BEAU ? Opposé au laid, le beau est une catégorie esthétique fondamentale. À côté du bien et du vrai, il constitue l’un des trois concepts normatifs auxquels peuvent se ramener les jugements d’appréciation. Le problème majeur auquel se heurte le beau est celui du critère qui permet de l’attribuer à une œuvre d’art ou à la nature elle-même. Ce critère peut-il être universel et objectif ou relève-t-il toujours d’une impression particulière plaisante et désintéressée ? Si Augustin estimait que toute la Création est belle parce que, son auteur, Dieu, est lui-même nécessairement parfait, l’esthétique médiévale fait dépendre le beau de l’intégrité, de la juste proportion, de la clarté de ce qui est représenté. Mais la codification du beau est peu à peu contestée à l’âge moderne. Un « je-ne-sais-quoi » explique davantage ce qui séduit dans une œuvre. Kant estime que « le beau est ce qui plaît universellement sans concept ». C’est pour lui une impression produite par le libre jeu de l’imagination et de l’entendement. Aujourd’hui, le beau, concurrencé par le laid ou le banal, est de plus en plus relativisé. À l’âge démocratique, le jugement de goût semble dépendre de l’avis de chacun ce qui n’empêche pas certaines œuvres d’être jugées belles indépendamment des modes et des cultures nationales. #beau #philo #philosophie #concept #subjectif #définition #débat #fleur #flower #flowerstagram #powerflower #conceptphilosophique (à Bordeaux, France) https://www.instagram.com/p/Clk95beKnNO/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=
0 notes
If repression has the role, in cybernetic capitalism, of forestalling the event, prediction is its corollary, insofar as it is for the purpose of eliminating the uncertainty that’s associated with any future. It is the major concern of the statistical technologies. Whereas those of the welfare State were completely focused on the anticipation of risks, calculated or not, those of cybernetic capitalism aim at multiplying the domains of responsibility. The discourse concerning risk is the driver for deploying the cybernetic hypothesis; it is circulated first and then internalized. Because risks are more easily accepted if those exposed to them have the impression they have chosen to take them, feel responsible for them and, furthermore, feel that they have the power to control and master them themselves. But, as one expert admits, ‘zero risk’ does not exist…By virtue of its permanence for the system, risk is an ideal tool for promoting new forms of power that favor the increasing hold of security apparatuses on collectives and individuals. It eliminates any question of conflict by the obligatory drawing together of individuals around the management of threats that are supposed to concern everyone in the same way. The argument that THEY want us to accept is the following: greater security goes hand in hand with an increased production of insecurity. And if you think that the insecurity increases as prediction tends to be infallible, that’s because you are yourself afraid of risks. And if you are afraid of risks, if you don’t trust the system to completely control your life, your fear risks being contagious and in fact may present a very real risk of disloyalty to the system. In other words, to be afraid of risks is already to be seen as a risk to society oneself. The imperative of commodity circulation on which cybernetic capitalism is based morphs into a general phobia, a fantasy of self-destruction. The control society is a paranoiac society, something that is clearly confirmed by the proliferation of conspiracy theories within it. Thus every individual is subjectified in cybernetic capitalism as a risky dividual, as the generic enemy of the balanced society
Tiqqun, The Cybernetic Hypothesis, pg. 74-75
75 notes
·
View notes
Sometimes faces appear on the [white] wall, with their [black] holes; sometimes they appear in the hole, with their linearized, rolled-up wall. A horror story, the face is a horror story.
"Year Zero: Faciality", Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus
3 notes
·
View notes
when I think about it,, english has the weakest type of meaning weaving. to this contributes the lack of grammatical gender, making swapping words very easy, and the general neutrality of it all. only thing it has going for it is its sentence structuring, and even that is eh at best. but its lack of inter-word connections make it very cool and accessible for poetry and writing in general.
