Δευτέρα 19 Αυγούστου 2013

Eight Horrific and Uplifting Stories About Being Gay in the New Russia


by Julia Ioffe | August 14, 2013

On January 25, Kremlin-friendly journalist Anton Krasovsky invited a bunch of drag queens on his show on KontrTV, a Kremlin-owned channel. It was his personal protest against a proposed law in the Russian parliament, the Duma, which would ban distributing “gay propaganda” to minors. The law’s broad definition of “propaganda” would prohibit publicly discussing gay relationships, comparing them to heterosexual ones, or calling them “normal.” That is, it would effectively criminalize the process of coming out—so often the driving force for wider social acceptance of gays. Violations would be punishable by hefty fines and, for foreigners, potential imprisonment. Krasovsky had long been a Kremlin shill, but this seemed to break his avid appetite for serving the state. “I’m gay,” he said on the air. “And I’m as much of a person as you, my dear viewers, as President Putin, Prime Minister Medvedev, and the deputies of the Duma.”

The transmission was cut instantaneously. That night, everything Krasovsky had done for the channel was purged from its site. Later that night, he was fired—via text message.
Krasovsky and I had often clashed, but this summer, he wrote to me asking for advice, as life in Russia “had become unsafe and unproductive.” His mother now wanted to sell her house and move, because, Krasovsky says, “now all the neighbors know that I’m not a TV star but a fucking fag.”
When I contacted him for this article, I asked if anything had surprised him about coming out in Russia. He responded: “It wasn’t that I was surprised as much as I was gladdened to discover how amazing our people is. I get thousands of letters of support. Thousands. But only a few contain threats.”


In Moscow, one of my closest friends is Mike, a gay American journalist. In 2010, he met Fedya, a Russian seven years his junior. Mike called the next day to tell me he had met “the one,” and soon they were living together—nesting really. They made a conscious decision not to hide their sexuality. They held hands in the streets, they kissed in public, and, amazingly, no one seemed to mind.
One day, Mike and Fedya went to a party for Fedya’s older brother, a soccer fanatic. “We pull up to the house, and there is heavy-metal music playing, a bunch of dudes swilling cognac and vodka out of plastic cups. And we walk in and all heads snap in our direction,” Mike recounts. One of the friends, who had clearly spent most of the afternoon drinking, was watching with a wary, slanting look. Later that evening, he approached Mike: “I was sure he was going to try to pick a fight. Instead, he thrust a cup of cognac in my hand, raised his glass, and said, ‘It doesn’t matter what kind of love it is, as long as it’s true love.'"


This story of the party comes from an essay Mike wrote about Fedya’s family learning, grudgingly, to accept their son. It was never published, because Fedya’s mom worried about her friends’ reaction. Mike is Mike’s real name, but Fedya is not Fedya’s name.

Maria Kozlovskaya is a lawyer and she was asked to resign from her previous job at the Russian branch of a Western tobacco distributor. “My boss said we don’t align on certain core principles,” Kozlovskaya says. “She thought that gays are all pedophiles who corrupt children.” Kozlovskaya came out to her mom about seven times, and, each time, her mom pretended it was news.


Kozlovskaya works in gay advocacy in St. Petersburg, where there has been a spike in anti-gay violence. (There are no official statistics, but Kozlovskaya’s group, the LGBT Network, estimates that 15 percent of LGBT people were assaulted last year.) “People are changing their behavior to protect themselves,” Kozlovskaya says. “They don’t wear rainbow pins anymore, they don’t hold hands outside.”
Recently, when Kozlovskaya and a client—an assault victim—arrived at the courthouse, they were met by a group of skinheads. “They egged me and beat up the victim,” Kozlovskaya says. “We called the police, but they didn’t come.”

