The machismo, in our country, it is still a real, concrete, alarming problem. And, if there is still much to be done to eradicate it, it is (also) why it is badly fought. Michela Murgia, writer and woman of strong culture, has recently lashed out hard against Amadeus and, more generally, against the Sanremo Festival. Not only that, he also had to object to some statements by Levant about a thorny and controversial issue, that of pink quote.
Michela Murgia, women-objects and steps backwards
Michela Murgia has clear ideas: Sanremo is sexist, has always been and this year – if it is possible – it was even more so. The fault of Amadeus, in addition to that of having spoken of “a woman capable of taking a step back», Speaking of Francesca Sofia Novello, was that of having chosen her “as an accessory of a famous one” (that means Valentino Rosso, companion of the girl). So, it is good to clarify one point: it is true, Amadeus chose Francesca Sofia Novello for the fact of being beautiful and “girlfriend of” (the same goes for Georgina Rodriguez, girlfriend of Cristiano Ronaldo), but because Novello, who is twenty-five years and studies Law, accepted? If the choice of Amadeus is to be considered degrading, offensive and humiliating, why did he say yes? She could have answered “No, thanks” and continued her career as a model and influencer. Not only that: we admit that we want to consider the reason why he chose her, or because she is “the woman of”, to be questionable, the fact remains that Amadeus gave her an opportunity to make herself known beyond the label of “woman of “.
But let’s move on: Amadeus expressed a an appreciable concept in a decidedly inadequate form: his intent was to underline how admirable it was that the Novello, although the companion of a very prominent sportsman, has always preferred to take a step back, not to enjoy Valentino Rossi’s spotlight and focus on your career. In short, it meant that Novello has chosen to shine with its own light and wanted it in Sanremo to give it a concrete opportunity to make itself known and appreciated by the general public.
Here, instead of wanting to find male chauvinism and sexism in the sense of his words, perhaps it would have been appropriate to reproach him there form: would you ever have said of a man “he is capable of staying one step behind”? Probably not, the same concept would have been expressed in different phrases. It is the form that has sparked the case, not the content: contesting the content means be in bad faith and wanting to give it a different meaning from what Amadeus – in fact – said.
Is Amadeus sexist?
Accusing Amadeus of sexism, after seeing his Festival, it is extremely incorrect. It would have been legitimate to do it earlier, because there were all the conditions for a Sanremo phallocentric, with a handful of women called to play a purely decorative role. But, in the light of what happened, it is a fact that Amadeus managed to set up a variegated and stratified Sanremo, made up of different women, with important and unrepeatable stories. Each woman was allowed to bring her own uniqueness to the stage.
Before anyone gets angry about my “was granted“, It is good to say that Amadeus was called to lead and, when she had full decision-making power on the Festival, she chose to give a voice to ten women, each one different from the other, each peculiar and necessary to create a varied mosaic made up of complementary pieces. He made a clear choice and allowed them to tell their truth without limits or restrictions of any kind.
The problem, if anything, is to be found at the root, it is easy to point the finger at Amadeus, who did everything to enhance her companions. The real problem, I said, is to be found elsewhere: because, in seventy years of the Festival, only four women led solo the event? Because, in seventy years of the Festival, there has never been an artistic director? Why, among the authors of the event, there are only men? Why the singers in competition are they always numerically inferior to men? Does anyone still believe the story that women are less or less good than men? Here, now it makes sense to talk about pink quote and of the attack of the Murgia to the east.
Quote rose, pity or delight?
Levante, just before the start of the Sanremo Festival, of which she was the protagonist with the song Tiki Bom Bom, said the following:
I’ve spent years on women, but I am not in favor of the pink quotas. We don’t have to have a place, we don’t have a deficit […]. I get what I deserve and if i’m at the festival i hope it’s because the song is good and i’m good.
La Murgia promptly beat the Sicilian singer-songwriter:
Many women still mean pink quotas as one claim that replaces merit, but the patriarchal system discriminates on the basis of gender and not on merit. Women raised in misogynistic environments do not recognize discrimination until it directly affects them. I am there because I deserved it. Those left out didn’t deserve it enough! (…) If you want to keep a misogynist system forever, put a woman in each selection. She will defend the system, telling the others I am here and I’m good, so maybe it’s you who haven’t tried hard enough. Dear Levante, today that functional woman was you.
Once again, however, we need to go to the heart of the matter, because – by force to stay on the surface – we risk playing the part. If the solution to the problem is the pink odds, it means that the problem is much deeper than you think. If the only way to allow the presence of women in a specific field of work is the use of women’s quotas, the problem is not solved at all, but only covered up. Pretending that there are twelve men and twelve women in Sanremo means – inevitably – taking away the place of someone who deserves it and giving it to someone else, simply because of having to reach an equal number of competitors. Why allow twelve women to compete for the mere fact of having to achieve numerical parity? Why allow twelve men to compete for the mere fact of having to be as many as there are women?
It wouldn’t be better, even if – I realize – appears utopian, choose twenty-four songs based on their value and their beauty (questionable and subjective, but the rest is the choice of a single), without evaluating whether they are songs sung by men or women? If the only solution to the lower number of female singers is the choice to opt for the pink quotas, it means that the problem is only touched upon, but not solved.
The pink odds are a palliative and create afurther fracture. As if that weren’t enough, they demean first of all the woman, who doesn’t know if she was chosen for her own worth or just to reach a number. So what to do? Willingly accept being overtaken by men, just because they are men? Absolutely not, but, precisely because “the patriarchal system discriminates on the basis of gender and not on merit», A solution that is inclusive on the basis of gender but knows how to distinguish on the basis of merit would be more desirable. And this should concern men and women.
In short, from any angle you look at it and face it, the problem is at the base. If there had been no Amadeus, but any other conductor, if instead of ten women, he had chosen only one, the question would have remained unchanged, because we would have found ourselves faced with a system that chooses a man to conduct and organize an event and never a woman: this is what needs to be changed.
And anyway, in the light of what happened at the Sanremo 2020 Festival, I found it much more macho Diletta Leotta, with her artificial and redundant monologue on beauty and time: Leotta has chosen to resort to feminism and good sentiments and has lost an excellent opportunity to be sincere and tell the truth of a woman that there is not to be an accessory. But, unfortunately, the Leotta turned out to be an accessory of itself.
Of this, however, the Murgia did not speak. But we are waiting.
Visit site for more useful and informative articles!