographic Report of the Assembly – Session No. 49 of Tuesday, 9 July 2013 – Continuation of the discussion of the bill: Conversion into law of Decree-Law No. 61 of 4 June 2013, containing new urgent provisions for the protection of the environment, health and labour in the operation of businesses of national strategic interest (A.C. 1139-A)“”. It is not work, however, that kills and destroys; what kills and destroys is the exploitation of labour, the exploitation of poverty, the exploitation of despair, that is, everything that happens when the only thing that matters is the maximisation of economic profit, that absolute selfishness that no longer has anything to do with the well-understood interest that Adam Smith already spoke to us about and that leads to the maximisation of the common good. From a speech to the Chamber of Deputies, 9 July 2013,quoted in Chamber of Deputies – XVII Legislature – Stenographic Report of the Assembly – Session No. 49 of Tuesday, 9 July 2013 – Continuation of the discussion of the bill: Conversion into law of Decree-Law No. 61 of 4 June 2013, containing new urgent provisions for the protection of the environment, health and labour in the operation of businesses of national strategic interest (A.C. 1139-A)“”. There are moments of profound misunderstanding that happen just like that, from one moment to the next, sometimes suddenly. Whether it is due to accumulated fatigue, a momentary lapse of attention, or simply because life is often very complicated. But ultimately, the exact reasons for this misunderstanding matter little. Let's just say it happens. From “”How to overcome misunderstandings“”, “'VanityFair.it”', 9 December 2015. (About the surrogacy) [...] when we are faced with a pregnancy that is altruistic, when we have clarified the difference between the principle of the non-commercialisation of the human body and its intangibility, we must also recognise, at this point, the principle of female autonomy. When a woman decides clearly, autonomously and altruistically to help a couple become parents, having already been a mother herself, having already carried a pregnancy to term, having no particular financial needs, in the name of what should we victimise her and consider that she is incapable of freely expressing her consent? From a speech to the Chamber of Deputies, 18 April 2016. Visible at minute 05:20 “'Michela Marzano GPA”', “'Facebook.com”', 18 April 2016; cited in “'Initiatives, at national and supranational level, to combat all forms of surrogacy”', “'DeputatiPD.it”'. Unfortunately, this law is already outdated. It is a law that would have been excellent twenty years ago. It is a law reminiscent of the PACS in France, voted on in 1999. It is a law from which we should have expected more. From a speech in the Chamber of Deputies prior to the vote that led to the approval of the Cirinnà bill, 11 May 2016<ref>Visible at minute 01:15 in “”#unionicivili My voting declaration today in the Chamber'“, ”'Facebook.com, 11 May 2016. [...] I will obviously vote yes to this law because it is a necessary step forward, it is needed. Now those who dare to even imagine that being homosexual means not only being different, but also being inferior to others, will be even more ashamed. [...] I ask for no triumphalism [...] because what I would like to ask on my own behalf of all homosexual people, alas, my gay brothers and lesbian sisters, is to apologise for not having been sufficiently capable of protecting and defending their equal dignity and their complete, equal and full equality. From a speech to the Chamber of Deputies prior to the vote that led to the approval of the Cirinnà bill, 11 May 2016. Visible at minute 02:35 in “”#unionicivili My statement of vote today in the Chamber'“, ”'Facebook.com, 11 May 2016. If a party is unable to uphold a basic principle such as equality between children, regardless of their parents' sexual orientation, then it is no longer a party with which one can identify. From the interview “”2018/01/30/news/michela-marzano-parlamento-addio-renzi-ha-scelto-solo-i-fedeli-non-i-piu-preparati-1.317772?ref=HEF_RULLO Michela Marzano: “Parliament farewell, Renzi has chosen only the faithful, not the most prepared”', “'L'Espresso.it”', 30 January 2018. I have no victories in Parliament. I have pushed things forward as far as I could. For example, I was the rapporteur for the law on double surnames, which then stalled in the Senate. I got it voted on in the Chamber of Deputies despite hostility and objections that I didn't think would come from the left. A macho, paternalistic, archaic attitude. From the interview “”2018/01/30/news/michela-marzano-parlamento-addio-renzi-ha-scelto-solo-i-fedeli-non-i-piu-preparati-1.317772?ref=HEF_RULLO Michela Marzano: “Parliament farewell, Renzi has chosen only the faithful, not the most prepared”', “'L'Espresso.it”', 30 January 2018. When you are a simple member of Parliament, there is always a group leader, a deputy group leader, a chamber secretary, who block you with their