There is a group in Russia called Occupy Pedophilia run by a neo-Nazi named Maksim “the Hatchet” Martsinkevich. The group uses young men to lure older men into sexual encounters, at which point Maksim, usually shirtless, interrogates them on camera before pouring a bottle of urine on their heads.
Dozens of these videos can be found on YouTube. “Hello, my dear young lovers of extremism,” says Maksim in one. “As usual, I am without a shirt. Why? Because I am very poor. All my money goes to growth hormones, to anabolics ... to look good.” In his interrogations, he asks, in exhaustive detail, who is a top, and who is a bottom, and who likes to suck whose “pee-pee.”
One young man in the city of Pskov was targeted by the Hatchet and complained to officials. In return, the Hatchet and his goons posted a 15,000 ruble ($450) bounty on his head. Terrified, the young man came out to his mother and asked for her help. His mother said she didn’t care about his sexual orientation and dragged him off to file a police report.
The same thing happened to a young man in Perm, in the Ural Mountains. He told his mother; she promptly disowned him.


In May, a group of young men in Volgograd was sitting around drinking beer. “In the course of the conversation, it became clear that their 23-year-old friend was a homosexual, which enraged the rest of the group,” according to a news report. At first, they started to beat him. Then they stripped him and began shoving beer bottles into his anus. Two bottles fit, whole, and a third made it part of the way in. By this point, he was unconscious, so his friends put some cardboard under him and tried to set it alight. They failed, and left, but it dawned on them that he might turn them in. “One of the young men took a boulder weighing about 20 kilos and threw it eight times onto the head of the victim.”
The man’s mourning friends posted testimonials online. One wrote, “He had no signs of homosexuality.”

This winter, my friend Andrey, who is gay, was diagnosed with HIV. By then, he was 105 pounds and his vision was going. Andrey was stuck in the hospital for five months, surrounded by heroin addicts and convicts, who make up most of Russia’s HIV cases. His Moscow friends—a hip, progressive bunch—started a private Facebook group to help fund his treatment and schedule visits so he was never alone. “I was afraid that they’d judge me,” he says. “I am still in total shock at how incredible my friends are.”
Andrey is out of the hospital and on meds that have restored his health but are hell on his joints. “I don’t know whether to tell people,” he says, referring to his diagnosis. Russia has one of the fastest-growing HIV rates in the world, but, Andrey says: “There is no information on it anywhere. Everyone speaks in whispers about it here. Even the doctors.”


In February, as the gay-propaganda law made its way through the Duma, a popular Moscow magazine called Afisha ran a rainbow flag on its cover. Inside were the stories and portraits of 30 gay men and women of Moscow. They were lawyers, entrepreneurs, nurses, and I.T. specialists; there was even a welder named “Sergei Ivanov,” the Russian equivalent of John Smith. They told the stories of their “kaming aut”, which has become Moscow slang for any moment of honesty.
One subject was Alexander Smirnov, a press attaché in the Moscow mayor’s office. “I hide the fact that I’m gay,” he told Afisha. “If someone at work starts joking about fags, I smile like an idiot.” He broke his silence after hearing Putin and Medvedev boasting that there was no anti-gay discrimination in Russia. Smirnov predicted to Afisha that, after the article appeared, “they’ll quietly ask me to turn in my resignation.” A few days after publication, that’s exactly what happened.


Sasha, an acquaintance of mine, was 40, single, and childless. Shortly before I left Moscow last fall, she had approached our mutual friend Boris, a raucous young gay man who co-owns several of the restaurants and bars we loved to linger in. She and Boris both belonged to the cozy cocoon of the city’s old intelligentsia, so she asked Boris if he’d father a child with her, and he agreed. This was not kept secret, nor did people seem to judge their unorthodox non-coupling.
On June 18, their daughter, Elena, was born. “I am incredibly, incredibly grateful to and happy for our daddy Boris,” Sasha wrote on Facebook. The accompanying picture gathered more than 1,000 likes and hundreds of ebullient notes. I’d never seen this circle await a child so eagerly.
And yet, although Elena was born the day the Duma passed a law banning foreign adoptions by gay couples, and a week before Putin signed the gay-propaganda bill into law, no one drew a connection between her birth and a legislative push that prohibits anyone calling Sasha and Boris’s relationship “normal.” People welcomed Elena because everyone adored Sasha, and everyone adored Boris, and everyone in Moscow loves babies.