on the other side, french is like a complicated but sturdy macrame, in which you can cut out entire sections and it'll still hold up. a huge contributor is ofc grammatical gender, but also the huge influence the order of words has on their variations (think of, the ending of a participe passé particle only varies if you place the CDV relating to that verb with the avoir particle to precede it. that's pretty strong connectedness)
and of course, top contender, polish. you cannot replace one word without changing the endings of at least two others, thanks case system. there's also technically five grammatical genders, 3 for singular form and 2 for plural, all of which change how you accord the verb used. sentence structure is pretty much free for all tho, no one can say it's wrong because at most it'd sound unnnatural
there's no greater point here I just think of languages as threads and needles and tapestries and paintings and chemistry and buildings and houses and
1 note
·
View note
ok donc je m'amuse à créer des timelines, et maintenant j'ai très envie d'écrire l'histoire d'Allen et Steve basée dessus
1956 : Naissance
1961 : 5 ans. Les deux voient leur pouvoir se manifester cette année ; Allen bat Steve d’un mois
1972 : 16 ans. Allen et Steve deviennent sidekicks de deux super-héros différents, mais amis. Leur rivalité commence alors ; si tous les deux ont le même âge, ont manifesté leur pouvoir la même année au même âge, et commencent à bosser pour des super-héros en même temps au même âge, alors ils ont toutes les clés nécessaires pour prouver si le feu ou la glace est meilleur
1975 : 19 ans. Allen devient officiellement un super-héro, battant Steve
1976 : 20 ans. Steve devient officiellement un super-héro, et arrête enfin d’ignorer Allen après que ce dernier l’ait félicité (en secret)
1983 : 27 ans. Steve rejoint Hero Corp à sa fondation
1984 : 28 ans. Bien qu’Allen voulait de base rester un super-héro solo, n’aimant pas trop le côté fonctionnaire d’Hero Corp, Steve le convainc. Ils ont des supers bénéfices ! En plus, lui et Steve peuvent se voir plus facilement comme ça
1988 : 32 ans. Durant une attaque de The Lord, Steve sauve la vie d’Allen. Le compteur de quel pouvoir est le meilleur est remit à zéro
2002 : 46 ans. Les pouvoirs commencent à s’affaiblir, et Steve et Allen décident de prendre leur retraite. Discrètement, pour ne pas laisser l’autre gagner. Ils se retrouvent au village, et ils n’ont jamais révélés quand exactement ils ont décidé de prendre leur retraite, au cas où l’autre le batte
2011 : 55 ans. Mort d’Allen
2014 : 58 ans.
(du coup Steve a battu Allen en terme d'années vivant haha) (Leurs mentors c'est Aero qui contrôle l'air et Captain Water (CW, ou WC pour les intimes) qui contrôlent l'eau. Aero s'appelle Didier et CW s'appele Walter. Oui Walter a choisi ce prénom exprès) (ah oui au fait je sais que dans les comics Hero Corp est censée être fondée en 1985 mais j'ai dit fuck that car John est censé être né la même année selon les comics et si John est né en 1985 il est juste trop jeune pour ce qu'on sait de lui dans la série. Aussi j'ai vite fait bossé une timeline de la série et est décidé de la faire aller de 2011 à 2014)
1 note
·
View note
These women are beautiful and everything, but they are still a small part of a much larger problem.
1 note
·
View note
If it seems odd, by contrast, to take the time to define what a child
is, there is good reason to be equally critical and careful. Rather than taking for granted the existence of children as a demographic group defined somehow by age, this book takes a fairly simple approach to defining who is a trans child. Anyone under the medical age of consent during the twentieth century—typically twenty-one, but sometimes eighteen—is a child in the pages that follows. I draw on the medical age of consent not because it refers to a meaningful distinction but precisely because its arbitrariness and obvious construction illuminate how the figure of “the child” and actual living “children” are entangled products of historical processes of Western subjectification, rather than representing a natural category of human life. While there are infants, toddlers, five-year-olds, teenagers, and even twenty-year-olds throughout this book, I refer to all of them as children because they were subject to a specifically infantilizing form of governance (this is also why the category “adolescent” did not meaningfully come into play in trans medicine during this period). The medical age of consent, which deprived children of the ability to make medical decisions for themselves, proved to be a deciding factor in shaping their experiences and limiting their ability to act. Drawing on Paul Amar’s critical reading of the field of childhood studies, I agree that the child is a dehumanized social form, the product of historical and political processes of infantilization “designed to control various populations” through sexual and racial difference, rather than to index meaningful age differences. As Amar points out, one of the most pernicious effects of the production of children through infantilization is “a failure to recognize children as agents,” to render their lives politically informal—effectively unintelligible to adults. The Western form of the child and childhood is a powerful obstacle to seeing “the mechanism and practices by which social actors branded as children challenge the regime of infantilization,” whether through collective organization or individual itineraries that stray from developmentalism. For that reason, this book names the trans child not as a distinct subgroup
within the trans community but as a politically disenfranchised person subject to a regime of racially and gender normative governance by medicine and other social institutions, including the family.