authority. And you can't go any further. From the interview “”2018/01/30/news/michela-marzano-parlamento-addio-renzi-ha-scelto-solo-i-fedeli-non-i-piu-preparati-1.317772?ref=HEF_RULLO Michela Marzano: “Parliament farewell, Renzi has chosen only the faithful, not the most prepared”', “'L'Espresso.it”', 30 January 2018. It used to be easier to be a know-it-all, but now the world is so complex that anyone who claims to be a know-it-all is a poor soul. From the interview “”2018/01/30/news/michela-marzano-parlamento-addio-renzi-ha-scelto-solo-i-fedeli-non-i-piu-preparati-1.317772?ref=HEF_RULLO Michela Marzano: “Parliament farewell, Renzi has chosen only the faithful, not the most prepared”', “'L'Espresso.it”', 30 January 2018. The French anthropologist Claude Lévy-Strauss, in his book “'The Look from Afar”', devoted memorable pages to the theme of racism, explaining the fundamental difference between xenophobia and the legitimate need for anyone to protect themselves. It is one thing to want to protect one's loved ones, one's habits, one's beliefs and, why not, one's job. It is quite another to marginalise, fight, discriminate against, offend and hurt someone because of the colour of their skin or their origins, i.e. because of what characterises them as a human being. From “”-202892238/ If for Salvini the racism alarm is an invention of the left“”, “'Rep.repubblica.it”', 28 July 2018. L'amore è per tutto Michela Marzano, L'amore è tutto, UTET, 2013, ISBN 978-88-418-9856-7 The “forever” of love is like the “forever” of the white rabbit in Alice in Wonderland: it lasts a second. (chap. 1) The “right person” is not the one who will be able to calm our anxieties and fulfil our expectations, but the one who will learn to accept us as we are, with our flaws and contradictions. Even when we ourselves find it hard to bear. (chap. 3) In love, as in life, you should never have too high expectations. Perhaps you shouldn't expect anything at all, since the most beautiful things always happen unexpectedly. (chap. 4) Love cannot be earned. Otherwise, it would not be love. It would just be a form of barter: I give you what you ask for and you give me what I ask for. (chap. 4) And it is precisely when you are no longer afraid of losing your loved one that love dies. (interlude I) Feelings need privacy. Because when you reveal too much, you empty yourself. And then there is nothing left for yourself. Nothing to hold on to when evening falls and you need to rediscover that hard core that makes you unique, that reassures you. Love for life. Love for ourselves. Love for others. (chap. 12) Sometimes we love the possibility that the other person seems to offer us to be “other” than the roles we play: their gestures suggest a way out of the suffocating “must be” that has allowed us to grow and move forward, but which after so many years of routine ends up being too restrictive, like an old suit that no longer fits. (interlude III) Only when we listen to the noise within ourselves can we be ready to welcome the words of others. (interlude III) In love, we always clash. And we start over every day. Even when we don't feel like it. Especially when we no longer feel like it. (chap. 19) Everyone has their own internal music that prevents them from listening to what others say. We only ever hear what we already know. We only ever listen to what we ourselves think. (chap. 22) Who knows if we really make choices in life. Who knows if the freedom we talk so much about today really exists. Or perhaps there is such a thing as destiny. A plan in which everything has already been predicted. And so you don't choose anything, you don't decide anything, you just follow the path that has already been laid out for you. And then you spend your life asking yourself “why?”. And the “whys” always remain unanswered. (chap. 25) With time, we learn: the beginning of joy is right there, when we accept that the past never passes and we begin to live with disorder, after giving up on immutability and permanence. (chap. 31) Many of us complain about our men, without realising that very often we are the ones who infantilise them, reproaching them for not growing up, for not being up to the task, for not being able to manage everyday life. (chap. 32) How can you share your daily life with another person if you don't give them the chance to do things their own way, or even to take responsibility for not doing them? How can you live with another person if you don't accept their otherness?After all, even in love, it is always a question of otherness. He is not like us. He is not us. He is simply “other”. (chap. 32) Sii bella e stai zitta Michela Marzano, Sii bella e stai zitta. Perché l'Italia di oggi offende le donne, Mondadori, 2010. ISBN 978-88-04-60194-4 Incipit Last summer, I had to admit the obvious: the regression of Italian women is not just a myth, a story told abroad to cast our country in a bad light. It is a reality. A sad reality that emerges not only when you read the newspapers or watch television, but also