The fate of the world is at stake on the skin of women. It has always been like that. The feminine is not only the object of desire but also the stone of scandal on which the biblical story rests, on which the sacred texts justify repressions and limitations. The woman creates life (and can end it) and on the body of women the laws of all the systems of government on the planet have legislated. Democracies included.
The stance of some self-styled right-wing intellectuals has caused a sensation in recent weeks, who have justified not only the unfortunate exit of the headmaster of the Roman school "Socrates" who imposed a ban on miniskirts, otherwise the "professor falls the eye ”, but also the even more unhappy exit of the solons of“ law and order ”who have started to play the trumpet of“ let's put the uniform back on ”. A pecoreccia stuff. Almost pathetic given the times and the speed with which the world is changing under our eyes. Also because, put it well in your head: the uniform can be justified in a private institution, where those who go there know that there are imposed rules that they pay to follow. Never ever the same rules can and must be imposed in public schools. Where sensitivities and beliefs, political and religious, are the most disparate (fortunately).
But my question to self-styled right-wing intellectuals is this: how is it possible that you rightly hurl yourself against gender and then fall into such a petty rigmarole worthy of the most bigoted reactionaries of the 1950s? You oppose gender because it eliminates the differences between male and female, between organic and natural and the fruit of free choice, because that same female reduces it to a colorful carousel for bimbiminchia children of rich hippies, and then you deny the essence, indeed the quintessence of the feminine ; wanting to show your legs, being flirtatious, seductive and pleasing. Make peace with your brain. Look around you. In Strasbourg, days ago, three exponents of that religion that has ravaged the world with terrorism for decades beat a woman guilty of wearing a skirt that was too skimpy. The photo in this article shows women in the 1960s in Kuwait City, when the virus of that religion had not yet infested civil life and coexistence, and had not legislated in a tyrannical manner on women's bodies; he had not reduced them to objects of desire hidden from others by armoring him under an armor of veils.
The stupidest objection that some right-wing intellectuals make to justify the return of uniforms to school is that there is clothing for every context. Of course, those who deny it. But, in fact, the school context, especially public, is a context not only of study, but of conviviality, joke, friendship, comradeship, complicity, sport, entertainment, confrontation, growth. It is one thing to give a suggestion like: "Don't come to class with flip-flops when it's hot", another is to impose a uniform for boys and girls. As in the worst fascist traditions (or Islamist, if you find the difference).
Poor Mary Quant, inventor of the miniskirt (which she gave her name in honor of the Mini Cooper she adored). He will be tossing and turning in his grave. His motto was, dress to please yourself and treat fashion as a game. She was a woman of the people, her grandparents were miners and her parents earned the qualification to become teachers. Something that could still happen at the time, that is, being able to climb the social ladder by having innovative ideas, especially freedom. When he invented the miniskirt and the hotpants , skirts were of course already getting shorter. He invented them, he said, so that the women on King's Cross could move more freely, jump on a bus on the fly. Walking lighter. Femininity, he added, was given not so much by the object itself but by how it was worn.
The attack of the right, today, in '68, to its having renewed the customs, the rules, the beliefs, the hierarchies is totally (deliberately?) Out of focus. It is a subtle attack on substance (on the yearning for freedom and rejuvenation, against Western bigotry and bourgeois provincialism) and instead, in my humble opinion, it should be the supporters of the movement; all exponents of the upper bourgeoisie, of that progressive elite that had no intention of really favoring and liberating the people but simply, as actually happened, a change of power between equals (the children of the rich who wanted to take the place of fathers and occupy command centers). In the days of controversy, even when a judge said that the rape of a poor Romanian woman in northern Italy was also the case for the road to activity and licentious attitude of the victim (slightly softening the sentence the rapist), Loredana Berte posted on Facebook a wonderful photo of when he was young. By bike, mini-mini skirt. Feline and hot look. I report her text, which refers to the 70s of the last century, so that it remains the manifesto of all Western women, especially high school and university girls in this moment in which on the left they are defending Islamic women with veils and on the right they want to regulate them again in a uniform, because the appropriate contexts would exist.
“When I went to the art institute I arrived with a miniskirt and two brushes in my pocket, when I went around the bike the cars collided because the drivers turned to look at me. At the time the miniskirt was considered scandalous and I was also suspended for this but I made it my uniform of female emancipation . Everyone is free to dress as they like, be who they believe and love who they choose to love. Thanks Mary Quant ”.
The post Long live the miniskirt, even at school! Women's emancipation uniform appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/rubriche/viva-la-minigonna-anche-a-scuola-divisa-di-emancipazione-femminile/ on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 03:31:00 +0000.