When I asked Boris’s permission to tell this story, he balked, and agreed only after I promised that I wouldn’t use their real names. I pointed out that he and his boyfriend had been photographed in Afisha’s kaming aut issue and used their full names. That was four months before the law passed, he explained. Since then, “everyone’s gone savage here.”
Julia Ioffe is a senior editor at The New Republic.
Source URL: http://www.newrepublic.com//article/114299/gay-life-russia-eight-horrific-stories

Πέμπτη 15 Αυγούστου 2013

Εκπαίδευση και Ομοφυλοφιλία στην Ελλάδα: Η κατασκευή της σιωπής

* των Τόμας Αναστασίου  και Θοδωρή Ράδη, εκπαιδευτικών
Lgbt/Κόκκινο, τεύχος 2

Η δομή του ελληνικού εκπαιδευτικού  συστήματος βασίζεται σε ένα αμφίσημο γενικευτικό πλαίσιο, το οποίο ταυτοποιεί και παράλληλα ετικετοποιεί τις διαφορετικότητες προκειμένου να τις «εντάξει» σε
 λογικές ιατρικοκεντρικού χαρακτήρα. Η ομοφυλοφιλία αποτελεί σύμφωνα με τις ιατρικοδιαγνωστικές λογικές «προσωπική και οικογενειακή τραγωδία». Υπό αυτή τη συνθήκη ξεκινά ένας διάλογος προβληματικοποίησης της ομοφυλοφιλίας, η οποία λαμβάνει χαρακτηριστικά ατομικής ιδιότητας αποκομμένης από τα κοινωνικά, πολιτικά και πολιτισμικά συμφραζόμενα. Πρόκειται για μια διαδικασία αποσιώπησης των συλλογικών εκφράσεων σχετικά με την ομοφυλοφιλία και των συλλογικών ευθυνών περιθωριοποίησης των ομοφυλόφιλων, όχι μόνο στο χώρο της εκπαίδευσης.


 Οι κάθε λογής παρεμβάσεις ένταξης ακολουθούν τη φιλοσοφία των κατηγοριοποιήσεων στη σφαίρα της επιβαλλόμενης κανονικοποίησης του μαθητικού πληθυσμού. Η ομοφυλοφιλία, όπως και άλλες διαφορετικότητες, συνδέεται άκριτα με τη ρητορική περί μαθησιακών δυσκολιών, με αποτέλεσμα να χάνεται ο στόχος της συμπερίληψης των μαθητών/ τριών σύμφωνα με τις ανάγκες, τις επιθυμίες και τα ενδιαφέροντά τους. Αντί αυτού διαπιστώνεται μια αυξανόμενη τάση ενός αρνητικού λόγου περί ομοφυλοφιλίας, όπως αυτός κατασκευάζεται στο πλαίσιο του επίσημου εθνικού λόγου για τα χαρακτηριστικά της ελληνικής φυλής, σε μια γραμμική παρουσίαση των ιστορικών και κοινωνικών συνθηκών παραγωγής νοήματος της ύπαρξης. Τα χάσματα στη γραμμική αυτή προσέγγιση παρουσιάζονται ως ατομικά χαρακτηριστικά και μετατρέπονται σε ιδιότητες και πηγές προβλημάτων.



Η ομοφυλοφιλία υπάρχει στη  σιωπή της περιρρέουσας αισθησιακότητας*, μέσα σε ένα συμπαγές ιστορικό και  πολιτισμικό πλαίσιο και δεν  καταφέρνει να συνομιλήσει ανοικτά. Η ομοφυλοφιλία μ’ αυτόν τον τρόπο  φαίνεται ότι υπάρχει σε ένα κοινωνικό  και πολιτισμικό κενό στον επίσημο  εκπαιδευτικό λόγο, γεγονός που την  οδηγεί στα χέρια των «ειδικών»  που χειρίζονται τις τύχες  και τις ζωές των μαθητών. Ενισχύεται έτσι η καταπίεση της σιωπηλής αποδοχής της ύπαρξης με αποτέλεσμα οι περισσότεροι στο χώρο της εκπαίδευσης  να ενδιαφέρονται υποκριτικά για  το «γιατί δεν εκφράζεται ανοιχτά  το παιδί». Η επιβολή της σιωπής στους μαθητές δικαιολογείται ως ένδειξη ενός προβληματικού εαυτού και ο δημόσιος λόγος υποτάσσεται  στις παρεμβατικές πρακτικές του  τύπου: «Το ομοφυλόφιλο παιδί  δεν έχει ενσωματώσει τη διάκριση ρόλων στην οικογένεια και για  αυτό ευθύνεται η οικογένειά του» κ.λπ.