and above all when you talk to people, observe the behaviour of men and women in everyday life, and witness the return of sexist and backward-looking discourse. Quotes Within a few days, I had the feeling that the progressive reduction of women to body-images was accompanied by an even more serious regression, by a heavy counterattack against the equality and freedom for which women had fought so hard in the 1960s and 1970s. It is as if the only alternative to the male-dominated model of women as objects of desire were that defended by a certain reactionary ideology. Too often, philosophers hide behind incomprehensible, technical language. For some of them, it is a way of remaining entrenched in an ivory tower without having to confront life, people's aspirations and frustrations, everyday life, or their own physical existence. [...] When, in the name of scientific rigour, we lose touch with reality, then knowledge becomes sterile. It is no longer useful. Except to take comfort in the idea that “others” cannot understand and... too bad for them! Although the spirit of the 1960s and 1970s, with its culture of equality and rights, is still with us, the view that many Italian men have of women, and which many young women end up internalising, does not correspond at all to the hopes of those years. It is women's achievements themselves that seem to be called into question. Not only because of the commodification of women's bodies, which is staged in advertising images or in contemporary pornography, or because of other degrading representations of the female condition, conveyed by television and in particular by entertainment programmes. But also because of a retrograde ideology that would like to turn back the clock. In order to reject subjugation to male power, we must first recognise it as a form of subjugation. [...] Although no human being can be treated as a slave without suffering, it often happens that we voluntarily submit to a form of slavery when we have not had the opportunity to know anything else. Habit makes us accept the unacceptable. For centuries, rationality has been valued as a distinctive characteristic of human beings. For centuries, it has been argued that women's argumentative abilities are inferior to those of men. For centuries, it has been claimed that, unlike men, who are naturally capable of contributing to the development of public life and the organisation of society, women should be content with the role of wife and mother, to be the obedient and submissive angel of the hearth. It is no coincidence that the main objective of feminism and many intellectuals today is still to deconstruct these stereotypical images of femininity and masculinity, to allow women to finally have access not only to formal equality, but also and above all to substantive equality: men and women must enjoy the same rights; although they are different, men and women have the same value and the same dignity. The more time passes, the more I am convinced that this progressive dematerialisation of women, as the only way to achieve equality, is an impasse. I do not believe that the objective existence of a sexual difference automatically implies the devaluation of women and male supremacy. On the contrary, it is precisely when we renounce difference in order to conform to a single model of humanity that we risk renouncing definitively everything that makes us unique and irreplaceable. I have learned to use my body in a certain way because I am immersed in a “sexualised” world, where everything contributes to teaching me what a “man” is and what a woman is. So what? Must I therefore conclude that it is more interesting to “do”, regardless of my identity as a woman, rather than “be” a woman in everything I do? Why, in order to be considered equal to men, should I give up my specificity, what characterises me as a woman? When everything becomes the result of a construction, the body ends up becoming “nothing”, a sort of chemical compound that dissolves in the solvent of criticism. The door then opens wide to the very possibility of denying any role to reality. It is no longer enough to denounce male domination – which sees women's bodies as objects at the disposal of men – but we even go so far as to deny that women's bodies are different from men's. What matters is not just being heard, but being heard as a woman. Until the only way to be accepted and recognised as equal to men is to deny our difference and pretend that we are all identical, we women will not have won our fight for equality. There will always be someone who denies value and dignity to those who are not “perfectly identical”. Without prior recognition of the other, motherhood does not exist. Procreation is a relational act, a long and complex process that involves the existence of a dialogue, albeit silent, between the future child and the mother within the maternal body. If recognition does not take place, this silent dialogue does not begin, and it is difficult to imagine that a dialogue that never began could be established later. What is certain, however, is that a woman cannot be forced to continue with a pregnancy on the grounds that “she should have thought about it before”. The legalisation of abortion does not oblige any woman to have an abortion if she does not want one. It does not oblige anyone to consider abortion morally legitimate. It only allows all those who cannot or do not want to continue with a pregnancy to do so in the best conditions, without “paying” an excessive price for a choice which, I repeat, is never trivial. On the contrary, those who want to criminalise abortion not only seek to impose their conception of the world and morality on others, but are also “indifferent” to the tragic consequences that a return to clandestine abortion could have for many women. In the case of abortion, every woman knows that the problem is not only about her body, but also about an “impossible relationship” with a child that, for often different reasons, she does not want or is unable to have. I defend it above all because the legalisation of abortion is the only possibility that exists, in a civilised state, to guarantee respect for women. Not only because the life of a woman – who exists, lives, suffers, acts – is infinitely more precious than that of a being who is not yet born, but also because I am convinced that it is not enough to live for one's life to have meaning. Motherhood is neither a necessity nor a curse. It is an extraordinary experience that allows a woman, when she decides to become a mother, to reconcile the famous division between body and soul, without this meaning that female desire is identified with the desire for motherhood. During pregnancy, biological time imposes itself on biographical time, but never completely erases it. A woman's body becomes a space in which the mother and her unborn child enter into a relationship. Women have the opportunity to experience a very special condition: on the one hand, they identify with their changing bodies; on the other, they distance themselves from them, sometimes to the point of estrangement. The internal movements are no longer just their own. They belong to another creature that is beginning to live. It is the very boundaries of the maternal body that open up. In some respects, there are no words that ring true to describe motherhood. It is not a natural condition, nor is it a socially induced need. [...] During pregnancy, it is not only a woman's body that changes, but also her imagination. And, within this imagination, the child is often burdened with many expectations. Motherhood is not “just” a woman's adventure; it always involves others too: grandparents, the father, and, of course, the child who will be born and who has the right, in turn, to be cared for and fully recognised. In adult videos, the role of women is extremely codified. Women are there to literally embody the “vulgar Aphrodite” of whom the ancient Greeks spoke, that is, a kind of icon of animal femininity, the corrupt and corrupting woman that men seem to need to satisfy their sexual desires. Unlike the “celestial Aphrodite”, the wife or partner worthy of becoming the mother of his children, the “vulgar Aphrodite” can be treated as a mere trinket. Everything is much more complicated and problematic, however, when, instead of understanding that human beings are a mixture of good and evil, we grow up with the conviction that the “objects” of the world can be classified as “good objects” and “bad objects”. Because, ultimately, it is this type of mechanism that dominates when, as adults, men feel compelled to believe that there are two categories of women: madonnas and whores. Self-esteem does not solve all problems, and it is not insufficient self-esteem that causes the marginalisation of women. On the contrary, precisely because they are marginalised and constantly devalued, women find it difficult to value themselves. The vicious circle in which many women find themselves today is always the same: they find it difficult to assert themselves to others, both in their personal and professional lives, but they are very good at blaming themselves and becoming discouraged when they encounter difficulties or are criticised. [...] If men stopped criticising and started encouraging women, however, they would lose some of the power they try so hard to maintain and would therefore, at least from their point of view, be “shooting themselves in the foot”. It is up to us women to learn to do without men's recognition and to help each other to begin to recognise the value of what we do and who we are. Until they stop perceiving themselves as men see them, women will not be able to build self-esteem on their own. [...] To regain self-confidence, women cannot simply “decide” or “impose” it on themselves. They must gradually learn not to depend on the gaze of men; not to feel beautiful only when a man tells them so; not to feel good only when their boss or professor approves of them. Unlike girls, who quickly find themselves confronted