Letters
LETTERS •
On Kyiv’s side, on the side of anti-fascism. Well done, Schlein
Who wrote to the editor, Claudio Cerasa
25 JUL 26
Translated by AI
Photo: Lapresse
To the editor – Well done (at last) to Elly Schlein on Ukraine. Now all that’s missing is the icing on the cake: a visit to Kyiv with a hug for Zelensky.
Michele Magno
That would be a dream. But in the meantime, here is the sentence that upset Marco Travaglio yesterday. A question from Il Foglio to Schlein: “Why, setting aside the rhetoric, are weapons still essential to defend Ukraine? And what, in your view, would be the real risk if Italy and Europe stopped supplying them?” Answer: “We voted wholeheartedly to help Ukraine defend itself with all available means for one simple reason. Putin has violated international law. He violated it through a criminal invasion of Ukraine. And anyone who fails to recognise in this situation who is the victim and who is the aggressor is mistaken. The PD has always supported – and I repeat, wholeheartedly – Ukraine with all necessary means. Because, speaking as someone on the left, it is unacceptable to think that anyone in Europe could consider redrawing borders through the use of force.” It doesn’t take much to understand that. If you’re on Ukraine’s side today, you’re on the side of anti-fascism. And if you argue that any military aid to Ukraine simply prolongs the war, you’re not campaigning for peace: you’re embracing the arguments of those who have attacked Ukraine and making Putin’s propaganda your own. Well done, Schlein.
To the Editor – We would like to thank Mr Antonucci for delighting us with his review of our draft bill entitled “Provisions on non-discriminatory language in the legal and administrative spheres”, the meaning of which, however, we doubt he has grasped. Our proposal is, in fact, aimed at correcting a clear distortion, calling on the public administration to align academic, professional and institutional titles with a person’s gender – a sound rule, including from a grammatical perspective, to stop treating the masculine form as gender-neutral and to finally begin using the feminine form. A common-sense provision, indeed a matter of course. Starting to refer to a female lawyer as ‘avvocata’, a female engineer as ‘ingegnera’, a female minister as ‘ministra’ and a female prime minister as ‘la presidente del Consiglio’ – even in public and institutional discourse – should not provoke such ostracism, unless the feminine form is regarded as a diminutive, as the article unfortunately confirms. Otherwise, we could naturally refer to men using the feminine form without fear of offending them. And therein lies the point. Language is anything but neutral, and the use of the masculine form to refer to women as well deliberately renders them invisible. This is not some trivial ‘woke’ issue – a term all too often used to dismiss non-trivial matters of recognition, and one used haphazardly in the article. It is a feminist struggle in which we believe because language is thought, it is vision, it is power, and as such it shapes society, relationships between people, the recognition – or lack thereof – of rights, and behaviour. Using the feminine form also holds value for the younger generations, in a society far from equality, where role models are male, where power imbalances in relationships are common, and where male violence remains structural. Moreover, the draft bill is intended as a work in progress, and the error reported is nothing more than a typographical error. It also includes other important provisions: to refer to a pregnant woman as a ‘pregnant woman’ and to amend the Criminal Code where it uses the masculine form even when referring to girls who undergo genital mutilation – which is, in fact, ‘female’ mutilation. The mocking tone confirms that we were right to table the bill and that this battle – which is not only ours but also that of the online community and women’s and feminist organisations – is more than justified. It is a duty.
Valeria Valente, Anna Rossomando, Cecilia D’Elia, Simona Malpezzi,
PD senators
Ermes Antonucci replies. Dear female senators (as you can see, I have no problem using the feminine form), your immediate reflex to accuse anyone who points out the contradictions in certain ‘feminist battles’ – such as your proposed bill – of sexism – whilst, incidentally, highlighting the presence of glaring errors in the text (please!) – merely serves to confirm the lack of seriousness of such battles.
To the Editor – Having read the interview with Maria Rosaria Boccia, Gianni Infantino is set to become Secretary-General of the United Nations and Boccia his deputy. Two magical circles intertwining.
Francesco De Leonardis
To the Editor – To demonstrate that Antonio Monda is right about practically everything in his piece “Nuovo cinema Inferno e Paradiso”, it would suffice to recall, for example, that in 2014 the Oscar for Best Picture was won by “12 Years a Slave”. A brilliant film, no doubt about it, but that year the nominees included, amongst others, “American Hustle”, which was not merely a film, but a true masterpiece, featuring actors and actresses whom to call ‘giants’ would be an understatement (Bradley Cooper, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence, Jeremy Renner). Yet it did not win. The winner was a film about slavery in America that certainly didn’t deserve it any more than “American Hustle”. But did the jury’s decision hinge more on the film’s production values, or on the fact that, whilst the cast of “American Hustle” were all white, the lead actor in “12 Years a Slave” – the exceptional Chiwetel Ejiofor, mind you – was, not coincidentally, black? If we then add that also in the running that same year were "Nebraska", by the brilliant Alexander Payne (and featuring a magnificent Bruce Dern), as well as Martin Scorsese’s "The Wolf of Wall Street", with an unforgettable Leonardo DiCaprio, I would say that we can safely set aside any doubts about the reasoning behind that award, and about the validity of Monda’s arguments.
Luca Rocca