 Οι κυρίαρχες αντιλήψεις για  την κατάκτηση των μαθησιακών στόχων συνδέονται με τις κυρίαρχες  αντιλήψεις περί «παραβατικότητας». Δεν  κατασκευάζεται μόνο ένας αρνητικός  λόγος περί ομοφυλοφιλίας, αλλά στεκόμαστε σε μια επιφανειακή περιγραφή  των συνθηκών παραγωγής στερεοτύπων  περί παραβατικότητας, μαθησιακών δυσκολιών  και ενδοσχολικής βίας. Τα τελευταία ζητήματα εκλαμβάνονται σαν οι σχέσεις να είναι παγιωμένες και στις περισσότερες των περιπτώσεων περιγράφεται πώς αναμένεται να συμπεριφερθεί ένα ομοφυλόφιλο άτομο με βάση προκαθορισμένους εκπαιδευτικούς στόχους και πρακτικές.
Τα ρευστά όρια της ύπαρξης  παγώνουν σε θολές εικόνες ως αντικατοπτρισμοί της καταπίεσης για το πώς πρέπει να συμμετέχει ένας/μία μαθητής/τρια σε σχολικό περιβάλλον. Πίσω από τον καθρέφτη των εικόνων αυτών υποτίθεται και υπονοείται πάντα ότι «κάτι συμβαίνει στον ψυχισμό του ομοφυλόφιλου ατόμου». Ακολουθείται μια πολιτική έκφρασης και απόκρυψης συναισθημάτων που σπάνια συνδέεται με την κουλτούρα των σχολικών μονάδων, οι οποίες σε καμία περίπτωση δεν ευνοούν την ανοιχτή και ελεύθερη συνομιλία. Τα συναισθήματα χάνουν την υλικότητά τους και οι συναισθηματικές εκφράσεις ομογενοποιούνται σε μια προβληματικοποίηση της σιωπής ως έμβλημα παθητικότητας του ατόμου.



Για να ανοίξει ο διάλογος για την ισότιμη συμμετοχή  στην εκπαίδευση (inclusive education) απαιτείται από τα μέλη της εκπαιδευτικής κοινότητας να στρέψουν κριτικά την προσοχή τους στους μηχανισμούς ετικετοποίησης των μαθητών και να συνειδητοποιήσουν το βαθμό κλειστότητας των σχολικών μονάδων πέρα από στερεοτυπικούς χαρακτηρισμούς περί ενεργητικής/ παθητικής συμμετοχής των μελών της σχολικής κοινότητας. Θα κατανοήσουμε τότε ότι η σιωπή είναι συναισθηματική έκφραση και ότι αυτή δεν ενοχοποιεί το άτομο, αλλά τις περισσότερες φορές είναι αντίδραση, όχι ενός προβληματικού εαυτού, αλλά αντίσταση στις εξουσιαστικές λογικές. Έτσι ο εκπαιδευτικός κόσμος θα αρχίσει να συζητά απελευθερωτικά για τους μαθητές.



Το σχολείο δεν έχει το αποκλειστικό προνόμιο της κατασκευής των επιμέρους κατηγοριοποιήσεων  των μαθητών. Αυτές προϋπάρχουν  και αιωρούνται σε όλο το κοινωνικό  γίγνεσθαι, παρόλο που οι εκπαιδευτικές  πρακτικές πρεσβεύουν ότι εφαρμόζουν και υπακούουν σε μια ουμανιστική  αντίληψη του σεβασμού. Ωστόσο η  έννοια του σεβασμού δεν σχετίζεται μόνο με τις λογικές των εκπαιδευτικών  δομών, αλλά είναι ένα σύνθετο  κοινωνικο-πολιτικό ζήτημα. Οι όψεις της κοινωνικής ζωής μπαίνουν στο σχολείο διαμέσου των ιστοριών ζωής. Η σχολική ζωή δεν καθορίζεται μόνο από τη ζωή μέσα στο σχολείο, συνεπώς ο σεβασμός στη διαφορετικότητα είναι αποτέλεσμα πολύπλοκων κοινωνικών ζυμώσεων, γεγονός που από μόνο του επιβάλλει την ανοιχτότητα των σχολικών μονάδων σε έναν διαρκή διάλογο, όχι μόνο για το τι σημαίνει σχολείο, αλλά και για το τι σημαίνει κάθε φορά διδασκαλία και φροντίδα, δύο έννοιες οι οποίες δεν είναι συμπληρωματικές στο ελληνικό εκπαιδευτικό σύστημα. Οι οικογενειοκεντρικές απόψεις που κυριαρχούν στην ελληνική κοινωνία συνδέονται με την απαίτηση για ένα σχολείο προσαρμοσμένο στις ανάγκες των εκπαιδευτικών εις βάρος της ανάδειξης του σχολείου ως τόπου κοινωνικότητας και φροντίδας. Ο φετιχισμός της εργασίας υπογραμμίζει και προσδιορίζει το νοηματικό περιερχόμενο της προσφοράς και του σεβασμού σε στρατηγικές συναισθημάτων που υπακούουν στις επιταγές της εφαρμογής κανονιστικών προτύπων και συμπεριφορών