with a particular aspect of their femininity when they start menstruating, boys find it more difficult to understand what it means to become men. The construction of “masculinity” depends greatly on the cultural and social environment to which young people belong. In some environments, for example, boys learn that to become men, they must display arrogance, violence and contempt for women. Masculinity then becomes a precious commodity that must be protected against all attacks that may come from the weak, from “sissies” and from homosexuals. Masculinity, a distinctive sign of manhood only when it demonstrates the inferiority of women, drives these young men in disarray to lash out against all those who “waste” it. It is no coincidence that the most violent attacks against homosexuals come precisely from those who despise women and consider them inferior to men. Barbie was our icon. Her success depended on her perfect body, regardless of her profession or age. Barbie was always impeccable and sublime. Barbie was always heterosexual and married. Barbie was always happy and successful. The life represented in the world of Barbie was, therefore, mythical and unattainable. The girls of my generation grew up believing that anything was possible and that “wanting” was enough to “be able”. Barbie succeeded; why shouldn't we succeed too? After all, we just had to learn to “control” ourselves: control our bodies, control our emotions, control our needs. In a society where the predominant message is that every woman can (and must) shape her own destiny, determine her own fate and shape her own identity, many girls felt trapped by a terrible injunction: if you want to succeed in life, you must control yourself, become what others expect of you, be flawless, even at the cost of painful sacrifices and renunciations. The problem for women suffering from anorexia is not hunger. Because in reality, anorexics [...] are always hungry. They have an enormous appetite. A hunger that constantly haunts them, precisely because they “cannot” and “must not” eat. The real problem with anorexia is the feeling of omnipotence that arises when you feel you can control everything, even hunger. In their emaciated bodies, anorexics defy death, even as they carry it around like a medal to show off; they defy desires, denying the body's basic needs, even as desire can no longer emerge; they defy social norms in order to feel free, even as they construct for themselves a system of uncompromising laws that they can never transgress. Defending an idea – and fighting for it to triumph one day – has become a symbol of the inability to adapt to the world and the future. Ideas no longer have any value. We live in a pragmatic world, where only “facts” matter, regardless of the means used to achieve one's goals. And even “facts”, ultimately, matter relatively little, because all you have to do is deny what you have done, perhaps on television in front of millions of viewers, to convince others that you have done nothing. [...] It is the triumph of “everything and its opposite”, made possible by the fact that we grow up with the illusion that we are never entirely responsible if something goes wrong. The more women try to assert themselves as equal in dignity, value and rights to men, the more men react violently. The fear of losing even a few crumbs of power makes them aggressive, brutal and vulgar. [...] These are men who do not accept female autonomy and who, often out of weakness, want to control women and subjugate them to their will. They use violence (from verbal to physical and sexual) for fear of losing their power: their attitude is perceived as “normal”; it is part of the script of masculinity to which they generally adhere deeply. Paradoxically, the “decline of the patriarchal empire” goes hand in hand with an increase in violence against women. The emancipation of women has not yet led to the hoped-for balance. On the contrary, men's need to demonstrate their superiority takes on extremely disturbing forms. Behind rape there is almost always a need to humiliate women, a desire to leave a mark on these beings who continue to be considered inferior. As time goes by, Italy is witnessing a systematic attack on feminist achievements. Whether it is degrading representations in the media or sexist language used in politics, the result is always the same: to “put women in their place”, reminding them that their “natural” place is beside men, silent and aware of male superiority. Ultimately, the political system and the television system are wonderfully intertwined and reflect a very precise view of gender roles. Men have the right to speak. Women must limit themselves to being beautiful and keeping quiet. The problem of insults, so-called “hate speech”, is complex. The phenomenon has been analysed by some American feminists who, by deconstructing the mechanisms of male domination, have pointed the finger at the vicious circle of “hate speech” that assigns women a well-defined role from which they can