Konjufca may be a Hegelian philosopher, but when it comes to gender issues, his gender betrays him.
Russia Dear Rrusta
Glaucus appeared on television. He is talking about gender issues. For the first time, I believe. From beginning to end, nothing was missing. He did not irritate anyone. Everyone agreed. Detached from reality, he described the processes, the problems, with an ease that is admirable.
Gluak Konjufca, politician, philosopher, and now speaker of parliament, on the show "Prijme - How "safe" are women in the Parliament" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bedDOqEERsU) where he speaks about gender issues, with an emphasis on the Assembly, at first glance seems correct. Even extremely correct. As he explains at length, most of the findings do not fall under the radar of the traditional, nor of the liberal. Strange. And who would not agree that human life is valuable, regardless of gender. We are all for human rights, right? And women's, too. But what rights and freedoms are we talking about if everyone, young and old, agrees with them, in a social context where femicide is on the rise. How much power do these rights constitute?
Murders and violence are condemnable. “Punishment” is the epithet of the current government. Everyone has understood it, learned it, or pretends to. There is not a single thing said there that conflicts with any hierarchy of power. And this is precisely what gave rise to suspicion. How can you be so careful not to touch the interests of those you are supposedly criticizing? What should be the place from which you speak and not arouse any reaction, nor even praise, for them.
The question is how much should we shrink them to be acceptable to everyone? One could consider this "contract" an achievement, as a necessary condition for social progress. And that achievements today are within the framework of a negotiation. This argument is seriously challenged by history. But this is not the moment where I want to dwell.
What I see Konjufca's interview lacking is the treatment from the economic aspect. This lack also lacks the explanation for women's independence. Family education, education and the media, as Konjufca listed, are totally unable to resist oppression, sexism, misogyny, exploitation and gender inequality. Does learning come from school or from war? Social emancipation cannot be imagined without social contradiction. Never in a vacuum, thanks to some curriculum or methodological, pedagogical tool. These are important, but completely insufficient. But dialectical logic is missing here. And here is where it comes in, reminding this Hegelian, now clothed in power, of the contradiction.
No one has left the position of privilege and or divided the land because they are educated on equality. The rulers are not uneducated, today they do not even see the role of women in the naturalized form as before. The point is that here there is a clash of interests where those who do not have a secured material base have many forces against them. Women deputies are also in this position. Although they exercise powerful positions, they always have a kind of guilt for them. The public voice of women comes with the difficulties that history has burdened and projected upon them.
The rights that we enjoy today remain unusable in their entirety. For example, political rights, however important, remain unenforceable mainly by the economic structure that conditions our decisions and actions. Then you draft codes of ethics and regulations in the Assembly, continue with one-year, three-month, six-month strategies..! You have this in your mandate. But, the expansion and strengthening of rights and the transformation of the situation are outside the defined mandates. Therefore, you are expected to speak without increased care about these topics, without moralizing about where education and manners should reside. Expressing so insistently about the education of generations, without taking into account social dynamics, incompatible interests, leaves the story of Konjufca just a story, without power. Worse, from the institutional actions announced by the Speaker of Parliament, somehow the explanation does not mention that if a change, however small, is being made there, it is solely and solely thanks to the work of the MPs. They are the impetus. Because when you listen to the interview, somehow the battle within the Assembly remains without subjects and the credit is given to the "natural" course of things.
Furthermore, regarding gender-based violence, punishment seems to be the main institutional way through which the Government is addressing the problem. And mainly through calls for maximum sentences, which are neither fair nor effective. Sentences of this type have increased, but violence has not decreased either. If we do not deal with the causes seriously and actively, crimes will only take new forms of adaptation to the new conditions. But by no means stop them. Learning through punishment is not treating the phenomenon. It is management.
The interview is extremely disappointing because it does not affect any interest. Exactly in the style of Konjufca; on the parties. The test of measuring which interests you have touched shows the experience of what is said in the interview. Everyone agrees because no one is affected. I am also taking the interview as an example of the analysis of power in relation to the topic in question. Konjufca is the best at leveling differences.
And in the end, he did what only a powerful man can do. At the end of the interview, as he answers about the division of labor in his family, he turns criticism into justification, and even justifies himself by criticizing. He knows how to iron. The rest remains to be learned. Konjufca may be a Hegelian philosopher, but when it comes to gender issues, his gender betrays him.
This is my imperfect review of a perfect interview.
edition
t7 live