Ο σεβασμός έτσι δεν αποτελεί στοιχείο ενδυνάμωσης και χειραφέτησης, αλλά αναλυτικό εργαλείο ανίχνευσης και διαπίστωσης προβλημάτων και ιδιαιτεροτήτων (μαθησιακές δυσκολίες, ψυχολογικά και συναισθηματικά προβλήματα, απόσπαση προσοχής, υπερκινητικότητα, διαταραχές λόγου, υψηλό νοητικό δυναμικό κλπ.). Αυτή η υστερική καταγραφή προβλημάτων του μαθητικού πληθυσμού αποσιωπά τα δομικά χαρακτηριστικά των εκπαιδευτικών συστημάτων και παρουσιάζει τις διαφορετικότητες ως ατομική ιδιότητα. Η ιατρικοποίηση της εκπαίδευσης λειτουργεί ως στοιχείο παραγωγής ενοχών και παράλληλα εγκλωβίζει τις συμπεριφορές σε γραμμικούς συσχετισμούς κοινής λογικής. Η διάκριση ενήλικου και ανήλικου λόγου αποτελεί βασικό συστατικό στοιχείο του κατασκευασμένου σεβασμού με αποτέλεσμα οι επικοινωνιακές στρατηγικές να ενοχοποιούν τη σιωπή ως ένδειξη αδυναμίας και παθητικότητας. Τα ομοφυλόφιλα άτομα δεν έχουν έτσι τη δυνατότητα να εκφράζονται ανοιχτά και η σιωπή τους ερμηνεύεται ως αποδοχή της περιθωριακότητάς τους. Το εκπαιδευτικό σύστημα ενισχύει με αυτόν τον τρόπο την αναπαραγωγή στερεοτύπων περί έκφρασης συναισθημάτων και η εξέταση-διάγνωση επικυρώνει τη διάκριση με «γεμάτες ενδιαφέρον και σεβασμό» ερωτήσεις του τύπου: «Τι συμβαίνει στο παιδί;». Το αποτέλεσμα είναι να παραμένει η εννοιολογική σύγχυση περί ομοφυλοφιλίας και η σύνδεση της με αρνητικές πτυχές της μαθητικής ζωής.



Κλείνοντας θέλουμε να επισημάνουμε ότι με κανέναν τρόπο  δεν υπονοούμε εδώ ότι τα παραπάνω αποτελούν ενιαία εξηγητικά μοντέλα  και επιπλέον δεν περιγράφουμε ένα  ολοκληρωτικό σύστημα, αλλά μια κυρίαρχη τάση, που σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις  συνομιλεί (άγαρμπα) με τον νεωτερικό  λόγο περί ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων. Ένα  λόγο στο όνομα του «σεβασμού», στο όνομα του «δέους» απέναντι στην ανθρώπινη ύπαρξη, όπως αυτή κατασκευάζεται συλλογικά, ένα λόγο που τοποθετεί  στο μικροσκόπιο της «ψυχολογικής υποστήριξης» ό,τι δεν εμπίπτει στους ηγεμονικούς προσδιορισμούς περί αναπαραγωγής, εξοβελίζοντας καθετί που ανταποκρίνεται με διαφορετικούς τρόπους στα στεγανά που θέτει η λογική της φυσικοποίησης των κανονιστικών προτύπων περί διαπαιδαγώγησης και ανατροφής. Δεν είναι μόνο η διδασκαλία η μοναδική έννοια που εμπεριέχεται στο σχολικό περιβάλλον, αλλά και οι πολιτικοί προσδιορισμοί και οι πολιτικές κατευθύνσεις μιας ευρύτερης έννοιας: αυτής της φροντίδας, όχι μιας εξουσιαστικής φροντίδας, αλλά μιας φροντίδας ως ενδυνάμωσης της συλλογικής δράσης προς μια χειραφετησιακή εκπαίδευση (emancipatory education).



*χρησιμοποιούμε τον όρο  αισθησιακότητα ,όχι ως μετάφραση  του όρου sexism, αλλά ως μετάφραση του όρου sensibility, δηλαδή την παρερμηνεία των συναισθημάτων (emotions) μέσα στις συμβατικές αντιλήψεις περί αισθήσεων.


Imagine A World Where Being "Gay" The Norm & Being "Straight" ....




Κυριακή 11 Αυγούστου 2013

I matrimoni egualitari spiegati ai figli di Costanza Miriano.


La mia risposta all'articolo di Costanza Miriano http://costanzamiriano.com/2013/04/26/le-nozze-omosessuali-spiegate-ai-miei-figli-eta-media-9-anni/

Cari ragazzi, anche nella mia casa è vietato parlare male degli altri ma quando lo faccio sono affari tra me e me stessa, penso che Dio abbia altro a cui pensare. E sono d’accordo con la vostra mamma che ci sono casi in cui del male delle persone bisogna parlare ed è quando rischia di andarci di mezzo qualcuno che non può difendersi da solo. Qualcuno come i bambini, qualcuno come voi.



I vostri genitori hanno scelto di portare avanti una causa in cui credono molto: impedire a qualcun altro di realizzare appieno i propri diritti di cittadino. In pratica sono contrari al fatto che una cosa che si chiama matrimonio diventi egualitaria, cioè per tutti. Strano se pensate che questo diritto c’è già in: Belgio, Paesi Bassi, Spagna, Norvegia, Svezia, Portogallo, Islanda, Danimarca, Francia, Regno Unito, Canada, USA, Aruba e Antille Olandesi, Città del Messico, Argentina, Brasile, Uruguay, Sud Africa, Israele, Nuova Zelanda, e la lista si allunga ogni giorno di più.


Dicono di non occuparsi di cosa facciano gli omosessuali nel privato ma che non dovrebbero sbandierare troppo la loro condizione, come vi è capitato al Gay Pride a Parigi, dove avete visto piume e sederi di fuori, signore senza reggiseno e temibili banane gonfiabili.
Mi dispiace che i vostri genitori si siano guardati bene dallo spiegarvi chi erano davvero quelle persone e cosa stavano festeggiando, al di là delle piume e delle banane –perché in fondo alla propria festa ognuno decide di vestirsi come vuole – e proprio di questo si tratta, di una festa. Ma una festa speciale che serve a ricordare a tutti, senza tristezza ma con orgoglio, che il 28 giugno di tanti anni fa a New York persone omosessuali e transessuali si sono ribellate contro chi, per motivi di discriminazione, le picchiava e le metteva in prigione per il solo fatto di esistere ed esprimere se stesse.
Immaginate se un giorno qualcuno decidesse di mettere in prigione e picchiare il vostro babbo e la vostra mamma solo perché credono in Dio e vanno in chiesa tutte le domeniche. Vi sembrerebbe giusto?

Poi la mamma giudica infelici (ma giudicare non era una brutta cosa da non fare?!) quelle persone solo perché vestite in quel modo, è come dire che i preti sono depressi perché sono sempre vestiti di nero, e le suore tristi e represse perché portano i capelli nascosti e non liberi di muoversi al vento.
Quando la mamma vi dice “se ci capiterà di averne uno (omosessuale) vicino, che ne so, al lavoro o in vacanza, cercheremo, se lui o lei vuole, di farci amicizia”, non vi preoccupate, non vi sforzate, questo fatto non capiterà perché è già capitato. Nella vostra vita, anche se non lo sapete, siete già circondati di persone omosessuali e siete già loro amici.
Possono essere omosessuali i vostri compagni di scuola, il catechista, gli amici dei vostri genitori, il dentista, la maestra, il pediatra, la fruttivendola, il meccanico, l’autista dello scuolabus, la parrucchiera, l’edicolante, l’avvocato, ecc… senza che voi lo sappiate. Perché ragazzi… avvicinatevi… voglio svelarvi un segreto ma non ditelo alla mamma… gli omosessuali non indossano le piume e le banane gonfiabili, quello è il costume di una festa come quando a carnevale vi vestite da Ben10 o da Winx.

 Quindi non vi stupite se la zia del vostro compagno di banco non ha un marito e vive con una sua amica, e osservate bene gli sguardi che si scambiano quel ragazzo così dolce che la domenica a messa suona la chitarra e il suo amico che canta così bene…
Anche se loro non vi diranno mai che si rispettano, si vogliono bene e si amano, perché ci sono persone come il vostro babbo e la vostra mamma che hanno deciso che loro non possono volersi bene. O se lo fanno devono farlo di nascosto, come i ladri, oppure soffrirne e sentirsi male per questo.
Questa cosa miei cari ragazzi ha un nome e si chiama ipocrisia ed è la cosa peggiore con cui avrete a che fare nella vita. Molto ma molto più triste di due maschi e di due femmine che si vogliono bene.
Per fortuna oltre alle persone omosessuali che probabilmente conoscete già ma che per ipocrisia non diranno agli altri di esserlo, ci sono persone libere che si amano e decidono di stare insieme alla luce del sole. Perché amarsi nel rispetto reciproco,ricordatevelo sempre, non è e non sarà mai come rubare e ammazzare o parcheggiare sulle strisce.


Alcune di queste persone che si amano decidono di formare una famiglia (Treccani: dal latino famĭlia, che,come famŭlus «servitore, domestico», da cui deriva, è voce italica, e indicò dapprima l’insieme degli schiavi e dei servi viventi sotto uno stesso tetto, e successivamente la famiglia nel significato oggi più comune) e avere dei figli e il modo in cui questi bambini arrivano, grazie alla ricerca medica, è lo stesso che usano tanti amici dei vostri genitori ma senza dirlo. Vi ricordate l’ipocrisia? Stessa storia.
Quando la vostra mamma dice che due uomini e due donne non possono crescere un bambino, lo dice ma in realtà non lo sa davvero perché questi bambini, di cui tanto si preoccupa, non li ha mai visti né conosciuti. È come se io dicessi che per colpa di vostra madre e delle sue idee, voi siete o diventerete infelici senza avervi mai incontrato.



Io personalmente ne conosco tanti di questi bambini con due mamme e due papà e non sono tanto speciali, anzi sono bambini come tanti, forse come voi: allegri, curiosi, divertenti, buffi, capricciosi, simpatici, petulanti, teneri…
Come voi vanno a scuola, hanno tanti amici, vogliono bene alle maestre, vanno in gita con il panino preparato dalle mamme e dai papà, fanno capricci per fare il bagnetto e vorrebbero tanto un cucciolo di cane. Come voi da grandi vogliono fare gli astronauti, i cuochi, i giardinieri, i veterinari e gli scienziati. Come voi hanno un gioco preferito che portano sempre con loro, vogliono un bene dell’anima alle loro mamme e ai loro papà e anche ai nonni agli zii e ai cuginetti che vedono solo d’estate.
Questi bambini sono proprio come voi ma voi, forse, non li conoscerete mai per colpa di una cosa che si chiama pregiudizio, che magari un’altra volta vi spiego cos’è.
Vi saluto ragazzi, fate i bravi e spero che la vita vi porti sempre ad avere cuore e mente aperti agli altri, e a porvi sempre un sacco di domande.
Un abbraccio, Alessia

Σάββατο 10 Αυγούστου 2013

Se i figli sono solo della madre (beddamatresantissima!)

http://abbattoimuri.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/se-i-figli-sono-solo-della-madre-beddamatresantissima/

Terragni dice che non è omofobica (anzi scrive che querela chi lo afferma) e personalmente non ho alcuna ragione per non crederle. Penso però che la sua maniera di non essere omofobica diventi normativa per le donne e gli uomini, tutti. Vorrei commentare un suo post che ragiona di figli e genitori omosessuali.
Scrive a Scalfarotto e tira fuori la storia di un ovocita fecondato con il seme di un amico gay. L’ovulo fecondato sarebbe stato impiantato nell’utero (in affitto) di un’altra donna e a fine gravidanza ecco che l’amico gay ha un figlio. Mentre Terragni parla della faccenda descrive la “madre” in quanto vittima da difendere e sostenere, perché sarebbe stata spezzata in due, divisa dal figlio (e il figlio dalla madre) e quest’ultimo sarebbe stato consegnato nelle presunte grinfie di incostanti e inaffidabili tate. La Terragni racconta che il rapporto col suo amico è andato in pezzi perché lei si oppose a quella scelta e lui perseguì ugualmente il suo obiettivo.


La tesi della Terragni è la seguente:un uomo, di qualunque orientamento sessuale, etero o gay, non ha il diritto di portare via un bambino alla madre, di recidere quel legame (anche se la madre è d’accordo(…)). Non sto parlando di genitorialità gay: sto parlando di uomini che si fanno fare bambini dalle donne e glieli portano via (non è il caso, come ti sarà chiaro, di una lesbica che mette al mondo un bambino, perché lì il legame è preservato, tra le due pratiche non c’è simmetria). Qui c’è misoginia, qui c’è odio per le donne. Qui c’è questione maschile. Naturalmente quello che dico è opinabile, ma io ci credo fermamente, così come credo fermamente nell’esistenza di una differenza sessuale.

Vorrei capire dove sta la differenza, in questo caso, con le tesi di persone che si oppongono all’aborto, ovvero quelle che immaginano che l’embrione abbia una scelta e che le donne debbano essere necessariamente traumatizzate dal distacco. Qual è la differenza tra chi dice che embrione e madre risentiranno in eterno di quel legame spezzato e quello che afferma la Terragni? Se è vero che è necessario riaffermare l’autodeterminazione dei soggetti, a che serve fruire di una delle rare battute della Butler a conforto delle tesi del femminismo della differenza per poi schiacciare donne e uomini negli stessi ruoli di genere di sempre?

Vedere le relazioni ancora secondo parametri di genere binario, dove esisterebbero solo donne (biologiche e con uteri) e uomini (etero/riproduttivi) non è un tantino anacronistico?
D’altronde se giusto a partire da una femminista leggiamo che i figli devono restare sempre e solo con le madri capisco allora il perché di tanta avversione da parte di certi femminismi per l’affido condiviso. Eppure le donne hanno lottato tanto affinché il lavoro di cura fosse condiviso equamente e ora che ce ne sarebbe la possibilità la spinta in netta retrocessione arriva giusto da chi pratica il femminismo della differenza e immagina che l’uomo possa di certo coccolare, nutrire e cambiare il pannolino al suo bambino ma giammai possa dirsi genitore alla pari se non sotto la supervisione della madre.


Che poi si dica che due omosessuali che prendono in cura un bambino siano misogini non lo condivido affatto. Perché altrimenti si potrebbe dire che due lesbiche che hanno un figlio lo privano del padre. E in qualunque modo la metti quel che succede è che finisci per toccare argomenti che galleggiano su una deriva scivolosa che procede di certo non in direzioni progressiste.
I figli non sono di nessun@ e non sono neppure di chi li cresce o di chi li fa. E se questo è valido per gli uomini è valido anche per le donne. 

Il maternage di ritorno munito di beddamatresantissimosità è non solo lontanissimo da qualunque ragionamento che volge in direzione del rispetto per i diritti dedicati a tutti/e i generi ma è lontano anche, a maggior ragione, da una cultura, si spera sempre più diffusa, che finalmente spazza via gli obblighi di genere, i ruoli, i presunti innatismi, gli incarichi destinati per “natura” e restituisce agli esseri umani semplicemente i compiti che essi sceglieranno. A prescindere dall’orientamento sessuale e dall’identità di genere che sentiranno adatti a se’. Ecco tutto.
Contact Us

Name *
Email *
Subject *
Message *
Powered byEMF Web Forms Builder
Report Abuse