Jules Gill-Peterson, Histories of the Transgender Child
402 notes
·
View notes
Itachi x insecure reader (it's her first time) NSFW? Sorry for my bad English
Comfortable || Itachi Uchiha x fem!reader
A/n : Hello my dear ! Just a little disclaimer before : first of all this is going to be very subjectif I’m writing what for me should be ideal in this situation, some may agree ( which I think may be a majority of people ) some won’t and that’s perfectly fine, we’re all different.
Warnings : first time, insecure reader, very reassuring and soft Itachi ( but seriously I bet he is canonly like this ), 18+ READERS ONLY and wrap it before you tap it
Masterlist ⚜
I don’t give permission to repost my work, if you want to share it just reblogue it
Word count : 1035
When he started dating you, Itachi never ever thought about sex at any point. He is that ( rare or not idk ) brand of guys who just didn’t care about it at all
He never pressured you into doing anything, even kisses, hugs, cuddles. Nothing, he preferred first to be sure that his ways of showing love and appreciation towards you were consented and liked
But at some point the body and the hormones talk ( I know a lot of people aren’t like that so I’m only generalizing for the fic sake ) and sex, which was Itachi’s last problem came forward as you both went forward in your relationship
He’s not going to set a date for it lol, that would be way to stressful
He’ll let you explain to him what you desire and what your limits are. And of course he too will speaking to you about his desires
The first time your make out session actually goes into a more grinding, humping field you both know this may be it
Itachi may know being naked in front of someone for the first time isn’t the most comfy thing to do ( maybe he knows this from experience or not you choose )
So the only light source of the room is the little daylight coming from under the roller blind or the faint glow of a bedside lamp
But even if he doesn’t see you clearly ( I bet the Sharingan could but he’ll never use it on you without asking first ) he is 100% going to praise how beautiful and amazing you look
If your hands move up to cover yourself - and he knows it’s fine - he is going to take them in his, before pushing you flush against him, like so he can’t see you as much “Don’t hide from me Y/n you look perfect. So soft and huggable” he presses a kiss at the side of your head
With your consent his hands are going to gently explore the contour and softness of your body. Lingering on your waist and breasts area, then on your back as he pulls you flush against him to take your quivering – from stress – body against his strong warm muscular chest – and yes he is hard and stressful too
As soon as he gets used to touching you, his mouth will make its way to your soft skin. Going from your neck, to jaw, to clavicle and down and down
“I promise I won’t be staring at it my Love”
And if you let him, he is going to give you the best oral of your whole life ( in this case it would be the first as well )
He is just so gentle in his movements, as he gently sucks on your clit and licks your juices of your lower lips – you might as well fall asleep if it wasn’t this good “Mhhh so good” he praises
If he sees you’re close to cumming he’ll ask you if you prefer coming on his tongue or after on his cock “Do you want me to push you over the edge or…” though he can’t ring himself to say a word referring to it ahah, he is shy 👉👈
Either he isn't going to rush you into climaxing, as he wants you to get used to the feeling first, not too gets overwhelmed
With his oral he may have prepped you enough. If not, he is going to stretch you with his fingers. Slowly and cautiously adding one after the other, and making scissoring motions inside you with them
Once you’re both sure you’re ready for it, he is going to ask you again several times if you really want to take this step with him, reminding you that at any point you can tell him to stop and that he would never mind you stopping things at any point
But since you’re consenting, he is going to slowly penetrate you. He even has lubricant on the side if you need a little more help
His body will hover over yours, his arms maintaining his sold stature above you not to crush you ( even if he wouldn’t, he ain’t Toji lol )
He is either busy kissing your lips or breathing heavily, his forehead against yours as he encounters how tight your virgin walls are “Don’t worry I’ll go very slow”
He is never going to push if he feels a real resistance and you ask him to wait for you to adjust. And of course once he is fully sheathed in ( which may not always happen for a first time ) he is going to let you as much time to adjust as you need ( but again this is such basic human being stuff I mean everyone should do that )
The pace he is going to set if of course the one he knows you’ll be fine with. I mean you’re the one taking the dick so if someone should be bothered by the pace it’s you
He is just holding you so close the whole time, and it feels very profound for you, as you two merged in the same being, as if you both shared a soul at this very moment. The little strands of words of appreciation that flow out of his mind helps you a lot in feeling even more comfortable with everything currently happening.
