PIPOL NEWS FLASH 20

Questions posed to Bilyana Mechkunova, who will present a paper at the Simultaneous Sessions of PIPOL 6

PN* : Bilyana, je suis chez toi, à Roussé, ville de province bulgare sur la rive du Danube face à la Roumanie. Nous y sommes pour un séminaire de la New Lacanian School et un module CIEN. Quatre-vingt personnes y participent sur trois jours ! Comment en sommes-nous arrivé-là ?

Bilyana: The Seminar of the NLS and the module of the CIEN Laboratory “The Child and His Symptoms” are activities of the Bulgarian Society of Lacanian Psychoanalysis (BSPL), our group affiliated to the NLS. Until now they had only taken place in Sofia, gathering together many people working in medico-social-educational field. In that sense the number of participants isn’t surprising, but for the first time the Seminar and the module were held outside of the capital and it’s obvious that no matter where, it is precisely Lacanian psychoanalysis that attracts people to come. It’s also true that “Rousse isn’t chosen by chance” as said in the NLS-messager announcement for that event. In Rousse we have our local group of people who have chosen Lacanian psychoanalysis as their main professional point of reference, since 2009 we participate in every BSPL activity, presenting cases, reading and working on texts. The choice of our town as venue for the latest events of the BSPL is due to the desire of everyone of us.

PN : Tu es pédo-psychiatre. Parle-moi de ton travail, ici. 

Bilyana: As a child psychiatrist I work in a service – Child and Adolescent Mental Health Centre, that we created in 2001. It’s still the only one of its kind in the country. It happened that our encounter with Lacanian psychoanalysis occurred through an encounter with the unbearable mental suffering that we met in an institution for mentally handicapped children and adolescents. The small team of the Centre faced the task assess the young people who were brought there. That made it possible to inscribe my clinical work as a child psychiatrist, mainly with psychotic children and adolescents, in a manner of having no preliminary knowledge, which opens the interest to the tiny details, to the uniqueness in the manifestations of mental suffering, as well as in the inventions that everybody creates. All this led to the creation of a place for clinical work, called “Child’s Place for Development” – a service attached to the Centre, having the functions of psychological–psychiatric consultation and which is working entirely oriented by Lacanian psychoanalysis.

PN : Roussé, cette ville, me touche. La crise économique y est bien entendu palpable. Les traces indélébiles de la période communiste déchue aussi. Pourtant, les deux ne sont pas arrivés à effacer, à éradiquer quelque chose de l’âme de cette ville qui résiste, persiste et a visiblement traversé cela. Tu me disais spontanément que c’était… féminin. Explique-moi encore, si tu veux bien.

Bilyana: In order to explain I’ll use the words of Elias Canetti, the famous writer and Nobel Prize winner, born in Rousse. In the autobiographical book “The Tongue Set Free” he described the first years of his childhood in Rousse, where “seven or eight languages were spoken in our town alone. Everybody understood a little of them, everybody counted the languages he knew. It was particularly important that many languages were spoken. Through the knowledge of them one can save one’s life or the lives of others.” This quotation expresses the unique spirit of this place, a spirit of tolerance, hospitality and interest in difference that is transmitted through the years and was very well noticed during these days of mutual work. 

PN : Tu me disais que c’était finalement… bulgare. Il y a des manifestations actuellement en Bulgarie. C’est lié ?

Bilyana: Many Bulgarians are in the streets these days because they refuse to accept the way the politicians in this country are speaking to them. The discourse of the Master is disgusting. The protest is an effort to get the respect for the individual human being to be restored.

* interview réalisé sur place par Yves Vanderveken

PIPOL NEWS FLASH 15 – EuroFederation of
Psychoanalysis

Lacan
Quotidien 333  – Tuesday June 18^th
2013

Translated by Francine Danniau

Meeting Mitra Kadivar in Paris, towards Brussels

Mitra Kadivar
was the guest of the ECF, The School of the Freudian Cause on June the 15^th
for a “Meeting with Mitra – Five months after”. She made herself heard on her
career, her position, her determination to pursue her actions so that more
value will be given to Psychoanalysis in Iran, on her optimism for her country,
during a two hour discussion with the audience, led by Jean-Daniel Matet,
director of the ECF. The meeting was also attended by  “La
règle du jeu” and “Lacan Quotidien”.

She will
intervene at the Congress Pipol 6 (title
of her paper: “A Superb Self-Reliance”) of the Eurofederation of
Psychoanalysis in Brussels on the 6^th and 7^th of July, “After
Oedipus, Women are conjugated in the future”.

Pipol News asked Anne Poumellec to ask
Mitra some questions.

In your country, the
elections to the presidency are taking place today. How do you see the future
of your country?

One must know, concerning my
country, what in France is in general mostly ignored, that the Other of Iran is
never where you expect him to be. Everything is unpredictable in Iran, this
country never meets the expectations and, what happens most of the time is a
good surprise. Yesterday, I ran to vote at the Iranian Embassy in Paris. We now
see the moderate candidate being ahead of the others: nobody expected this.

[At the end of the afternoon we learned, against all odds, that the
moderate candidate had won the elections in the first round. “Many things will
change” Mitra Kadivar commented, pointing out that this reformer favorites the
NGOs activities]

Psychoanalysis to you, was
it an encounter?

