It's summer and it's hot: the perfect time for decrees to be approved,
amidst general indifference in Parliament, that might otherwise face
strong opposition. This would certainly not be a new development. Amidst
general indifference due to the commitment to mobilizing against war and
the violence that increasingly surrounds us and in which we are actively
engaged, Bill 832, also known as the "Separated Fathers" Decree, has
been introduced in the Senate. This bill, also known as the "Separated
Fathers" Decree, a name that already specifies the beneficiaries, could
be approved amid the same general indifference.
This bill revisits the infamous Pillon Decree in an even more shameful
manner, if possible, by proposing amendments to the Civil Code and the
Criminal Code regarding shared custody of children in the event of
separation. Bill 832 was proposed by 14 senators from the Italian
Democratic Party (FDI) and Noi Moderati (We Moderates) and has been
under consideration by the Senate Justice Committee since March 27. It
was submitted to the "drafting" stage, allowing for a fast and secure
passage through Parliament, without even the possibility of amendments.
Its purpose, like the Pillon bill a few years ago, is to make separation
and divorce-statistically requested predominantly by women-an obstacle
course, thus ensuring the preservation of the traditional family. By
clearly penalizing women, the bill favors the economically stronger
party, generally the male, who for some time, including through very
powerful associations, has been demanding lower maintenance costs and a
substantial overhaul of the automatic assignment of housing to women.
The underlying concept of Bill 832 is that of parental equality or
perfect joint parenting. Put this way, it might seem positive, but in
reality, it is a very insidious concept, which tends to create false
symmetry where none exists, because we live in a sexist and patriarchal
society where roles are unequal. Equal parenting is only relevant when
separation occurs and becomes an exercise of power, domination, and
possession; before that, it doesn't matter. In fact, when families are
"sustained," equality is dysfunctional, because the traditional family
must be based on inequality and hierarchy.
Let's look at the key points of the "separated fathers" bill.
First, it eliminates the obligation to pay child support based on
financial means, legally establishing child support at 50/50 without
considering any differences in economic circumstances between the two
parents. Yet ISTAT and INPS statistics highlight how mothers are more
economically vulnerable than fathers. A very high percentage of women
have precarious jobs and therefore an unstable income, just as many
women leave their jobs when a child is born, either because they lose
their job, given the limited protections offered by precarious jobs, or
because they must assume a caregiving role in the absence of adequate
social support services.
Bill 832, again in the name of parental equality, introduces the
requirement for children of separated parents to have a dual domicile,
cleverly eliminating the assignment of the family home, guaranteeing the
owner full use of the property and eliminating the child's right to
stable, continuous residence in the home where he or she grew up. The
rapacious greed underlying this provision is not even measured against
the many real-life situations in which, for example, separated parents
live in different cities, which can happen with a separation, given that
family, living, and work situations change.
But the rigidity of the law, based solely on the Solomonic principle of
equal division, is designed to enable specific adjustments to be made
through specialized external professionals. Bill 832, in fact, imposes
the requirement for family mediation through a mediator. This is
superfluous in cases of consensual and non-confrontational separations,
and atrocious in cases of non-mediatable conflicts, such as those caused
by violence-an unfortunately very common reason for separations. A woman
who seeks to separate herself and her children from domestic violence
through separation would be forced into mediation, which would
constitute secondary violence.
But it doesn't end there. Among the more subtle provisions of Bill 832
is the introduction of the obligation to pay childbirth expenses by
fathers, even those who are unmarried or not cohabiting, even if their
relationship ended during pregnancy. What may seem like economic
empowerment is actually extremely dangerous, because it legally
recognizes the male figure as a father even before birth. A father
recognized as such before the child's birth and bound by obligations can
also claim rights over the unborn child, can claim a legally relevant
interest in the pregnancy, and, for example, can interfere with the
decisions of a woman who decides to terminate the pregnancy. If we
consider these scenarios, it becomes clear how intertwined the campaigns
for "shared parenting" and those for the "protection of unborn life"
are, which resonate ominously in our ears.
We have listed just a few of the salient points of this bill, a measure
that seeks to increase male power, penalizing women and discouraging
them from initiating separation proceedings in which child support is
not even guaranteed, blaming them for not mediating unsustainable
situations, and treating children from a perspective of shared
ownership, ultimately reaffirming the ancient patriarchal order.
We cannot allow this decree to pass unnoticed.
Let's prepare for another fight, let's prepare for a repeat of the
"victorious" demonstrations against the Pillon decree.
