Questo blog ha interrotto le pubblicazioni il 14/09/2020, dopo 4 anni di attività.
Le sue tematiche sono ora sviluppate da una nuova piattaforma:
by Anna Poli – In the general dance of roosters and hens, the Ddl Pillon has the undoubted merit of having made everyone really feel it’s effect. In a disordered and dislocated fashion, everyone. A handful of women with unclear ideas have come together despite the political barriers of their opposing factions and has formed an alliance of unusual female solidarity (if the motive of the alliance was not the money they are about to lose, the whole thing would be almost moving). The “lefties” until yesterday, gender-addicted, have begun to flaunt, by some strange connection, the same arguments of Mario Adinolfi (with the only difference being that he, at least, is consistent). Finally, some separated fathers who, seized by a sudden change of heart, have gone into reverse gear in the hopeless dream of a revival of Piddino on the progressive front. That if this Bi-genitoriality is progressive or conservative, still remains to be clarified. Certainly the electorate has had it’s feathers ruffled.
In this case everyone is right. Roosters, hens, owls and barn owls are all absolutely right. Only in proverbs is reason given to the mad, in reality it is given to those who use the clever words, words that cut short all conversations and that work in all cases because they are always right and everywhere. I’ll give you an example and see if it sounds familiar to you: the child’s interest. I bet you’ve already felt like sitting there in silence, like the children, wide-eyed, ready for the story. And, in fact, it’s a fairytale. When the child’s interest is involved, everything acquires another level, higher, much high, the speeches take the form of the dogma and are placed up there. Untouchables, like fairy tales.
Since I’m a not much taller than a meter, I like to take discussions down, like you do when picking pears from pear trees, to look them right in the face and understand what it is they say. So today’s question is this: what is the child’s interest? And here’s the crime: in the chicken coop everyone has an idea of his own. Every adult, not every child. Every self-respecting chicken or hen has their own “minor’s interest” to play like an ace, to silence the audience when he has no other good cards to play. Too bad that nobody explains what the hell it means, what this phantom child’s interest is that has to be respected. Or rather, they think to not explain it but then as often happens they slip right on the same banana peel that they themselves have just thrown to the ground with indifference. This is the case of Letteradonna, for example, a blog that I particularly love because it systematically, hilariously and stubbornly contradicts itself, providing me with much bewildered laughter at first and then indignant reflection.
Letteradonna writes for that beautiful cross-section of ladies, in reality angry with the world, openly with men and of course as is fashion today with the fathers, who all together sign sheets of petitions to ask, without “please”, with the crazy idea to remove the father figure but readily accept child a maintenance allowance. In an article a few days ago they declare the idea of a child’s best interest: “twelve secrets to grow successful children. Every good parent wants the best for their children: good grades, a bright future, maybe a career that makes them independent and satisfied “. It is clear that, for the “good parent” who believes that this is the interest of a child, the PDL Pillon can only be an abomination: to realize this interest, the fact remains one needs money, so these nervous mothers have very valid reasons to be angry because the direct maintenance undermines the capacity of their handbags and, consequently, the future (hypothetical) success of their children. The ninth of the twelve secrets to raising successful children is clear, it says nothing but “having higher socio-economic status”. Translated: the father’s check has a noble purpose, that is to guarantee to the child a bright future, success and status (symbol?). But I understand that calling it a child’s interest sounds less cynical.
The vested interest should not be confused and it does not honor our intelligence to confuse it (whether due to stupidity or astuteness makes little difference) with the real interest of the child, that must be protected and that should be disinterested by definition. Every separated “good parent” who has ever tried to ask their child what is the most desired thing in the world has been answered: “that you and dad, or that you and mum, come together”. That is 101 children out of 100, without bothering to check the statistics.. So this, above all else, is the child’s interest: having the parents not separated. And once this has been established, but above all, once it has been established that the interest of the child can not be realised in anway, it becomes necessary to make sure that all the other thinkable and practical things are done so as to go as close as possible to that one original interest.
A serious reform of separation and custody must put the child exactly where they should be and that is in the middle of his parents, always, as a rule. The DDL Pillon has the undisputed merit of trying. And let’s stop once and for all to use the exceptions to set up plans of convenience, that the violent father is not the norm but is an exception! Here the only real problem is the maintenance check. The good old patriarchal, sexist, undignified, enslaving, oppressive, punitive, masculine maintenance allowance. Hang the man who doesn’t pay. By tooth and nail in the bellicose search of the supreme good (fit) of the minor.
Compila il questionario