By Maria Vittoria Borghi
TW: mentions of rape
Every year, on the 8th of March, my hometown slowly turns yellow, the colour of mimosa flowers. These shrubs (also called silver wattles) are Italy’s typical gift on International Women’s Day which slowly besieges the streets on this recurrence. But, despite my contempt for mimosas, I won’t indulge in the seasoned discussion about the meaning of flower gifts and their role in perpetuating gendered concepts of femininity: the Republic of Italy has a far more compelling controversy to offer.
This International Women’s Day fell at a historic moment for Italian politics; for the first time, the country’s Prime Minister and the main opposition party leader in office are women. But it would be incorrect to say that I never thought I would see this day – honestly, I had never even thought about the possibility of it. Behind every good or bad national policy, I always imagined men.
I assumed it would take me some time to get used to it, but the press quickly helped me adjust to the idea. Even international newspapers quickly turned their attention to Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and the Democratic Party’s representative Elly Schlein. In fact, it seems to have taken a liking to juxtaposing them as ideological and political nemeses: the conservative minister vs. the liberal opposition leader; the Catholic with a history in post-Fascist parties vs. the bisexual granddaughter of a socialist legislator. As The Spectator put it, “sex is the only thing … [they have] in common”.
Despite their differences and the evident allure of emphasising them, this conclusion is not entirely true. Depending on political affiliations, both can be portrayed as equally inappropriate symbols for women breaking Italy’s political glass ceiling. Giorgia Meloni’s choice to be addressed as Il Presidente of Italy’s Council of Ministers instead of La Presidente (i.e., with the Italian male article), combined with her conservative views on family, make her an unacceptable champion of feminism for (centre-)left voters – especially considering her infamous retweet of footage showing an asylum seeker raping a Ukrainian refugee in Italy. In this context, The soon-to-be Presidente was accused of instrumentalizing the survivor’s personal tragedy to gain support for her anti-immigration agenda in the pre-election period. At the same time, right-wing supporters suggest that the success of the US-Italian (and Swiss) Elena Ethel Schlein has nothing to do with her charisma and expertise and everything to do with the established male politicians of the Democratic Party who backed her. Elly is far too young, too wealthy, and too American – she’s also a two-times ex-campaigner for the Obama presidency – to represent Italian women in politics. In their own way, both Giorgia Meloni and Elly Schlein are described as ideologically “too much”.
A similar point on the shared hardships and typical accusations thrown at the two new leaders was made recently by Silvia Grilli, the editor of Grazia. Her (right-wing) women’s magazine sparked a brief online controversy after interviewing Italy’s first prime minister and choosing her as the magazine’s cover for International Women’s Day: some exponents of the Online Generation quickly headed to the comment section of Grazia’s announcement post to call out this “propaganda”, and the inappropriateness of this decision as “Meloni is proof that being a female does not make you a woman”; others concluded that it was right to give her a platform to explain her views. Seemingly addressing this dispute, editor Grilli prefaced the publication with a pragmatic editorial. As she emphasises the triumphs of both politicians in spite of gendered hardships, she concludes that “we will achieve true equality when we no longer notice people’s gender … and we are getting there”.
Here, I must respectfully disagree. Although I understand the importance of recognising progress (and of pleasing all kinds of readers in a dying industry), there’s a huge difference between a journey and a destination. For instance, why is Helen Mirren asked in the very same edition of this aspirational preface if she’s childless by choice? Why is there a piece detailing the change of heart of three women that initially opted for an abortion? Why one on Priyanka Chopra, extolling the virtues of her surrogate pregnancy? We appear to be relentlessly marching towards a future in which women are seen as nominally ‘equal’, but our biological usefulness remains at the forefront: let’s not forget that Roe v. Wade was overturned less than a year ago.
Moreover, the gender-less agenda suggests that equal treatment can exist under current circumstances and that it’s the only desirable outcome. However, while manifesting a clean slate might work for individual lifestyle choices, structural imbalances are rooted in history and represent the ghosts of our present. Under the current circumstances, not factoring gender (or, for example, race) in some decisions might make everyone equal, but it wouldn’t necessarily be fair.
Let’s take some international examples. According to a report by Scottish Widows, women today would have to work approximately 16 years more than their male counterparts for a comparable pension. £12,500 of the total £123,000 less they will (not) earn are due to the different caring responsibilities that lead to career breaks. They are also more likely to take on part-time jobs (72% of them are taken on by women) and reportedly have less confidence in making financial decisions. There are many reasons for the alleged lack of confidence, but I suspect money’s historical framing – which is usually gendered – plays a major role. Financial advice looks very different in women’s and men’s magazines: while girls are typically encouraged to save money by preventing superfluous expenses, boys are pushed to generate wealth. Aside from the fact that such narratives hurt both genders, the hesitancy they instil in women has affected their retirement plans: the difference in savings rate across sexes amounts to £23,100. Even while assuming equal pay (which is not the case), the walls that were erected for some groups while others were naturally equipped for the climb must be acknowledged and addressed. Another instance that makes potential issues of equality salient involves a “gender-neutral” Artificial Intelligence that was found to systematically discriminate in recruitment: based on its training dataset (the company’s track record), Amazon’s AI concluded that certain keywords (e.g., woman) indicated less desirable traits in candidates and ranked the applicants accordingly. Opportunities can’t be equal tomorrow if they aren’t fair today, because they weren’t equal yesterday.
And these are only ‘first-world problems’. In Mexico, for instance, 73% of the female population over 15 has already experienced the joy of motherhood. How is the situation of these girls ever going to be comparable to the formation of their classmales, provided they manage to finish high school?
Equality is desirable and achievable when the circumstances are comparable. In a political climate of male-dominated scandals (e.g., Salvini’s initially unwavering support for Wladimir Putin despite his attack on Ukraine) and flaky allegiances (Carlo Calenda, for instance, has become a notorious political frog), two determined Italian women did the unthinkable. But in the presence of other two equally electable (or less unelectable?) male candidates, would we have the same outcome? I’m not suggesting that we should start blindly favouring women and minorities regardless of the situation, but claiming that Meloni’s and Schlein’s political success is a sign of progress towards equality and that equality is the only possible demand after decades of oppression seems misleading. Context matters: For instance, to put Meloni’s victory into context, some analysts like to mention that her share of voters (26%) in the parliamentary elections can be overshadowed by the 36% of Italians who didn’t vote.
Positive discrimination is certainly not an ideal solution to systemic inequalities, but historical blindness is also a form of bias, and often the most convenient one. In today’s day and age, this occasionally means that privileged majorities will sometimes face unfair situations. Perhaps a targeted, transparent and sensible level of affirmative action is the price to pay for equality.
