In these days he seems to attend a continuous theatrical show. While they suggest survival kit between one joke and another, with the people who everywhere speak of weapons and war, the senator Pd Dario Franceschini has the brilliant idea of ​​bringing the serious question of the surname to the children to the attention of the media. But not only does this proposal at the moment: presents it as an epochal, of extraordinary importance, even compensation for the centuries of injustice suffered by women. The surname to the children.

It is truly alienating to look at politicians who discuss giving arias with truncated and solemn tones, and are talking about the criterion for assigning the surname. The right that Starnazza di Matriarchar, the Valente who defines it as a battle of civilization. And they are talking about the assignment of the surname.

There is a hierarchy of problems and themes

It is not a question of doing Benaltrism, we know very well that Parliament is more discussed at the same time; but of the importance and weight attributed to this thing, and consequently also of its media relevance. The declarations of supporters are delusional, a true slap to the intelligence of citizens and the serious difficulties that women can cross. It could not be more evident that politics is only the void repeating itself of insignificant actions cloaked in size, completely vain. Each exponent must issue his heartfelt declaration, perfectly in accordance with those of his associates, and then return to get his own business.

On the merits, it is not clear the meaning of such a proposal, even more so since it had come to the possibility of the double surname, the obviously more reasonable choice: each family decides whether to also add the mother of the mother, but that of the father remains. Guess why? Certainly to submit women and make them forever alleged to the patriarchate, but also for the slight detail that motherhood is necessarily certain, while paternity does not.

The danger of symbolic gestures

By ignoring all logic as usual, as well as common sense and even decency, in this case, you want at all costs to introduce a change which is then a stupid, a fake problem: a question of pure form, against all the very concrete problems to which couples encounter with children, especially if they separate. It is then quite worrying that it is admitted that it is a purely symbolic gesture, as if it were the responsibility of Parliament “compensating” women – as if it had the slightest sense the concept of compensation with respect to a social structure. Politics should deal with solving problems and improving citizens’ lives, not having a new silly topic on which to make pompous statements. By dint of symbolic battles and misleading speeches, the meaning of the measure is really lost, ending up attributing immoderate importance to nonsense and above all with the forgetting of everything else.

Also sad to continue to observe how the Democratic Party and what gravitates around them still persist in carrying out questions of mere staple to satisfy the pro -feminist tendency, still unable to understand that they are not interested in anyone; It almost seems that they are broadcasting the recordings of themselves four years ago, and nobody who can find them to tell him that he has not worked.