He is also going to ask if you’re close when he feels himself nearing the edge. He just doesn’t want to stop and leave you frustrated if you were on the edge too
Besides this as it’s your first time he is surely wearing on a condom, but still he is going to ask if you prefer him to pull out anyways when he cums
After this he is going to stay by your side as much as he can. He doesn’t want you to think that he is going to neglect you now that he has had it. Beside you might be feeling very sensitive and vulnerable after this, so he is going to be there for you
He is helping you clean up, if you’re okay with it, and he is also ready to lend you some clothes to wear “You were amazing Y/n. You felt so good. I hope I was up to the job too”
Of course the following night he is cuddling you the whole night long, proposed drinks and snacks. This just brought you even closer than you two already were and you just can’t wait to see what the future has to offer
149 notes
·
View notes
There's gotta be a word for whatever the opposite of objectification is. Like, the obvious option is "Subjectification", but that's apparently the point in development where you realise you have a distinct individual personhood or something like that.
I just feel like there's this constant current within my experience of masculinity where my desires and actions are treated as much more significant and/or dangerous than they actually are. More than that, that in all aspects of my relationship to my community, the only acceptable or even coherent way to describe that relationship is in terms of my effect on others, and never the other way around. And that trickles down into so many weird little pockets of conflict.
One example of that has been biphobia, even from partners who are bi women, or jealousy, even from non-monogamous partners with a lot of dates, because a dude desiring or having sex with someone apparently just feels...more...notable/worth worrying about than a woman doing the exact same thing. Another one has been dealing with mental health struggles, in which female partners' depression is something to be lived with and nursed, while my own is this anxiety-inducing thing that I'm on some level doing *to* them.
It's kind of the converse of the shitty adage, "if he wanted to, he would." That concept being blown out to "if he wants to, he will," and even "This is a walking Agency Machine who happens To You. All actions are premeditated. All effects both material and emotional are intentional."
Like, it's one of the shitty byproducts of our inability to discuss the objectification of women outside of the sexual. Our society splits humans into subjects and objects. Speakers and Topics. Intentional, driven agents and passive, helpless commodities. And it's not that we should all be Subjects at all times or something, or that I want into the passive Object club, it's that we are all both subjects and objects.
We gendered that and split it in half. We associated being a subject with masculinity and being an object with femininity. And it's a pretty massive struggle for people to unlearn that on a foundational level even if they understand intellectually that that's bullshit.
Like, I have thought this way before, aimed this "Subjectification" style of thinking at others. But it was when I was a literal child and I thought this way about my literal parents. It's exhausting to face that framing in egalitarian relationships with fully grown women my own age.
156 notes
·
View notes
À l'anonyme qui m'a envoyé un message si outrageant que je veux même pas lui donner de visibilité en le publiant :
Je le précise parce que tu sembles t'en servir comme argument (?) pour que je t'écoute, le fait que tu me suives sur tumblr depuis longtemps et que tu apprécies mes avatars ne te donne aucun droit pour me conseiller sur le contenu que je poste ou reblog ici. Dans ma tête ça coule de source, mais à priori pas pour tout le monde. On est pas pote, je te connais pas, si t'es pas content·e, le bouton "se désabonner" est à ta portée. Je peux que t'encourager à cliquer dessus tho, les gens malintentionnés je veux pas les voir dans mes mentions.
Si t'as un quelconque problème avec un·e créateur·ice, c'est pas en lui taillant une réputation chez d'autres créateurs·ices que tu vas le régler. Si tu ne tiens pas à le régler, et si le comportement en question n'est pas dangereux mais relève bien de façons de communiquer différentes, trace ta route, ne lui parle pas ? Je sais pas où tu t'es cru·e, genre vraiment je n'arrive pas à concevoir de quelle façon tu t'es senti·e suffisamment à l'aise pour venir me parler d'un comportement 100% subjectif (que tu juges, je cite, "condescendant" et "malaisant") basé sur aucune preuve, comme si on se connaissait, comme si ça me concernait et que ta parole faisait office de vérité absolue, pour discréditer quelqu'un qui n'a rien demandé. Juste hallucinant comme démarche, je rêve.