Claudia Scotto
https://umanitanova.org/nel-nome-del-padre-ddl-832-padri-separati/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
amidst general indifference in Parliament, that might otherwise face
strong opposition. This would certainly not be a new development. Amidst
general indifference due to the commitment to mobilizing against war and
the violence that increasingly surrounds us and in which we are actively
engaged, Bill 832, also known as the "Separated Fathers" Decree, has
been introduced in the Senate. This bill, also known as the "Separated
Fathers" Decree, a name that already specifies the beneficiaries, could
be approved amid the same general indifference.
This bill revisits the infamous Pillon Decree in an even more shameful
manner, if possible, by proposing amendments to the Civil Code and the
Criminal Code regarding shared custody of children in the event of
separation. Bill 832 was proposed by 14 senators from the Italian
Democratic Party (FDI) and Noi Moderati (We Moderates) and has been
under consideration by the Senate Justice Committee since March 27. It
was submitted to the "drafting" stage, allowing for a fast and secure
passage through Parliament, without even the possibility of amendments.
Its purpose, like the Pillon bill a few years ago, is to make separation
and divorce-statistically requested predominantly by women-an obstacle
course, thus ensuring the preservation of the traditional family. By
clearly penalizing women, the bill favors the economically stronger
party, generally the male, who for some time, including through very
powerful associations, has been demanding lower maintenance costs and a
substantial overhaul of the automatic assignment of housing to women.
The underlying concept of Bill 832 is that of parental equality or
perfect joint parenting. Put this way, it might seem positive, but in
reality, it is a very insidious concept, which tends to create false
symmetry where none exists, because we live in a sexist and patriarchal
society where roles are unequal. Equal parenting is only relevant when
separation occurs and becomes an exercise of power, domination, and
possession; before that, it doesn't matter. In fact, when families are
"sustained," equality is dysfunctional, because the traditional family
must be based on inequality and hierarchy.
Let's look at the key points of the "separated fathers" bill.
First, it eliminates the obligation to pay child support based on
financial means, legally establishing child support at 50/50 without
considering any differences in economic circumstances between the two
parents. Yet ISTAT and INPS statistics highlight how mothers are more
economically vulnerable than fathers. A very high percentage of women
have precarious jobs and therefore an unstable income, just as many
women leave their jobs when a child is born, either because they lose
their job, given the limited protections offered by precarious jobs, or
because they must assume a caregiving role in the absence of adequate
social support services.
Bill 832, again in the name of parental equality, introduces the
requirement for children of separated parents to have a dual domicile,
cleverly eliminating the assignment of the family home, guaranteeing the
owner full use of the property and eliminating the child's right to
stable, continuous residence in the home where he or she grew up. The
rapacious greed underlying this provision is not even measured against
the many real-life situations in which, for example, separated parents
live in different cities, which can happen with a separation, given that
family, living, and work situations change.
But the rigidity of the law, based solely on the Solomonic principle of
equal division, is designed to enable specific adjustments to be made
through specialized external professionals. Bill 832, in fact, imposes
the requirement for family mediation through a mediator. This is
superfluous in cases of consensual and non-confrontational separations,
and atrocious in cases of non-mediatable conflicts, such as those caused
by violence-an unfortunately very common reason for separations. A woman
who seeks to separate herself and her children from domestic violence
through separation would be forced into mediation, which would
constitute secondary violence.
But it doesn't end there. Among the more subtle provisions of Bill 832
is the introduction of the obligation to pay childbirth expenses by
fathers, even those who are unmarried or not cohabiting, even if their
relationship ended during pregnancy. What may seem like economic
empowerment is actually extremely dangerous, because it legally
recognizes the male figure as a father even before birth. A father
recognized as such before the child's birth and bound by obligations can
also claim rights over the unborn child, can claim a legally relevant
interest in the pregnancy, and, for example, can interfere with the
decisions of a woman who decides to terminate the pregnancy. If we
consider these scenarios, it becomes clear how intertwined the campaigns
for "shared parenting" and those for the "protection of unborn life"
are, which resonate ominously in our ears.
We have listed just a few of the salient points of this bill, a measure
that seeks to increase male power, penalizing women and discouraging
them from initiating separation proceedings in which child support is
not even guaranteed, blaming them for not mediating unsustainable
situations, and treating children from a perspective of shared
ownership, ultimately reaffirming the ancient patriarchal order.
We cannot allow this decree to pass unnoticed.
Let's prepare for another fight, let's prepare for a repeat of the
"victorious" demonstrations against the Pillon decree.
Claudia Scotto
https://umanitanova.org/nel-nome-del-padre-ddl-832-padri-separati/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten