What love can get from deconstructing the couple

Terrafemina: Love is a theme that is increasingly grasped by feminist activists today. Why do you think?

Axelle Jah Njiké: This is the feeling with which we build our bonds. The one from which, for some of us, we conceive our children. It is a question of clarity as for the bonds woven by one, including the bond of love. It can’t escape questioning, and given all the things we’ve released ourselves in a visible way since the emergence of the #MeToo movement, I don’t see why this sector, love, shouldn’t have been explored.

The other part of the violence we condemn is love. The solar part of this story is love. Once again, we need to keep our heads clean. Franchise too. And that we study the cultural environment that shapes our love relationship. The culture in which we are immersed and what it reveals to the patriarch at work, it allows us to understand how love contributes more to enslave us than to liberate us. It also says a lot about the behaviors we incorporate during our gender socialization as women.

And then, however, questioning your life, your romantic and parental relationship, is important, isn’t it?

Emanuela Todorova: I really agree with what Axel said. Often, when we talk about feminism, it is a pejorative. Feminists are “evil”, “hysterical”, “radical”, “extremist”. While in the feminist struggle, what we want is to find the peace of living normally, leaving room for love and not giving all our energy to struggles.

Moreover, today, many feminists are beginning to ask themselves the question of how to integrate their heterosexuality – which is something we cannot control – in the struggle they lead on a daily basis. Many people ask themselves: “How can I manage to be confident in myself, sleep with my boyfriend and at the same time, tell myself that men are patriarchal, and fight that?” It’s important to say that we can lead this fight and be heterosexual, and discuss how we can find our way.

AJN: What is important is self -consistency. One order should not replace another.

Rethinking our relationships between men and women and ending the dynamic rule that reigns there will go through the breakdown of love and relationships as they are instilled in us by our patriarchal society?

AJN: If we want to change things in the long term, we have to go through it. We can’t deconstruct it if we don’t prioritize our relationships. It is a question of understanding on what basis one builds so -called love. It is important to study the cultural environment, but also the family and parenting context that shapes our loving relationship, as I explained in my short story. Closely politically obvious, it couldn’t be different.

UG: To give an example, I grew up in a heteronormative society with Disney cartoons where women were rescued by men. And that is the purpose of life that is instilled in it: to find a prince who is handsome, preferably white, with a castle style, a beautiful horse, and then we will have beautiful clothes and we will be happy. And most of all, we have many children.

I think it’s important to go back to this and the fact that love, listening to these stories, is only between a man and a woman. I really believe that tomorrow’s love will be a much more abstract term, we are more about an idea of ​​pansexuality and romantic relationships with no dictates or rules imposed by society.

However, to achieve this, we have to question what is taught to us through movies, ads, education, school … Also go to family establishments, as Axelle says. Destroy all these norms that have been laying bricks around children from an early age, and preventing them from expressing themselves as they please, from loving the person they want.

AJN: I would add that we are limited by a sense of love. In some languages, for example, there are different words that qualify for love, which doesn’t just fall into a male-female relationship. We are atrophied by this thing, we are ossified and we go around in circles. And the interpretations it can make, in love, can divide those who live in these relationships. No one wins, in the end.

We need to expand the field of meaning of this term, and retrieve it. This idea that we are to tell a romantic relationship from lack or lack, that we have to complete another, too, is completely insane.

Is this a way of insisting on the fact that feminism should also be fully practiced in the private sphere?

UG: It’s very important to start in a private place, because talking to someone is already an activist. On the other hand, we must also keep in mind the weight of the mind it represents. In everything we do outside the home, in writings, in podcasts, in interviews, when we come back, we have to do the same thing, when we have to be somewhere exportkapoy na.

AJN: Domination is also instilled in the close relationship between man and woman. I was amazed for a long time that no one wanted to make a connection between our private relationship and domination of the public space. Love also speaks to our relationship of power. To whom we give power, how we agree to give our will. And the consequences of which we can pay the price if we are not already given the tools to express it. The intimate sphere is the first field of politics.

Why was the term “radicals” chosen in the title?

AJN: It seems important to me to get things through the root. The root is the links. We are the species that, if it had not been woven, would have disappeared. This proves their value. I think there’s still something very radical when you say “I am”, when you claim to prove yourself as a subject, and when you have the courage, here , to take yourself to the love you have always sold, to to deny it and to express new rules in the matter. For women who are not heterosexual, the risk is even greater.

UG: We all understand it differently, this term. I also find the fact that the same title includes the opposition to the words “love” and “radicals” very pretty. Our convictions and contradictions help us talk about it, about love. In the end, what this book conveys is the beauty of this feeling and the idea that it can only deliver something positive. I find it beautiful to talk about this love, this power and the power of the fight that we are leading. From our radicalism to no longer wanting to accept compromises, nor procrastinating to live life the way we want.

AJN: Love deserves better than we do it. Make it clear in people’s minds: we promote love. This book is a way of saying: let’s do it better and follow the concept. Personally, because I believe so deeply that I can’t accept that love has gone astray like so many relationships today.

Why is it important for you to testify about your experiences?

AJN: It is important for people to know where they are targeted. Where they are told from is important. As a reader, I want to know who spoke to me, for what reasons, what did this person go through to write this today? Nothing can answer people more than self -explanation. This allows them to surrender to them, or at least, to allow themselves to think about the value of their story to them. And that’s the point. By intervening, we bring people back to them.

UG: What I find interesting in sharing your experience is to show how we built ourselves and how our femininity developed. In my mind, it’s not like ten years ago and ten years from now.

Also, looking at the very different level of deconstruction between all the authors can give courage to people who are starting their own deconstruction. It shows where it can be, and where to start. Me, fifteen years ago, I wasn’t very committed. Now, I am more than my experience, and because I have decided to see the world differently.

Emanouela, you mentioned “bad boy” à la Chuck Bass (female gossip) and the appearance of a virile and devoted protector of his family such as Charles Ingalls (The Little House On The Prairie). Despite the appearances, can you say that the latter is as poisonous as the former, by the birth of the child and the superiority used and composed of it in a way that is perhaps less demonic, therefore more deceptive?

UG: Sure. These are two different ways of fatherhood, restraint and poison. Charles Ingalls, if we take him alone, was a hard-working, sentimental, honest character who wanted to help everyone. Other than that, he doesn’t hire his wife. All the professions around him are ultra-gendered. This series is not very progressive and it continues to air in prime time. My mother, for example, learned French before The Little House On The Prairie and Love the glory and beauty.

So yes, there is this charming part of this loving family. But there is a poisonous, ancestral message for society today and it is no longer equivalent to what we have built. It proves that you can be a poisonous character who is very kind. A bit like Chuck Bass, who is actually a sexual predator. With the pedestal on which we put this protagonist, we completely hid that in the first episode, she tried to rape Serena van der Woodsen.

They are two poisonous characters presented in a very positive way in society. Chuck Bass is the man in our lives even today according to some women’s media. Charles Ingalls is this paternalistic figure of the perfect father, honest, who loves his wife and will do anything for his family, but who builds a dominant and destructive attitude for the family and the children, right. , and for society.

AJN: He also enjoyed all the white man privileges that he had, that he has now, in America, and there was no question that he questioned everything.

Leave a Comment