L'image que tu dépeins de cette personne n'a rien à voir ni avec celle que je constate depuis plusieurs années, ni avec celle que les gens rapportent après l'avoir côtoyée. Gentle reminder qu'on a pas tous la même façon de communiquer, surtout à l'écrit, et que le fait de ne pas mettre d'émojis dans un message ou de caler des points à la fin d'une phrase ça ne fait pas de quelqu'un une personne condescendante. Je suis bien placée pour le savoir, je staffe depuis des années, des gens qui me jugent moi ou encore mes co-admins "froides" ou "inaccessibles" au premier abord, j'en ai vu passer.
Cracher sur le dos d'une personne qui offre de son temps et de sa créativité gratuitement en faisant passer l'action comme un avertissement à un comportement problématique, c'est vraiment pas le smart move que tu penses que c'est. Après ça s'étonne que la commu FR se meurt, pour des gens qui lisent et écrivent autant y'en a trop peu qui savent s'exprimer pour communiquer un problème, ça me dépasse. Arrêtez d'alimenter de la haine gratos comme ça, grandissez, touchez de l'herbe, jsp.
54 notes
·
View notes
"It's not really objectification in itself that's the problem, but rather de-subjectification, de-humanization.
Martha Nussbaum's criteria of objectification are: instrumentality, commodification, interchangeability, violability, disposability.
It's not just that someone is an object of perception for you, it's that they are a violable thing-like nonhuman object.
I see objectification as kind of psychologically opposed to identification.
When we objectify someone, we're refusing to identify with them.
Why do men objectify women? Well, misogyny, yes. But let's be more specific.
In part I think it's because most men don't identify with women, they don't even know how to.
Men are not socialized to identify with women. Boys often fear identification with girls or identification with their own mother.
It's as if boys are afraid that by identifying with girls, they might themselves become girls. I guess, in my case, that is what happened…
The phenomenon of men writing women illustrates what happens when men who can't identify with women attempt to write female characters.
Instead of plausible female identification, you get mere erotic projection. "She breasted boobily."
A lot of men don't know how to write women as subjects, so they write them as objects.
And this is really upsetting to most women. Women are not man-haters by nature.
Most women crave recognition from men and they're disturbed that so many men seem to relate to them in this introverted objectifying way.
I also think that heterosexual men have a selfish sexual motive for refusing to identify with women.
Many men, many people in general who are attracted to women, unconsciously view women as easily hurt, easily offended.
We're guilty about desiring women because we unconsciously view women as weak and vulnerable.
And so we feel that being attracted to women is predatory. I think this is a problem for straight men and for gay women.
But gay women don't usually solve this problem with objectification, because gay women usually find it easy to identify with other women.
We see ourselves in other women, so we can't view them merely as objects.
But because men often don't identify with women, objectification is a solution to the problem of guilt.
Because negating the other's subjectivity eliminates the shame of being seen.
When you objectify a woman, she becomes meat. You can stare and lust and consume her without the guilt and shame and self-consciousness that would result from seeing her as an equal subject.
(…) I also think that because masculinity is associated with power, objectification of men has different implications than objectification of women.
In particular a muscular man's body is not passive soft flesh to be preyed upon.
A muscular male body is power. And you see this in the almost quasi religious attitude to male bodies that's part of gay male culture.
I would even argue that gay men's objectification of men is extremely threatening to heteronormativity.
It's threatening to the male voyeur vs female exhibitionist heterosexual diad."