no longer escape. All those who dare to loudly claim equal civil rights are not taken seriously: their claims are immediately discredited and, instead of arguments, the insidious weapon of insults is used against them to silence them. [...] When you shout at a woman that she is a “slut”, at a homosexual that he is a “faggot” or at a black person that he is a “dirty nigger”, you do so because the other person cannot respond. What matters is not the argument you use. There is no argument, no idea, no rationality in the insult. The aim is always the same: to hurt the other person so that they remain silent. The real struggle for Italian women today is to work on the “contents” and no longer just on the “containers” of equality, striving to change male attitudes and mentalities. The emancipation of women has not yet led to the hoped-for balance because the vast majority of men do not want to give up their privileges. The possibility of breaking the “glass ceiling” is linked to the need for women to learn to “network”. We must gradually build a system of female relationships that becomes a resource for all. A system that allows us to break out of the “invisible cage” in which many of us still find ourselves, because the tendency to give in to social pressures is still strong. [...] As long as women accept as a given that they have to work a “double shift” and do not fight, by “networking”, to change the mentality of men, no law will ever be able to rid them of the “glass ceiling” that continues to discriminate against them. The freedom won in the 1960s and 1970s is no longer enough. To make it effective and achieve equality, we need to rediscover the value of solidarity. The days I have lived are part of my history. The joys I have known have shaped me. Without the past, which is inevitably written on my body, I would not be who I am. Erasing every mark that time leaves on our bodies means, in essence, erasing our memory as well. It means oblivion, not wanting to know, not wanting to show. It means underestimating the importance of experience, deluding ourselves that immediacy is the only value worth recognising. We cannot want to “be” and “have been” at the same time, be seventy years old and behave as if we were forty. Being on the side of women does not mean dreaming of a world in which the power relations can finally be reversed so that men suffer what women have suffered for centuries. Being on the side of women means fighting to build an egalitarian society in which being a man or a woman is “irrelevant”, has no significance. Not because being a man or a woman is the same thing, but because both men and women are human beings who share the best and worst of the human condition. The goal of women is not to dominate men, after having been dominated for centuries, but to fight to gradually move away from this logic of domination, without forgetting that, despite everything, human beings are (and will always remain) deeply ambivalent. There are two values I am not willing to give up: freedom and equality. No one can impose their conception of life, their ideas or their beliefs on others. Even if freedom is never absolute [...], everyone must be able to choose how to live their life, without coercion or intimidation. Only when we are free can we take responsibility for our choices, our actions and their consequences: freedom is the cornerstone of personal autonomy; it is what allows each person to become the protagonist of their own life. At the same time, however, in order for freedom not to remain an abstract value, it is necessary to organise the conditions conducive to its exercise, first and foremost among which is equality. If I do not have the same rights as others and if I do not have the material means to assert them, I cannot automatically be free to choose what I want to do or to achieve what I desire. To freedom as “non-interference”, the famous “freedom from” of the liberal philosophical tradition, we must add freedom as “non-domination”, “freedom to”, that effective freedom that allows everyone to participate in “public affairs” without suffering the consequences of intolerable discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, skin colour or religious belief. By concealing what it covers, the veil, by definition, manages to both “show” and “avert the gaze”. From this point of view, it is generally used to protect oneself from the gaze of others, to escape the logic of shame. To show oneself and be seen, one must want to do so: to allow the gaze of others to rest on us without hurting us. The veil can then be a shelter for the woman who wears it, provided, however, that she never closes herself off completely. If it serves to protect the mystery of the body, it must also allow something to be glimpsed: the eyes, an ankle, a strand of hair. Otherwise, there is a risk of it becoming a “shroud”. External links Category:1970 births Category:Living people Category:Politicians from Italy Category:Philosophers from Italy Category:Essayists from Italy