International model Emily Ratajkowski, speaking about the end of her love story in a video posted on TikTok, said that a divorce in the thirties would have been “chic”. But is it really so? Where are some feminists when they have to talk about more sensitive topics on social media than nudity, growing hair, or leg hair? Sad and empty silence that should make us think
st.on his social profiles Emily Ratajkowski (known as “Emrata”, her social media name) touched on an important topic: divorce. But be warned, as always, surprises are in order because the model influencer tells us that “There’s nothing better than experiencing a fantasy of marriage and realizing that maybe it’s not as good as you want to believe.…about those who are worried about divorce: that’s good, congratulations. You still have your whole life ahead of you.” In the description of his video posted on TikTok (and picked up by the gossip page Oopssy) she even defines divorce at thirty as “gorgeous.” A bag may be chic, a coat, a way of acting or behaving, but I find it ridiculous, humiliating, and also very tasteless and with little historical knowledge to talk about a hard-won right, a right that in Italy we owe to Baslini’s Law of Fortune from 1 December 1970. But not everything was simple after the adoption of the above-mentioned law, since immediately after this, in 1974, a referendum on its repeal, known as “Divorce Referendum”, which saw a huge turnout, with 87% of voters participating, of which approximately 60% opposed the attempt to consign such a revolutionary act to oblivion for the women of our country. Before the law came into force in the 70s, there were several attempts that ended in nothing. Now do we want to move on to interpreting law using such an adjective? Are we really so crazy that we allow certain expressions? It is sobering that feminists have not risen to such a claim. Perhaps because they are more concerned about talking about Giorgia Soleri’s hair on the red carpet in Venice or how you shouldn’t call a woman “minister” but rather “minister” as if it were “a” or “minister”. ” or “they went down in history: But please.
ANDwell, this is where today’s feminism falls down, attentive to details that don’t matter because no one cares about hair. However, when a woman is followed by over 30 million people on Instagram and whose videos have been viewed by millions of people, it can cause a lot of damage. We are already faced with a very low birth rate among young people who, not only due to economic difficulties and feelings of insecurity, but also due to a widespread form of disappointment, are unable to find sentimental stability and do not know how to build a family unit. All we need is for the model on duty to come and tell us what should or shouldn’t be in fashion.. If she does it in her underwear, then it’s okay, she’s not doing any harm to her body (indeed, we all appreciate her beauty). However, we kindly request you, as well as any person not informed of the facts, not to express your opinion on such sensitive topics as they influence the behavior of those who follow them. Losing what little sense of family is left, simplifying every topic as if everyone could have an opinion on it, cannot be the rule. These characters who change men and women like underwear should not criticize him on social media as a “cool” model, because that is just very sad.