Source: ContraPointsLive: Tangent: The Male Gaze
100 notes
·
View notes
gender is unchosen
AND
gender is (un)freely claimed
AND
gender is embodied archive of our conditions of subjectification
AND
gender is what may be imagined beyond the realities we experience
AND
gender grasps at things which defy the cis articulable
AND
gender is a choice
AND
gender is a choice made under violent constraint
AND
gender is the choice which illuminates the limits of choice
AND
gender, when transed, demarcates the autonomy of the unthinkable as it presses against the bodies we have been forced to know
192 notes
·
View notes
[ID: Screenshot of a tumblr post from @doubledecks with a quote from an unknown source, which reads:
"While many people think fanfiction is about inserting sex into texts (like Tolkien's) where it doesn't belong, Brancher sees it differently: "I was desperate to read about sex that included great friendship; I was repurposing Tolkien's text in order to do that. It wasn't that friendship needed to be sexualized, it was that erotica needed to be ... friendship-ized." Many fanfiction writers write about sex in conjunction with beloved texts and characters not because they think those texts are incomplete, but because they're looking for stories where sex is profound and meaningful. This is part of what makes fan fiction different from pornography: unlike pornography, fanfic features characters we already care deeply about, and who tend to already have longstanding and complex relationships with each other. It's a genre of sexual subjectification: the very opposite of objectification. It's benefits with friendship." End ID]
does anybody know where this quote is from? i found it in my camera roll and i think its an absolutely brilliant way of looking at queer readings of sam/frodo as well as slash fiction in general. i think its from an essay or article or something and i want to read the whole thing. if anyone knows where its from pls lmk!
edit: it’s been found! it’s from “The Fanfiction Reader: Folk Tales for the Digital Age” by Francesca Coppa!
64 notes
·
View notes
[“In talking about gentrification in New York City, you write about the “New People” who flocked to New York when it became a whitewashed symbol of post-9/11 patriotism. You say, “Their newness is not the problem,” since new people have always flocked to New York. What is the difference now?
It has long been a struggle to come up with a name for these people. When I started my blog, Vanishing New York, in 2007, I called them “yunnies,” a riff on yuppies that stood for Young Urban Narcissists. But that was too limiting, and too cutesy, so I dropped that. For the book, I wanted to coin some great term, but ended up with New People, which I’m not satisfied with either. What I mean is that these people are a new kind of personality type in the city. They’re not New because they’re newcomers; they’re New because they’re not like the sort of people who’ve historically flocked to the city and, specifically, to countercultural neighborhoods like the East Village. They often don’t feel quite human. They feel android-like, manufactured, and this is because — I believe — their personalities have been engineered by the culture of neoliberal capitalism, especially in the 2000s when social media spreads neoliberalism like a virus. In The New Yorker, Jia Tolentino just published an essay about “Instagram face,” what she calls a “single, cyborgian” look, and this is part of what I’m talking about. The New People are perfect neoliberal subjects, engineered to conform, perform and succeed, and this makes them quite violent in the way they enter and commandeer urban space — and in the way they approach people who are unlike them, who they see as beneath them. They are also violent toward themselves through de-subjectification, the process of hollowing themselves out. I find it difficult to empathize with them, though. I keep trying, but I feel so assaulted by them, I just can’t.
I love how you eavesdrop on your influencer neighbors to give us the flattened details of their lives. Surveillance has stifled so many of the possibilities of urban life, and yet here you’re flipping the gaze to examine the gawkers and their “contemptuous disregard.” What do you find?
“Flattened” is a good word and it describes well what happens when someone de-subjectifies themself; they smooth out all the bumps that make them human and particular. They are the cyborgian Instagram face, the flat sameness of the glossy catalog image, drained of all personality. And — here’s their violence — they aim to de-subjectify everything and everyone around them. This goes way beyond gentrification. This is about turning the entire urban landscape into a slick, frictionless, endlessly repeating Instagrammable scene, devoid of affect, risk and surprise. To create this nightmarish hollow city, many of us will have to be removed, and if we refuse to go, we will be controlled — by the police, by systems of surveillance, and by the contemptuous disregard that the New People throw like poison darts from their eyes. They are trying to annihilate us. To make us not exist.
At the beginning of COVID lockdown in New York, so many of these “New People” left the city.
The day lockdown began, in March 2020, they fled in droves. The people who stayed behind and roamed the streets were the sort of New Yorkers I used to know. I’m talking about the ordinary people who aren’t cyborgian, along with the poor and working class, the nonwhite, the queer, the weird, the unhoused, the old, the artists, basically everyone who’s not a New Person. So the city refilled with all this gorgeous subjectivity! It was like a cloud lifted and we could see each other again. We could feel each other and look at each other. We became un-alienated.”]
471 notes
·
View notes
Réflexions sur la GPA et la notion de faire famille
Hier sur mon appli de rencontre je suis tombé sur le profil d'une fille qui décrivait son engagement féministe dans sa bio et qui disait qu'elle était anti GPA. J'ai pas liké son profil pour d'autres raisons, mais je me suis dit que de toutes façons j'étais pas une femme et que donc j'avais pas vraiment d'avis à avoir sur la question.
Mais ce matin en prenant ma douche j'y repensais et j'ai eu tout un cheminement de pensée. J'ai commencé par me dire qu'effectivement, vu ce qu'impliquent une grossesse et un accouchement, même si c'est ton choix d'être mère porteuse, c'est probablement quand même un poil traumatisant pour le corps et l'esprit de porter un enfant et de l'accoucher en sachant qu'il sera élevé par d'autres. Après je me suis très vite calmé le cul sur ce sujet parce qu'en soi, qui suis-je pour avoir un avis sur ce que les femmes font de leur corps en fait ? Du coup cette partie-là de la réflexion m'a très vite amené à me dire qu'on se figurait mal la chose. En fait, je trouve qu'au final la GPA, c'est un faux problème. Visiblement, ça semble bien plus simple d'encore une fois en passer par une certaine instrumentalisation du corps des femmes que de simplement remettre en cause notre vision du couple, de l'autorité parentale, du foyer et de la famille. Donc encore une affaire de patriarcat et de maintien de modèles sociétaux qui en découlent quoi. Je m'explique.
Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire aujourd'hui le couple, l'autorité parentale, la famille, le foyer quand de plus en plus de gens élèvent leurs enfants seul.e.s ou de manière coll��giale (gardes alternées, familles recomposées, etc...) ? Les lignes ont un tout petit peu bougé ces dernières années mais globalement le gap de "octroyer l'autorité parentale à plus de deux personnes au sein d'un même foyer" est encore loin d'être franchi. Et je trouve que l'enjeu se trouve très exactement là en fait. Plutôt que d'avoir recours à une mère porteuse, avec toutes les problématiques que ça peut impliquer, il y a peut être moyen d'encadrer légalement une autorité parentale et la constitution d'un foyer et d'un patrimoine à trois, voire plus.
Alors oui, du coup, ça demande un gros effort de remise en question de ce que peut être une vie de famille. Ça demande aussi de mettre un peu par terre le seul et unique modèle de famille que le patriarcat nous a toujours imposé. Mais pourquoi pas en fait ? Pourquoi est-ce qu'un couple ne pourrait pas élever un enfant conjointement et en harmonie avec une troisième personne qui ne ferait pas partie du couple, mais qui ferait tout de même partie du foyer et de la famille ? On peut avoir des liens très forts avec quelq'un.e et construire quelque chose de l'ordre d'une vie de famille avec, sans pour autant ressentir le besoin de l'inclure dans un projet amoureux. On peut avoir envie d'élever un enfant à trois ou plus et concevoir ce beau projet de la même manière qu'à deux. Alors bien sûr qu'en soi il faudrait qu'il y ait un cadre légal à cela : mais comme il existe déjà un cadre légal pour l'autorité parentale à deux aujourd'hui. Très franchement, étant donné le nombre de familles recomposées et de modèles alternatifs d'éducation qui existe déjà, pourquoi ne pas aller vers de nouveaux moyens de faire famille ?
Voilà fin de ma réflexion, j'espère juste que j'ai blessé personne en manquant d'inclusivité ou en ayant pas la déconstruction suffisante pour me rendre compte que je dis du bullshit. Évidemment ce que j'écris là ne regarde que moi : c'est très très subjectif, et c'est basé sur rien de très documenté. Si vous n'êtes pas d'accord avec tout ça je trouverais hyper intéressant d'entendre votre avis sur ces questions. Juste, si je vois que ça part dans du jugement, de la discrimination ou toute autre forme de procès contre quelqu'un.e je supprime, je ban et/ou je signale sans ménagement. Voilà vous êtes prévenu.e.s.
Si ! Juste une toute petite ressource, même s'il s'agit d'un point de vue très subjectif là aussi sur ces questions : la mini-série d'Océan qui s'appelle "Faire famille", et qui traite justement de ces nouvelles manières d'être une famille. Je crois que c'est un peu romancé au niveau de la narration, mais les témoignages, eux, ne le sont pas. Vous pouvez voir ça gratuitement ici :
23 notes
·
View notes