My choice as a little girl had
been science and medicine, with the idea to specialize in psychiatry. But my
encounter with Freud, with Freud’s texts, which I read in the excellent Standard Edition, was overwhelming: I
absolutely had to follow Freud. After a first stay in France, I came back
determined to start my analysis, which lasted ten years, in Paris. My analyst
being a Lacanian, much later, he happened to send me the transcript of the
course of Jacques-Alain Miller, “The Lacanian Orientation”: In it I recognized
the existence of a teaching – I had not found the like elsewhere. What remains
crucial to me is the forced choice of Freud, in no way one can separate me from
Freud, what I call my Freudian trap.
At the end of my analysis, back
in Teheran, I could have, by preference, continued the scientific research and
studied Freud at the same time. Noticing the ignorance of the Other pushed me
to teach, to make  Freud  known in Iran through his texts.

What is the importance of Psychoanalysis in Teheran? More precisely,
what is the importance of Psychoanalysis of the Lacanian Orientation? Does she
have a place at the university, in the institutions of care, in places where
formation is given? Could you describe to us your activities of transmitting
psychoanalysis in Iran?

On my return to Iran, twenty
years ago, after my training by means of my personal analysis in Paris, with a
Lacanian analyst, I found all academics, psychiatrists, psychologists,
etc…pretended to practice psychoanalysis without having been analyzed
themselves. People also said they were analyzed by the mere fact of having
followed seven sessions of any practice using speech.
I understood that I needed to
start talking of what a psychoanalysis is about and thus I started to teach. Till
today I have to fight against what is called “wild” psychoanalysis. I rely on
the writings of Freud, on my analysis and my knowledge of Lacan. The three
dimensions (the Real, Symbolic and Imaginary) defined by Jacques Lacan, clarify
psychoanalysis and prevent derailments left by the post Freudian imaginary
concepts.Together with my students, we
again go through the texts of Freud, and step by step, we translate, which
pushes us to thoroughly research all nuances offered to us by the Persian
language.
To accommodate this work, I
managed to make an association recognized, as a public utility, with the status
of a NGO: The Freudian Association.
This association is a place of
teaching – mine and that of my students, it is also the place to lodge the
office of my practice, in particular the welcoming of new analysands – often of
students too, I call it the “recruitment”.
The project is to add to this a
center for treating the psychological dependency of drug addicts. A place for
applied psychoanalysis, where my students could demonstrate the effectiveness
of psychoanalysis, in comparison with all current practices in Teheran, fast,
but often failing in the end.

The women in Iran, what can you say about them?

The history of Iran is very old
and its conversion to the Shiite Islam only occupies about the last quarter of
that history. Pre-Islamic influences (Zoroastrian and Mithraism) are very strong in the country. The women don’t
have the same status as in the Arabian countries where the influence of the
Sunni Islam is extended. In Iran, I can assure you, culture and knowledge are
very much validated, which explains my privileged place in that country.

The Seminar of Saint-Petersburg

The next Seminar of the Freudian Field in Russia takes place on 15th and 16^th June 2013 in Saint-Petersburg

Sonia Chiriaco, AE Analyst of the School One, will be teaching under the title

“From the symptom to the sinthome”

Here is the argument:

“This road from the symptom to the sinthome is foremost about Lacan’s teaching. It is also the road walked by the analysand when his analysis is coming to an end. The analyst of today aims at the sinthome, namely, the singular mode of jouissance by each and everyone. This orientation towards the sinthome indicates there is no such thing as one answer for all, contrary to what the proponents of behaviorism and merchants of happiness make believe. There is indeed a tendency to classify populations according to their symptoms, each of which can find its place in one of the sections of the Great DSM cabinet. On the other hand, our psychoanalytic clinic proves the symptom stays rebellious when it comes to being put into the small boxes prepared for it, because the encounter between the signifier and the body is always singular: what is alive resists.

If this clinic of the sinthome belonging to the very latest teaching of Lacan, requires the analyst to invent, it however does not make the conceptual tools forged earlier disappear; it rather allows us to update them and make an even better use of them. In his “On a question prior to any possible treatment of Psychosis”, we have seen that Lacan drew a clear line between neurosis and psychosis derived from the metaphor of the Name –of-the-Father: he could see exactly where the Name of the Father is, and where it is not, where the phallic signification operated and where it did not. It was a clinic of “discontinuity”, founded on the notion of structure.

His latest teachings paved the way to a clinic of continuity, where it is more important to value each one’s symptomatic solution, his sinthome, his way of handling the real which is imposed on him. This clinic of the sinthome goes beyond the question of structure, without, however, questioning the boundary established in the first teaching of Lacan. We will see why the clinic of discontinuity and the clinic of continuity are complementary rather than opposite to each other. We will see how useful it is to read the first Lacan in our reading of the later Lacan and to draw from this the consequences for our practice. We will comment on “Note on the child”, which has been translated into Russian.

This note, short, very dense, plunges itself into the “preliminary question” that clearly separates neurosis and psychosis, but also opens up a post-Oedipal clinic. As usual, Lacan precursor of himself, introduces issues that will only be resolved much later. This text is located at the intersection of Lacan’s teaching, and goes far beyond the simple clinic of the child, being of interest to all practitioners. It makes us examine particularly the difference between mother and woman and opens up to a clinic of femininity, of the “not-all”, of “ the Other enjoyment”.

We will see how the “symptom of the child” discussed in this paper, will resonate in the sinthome of each. This note illuminates many of the questions raised in the debates on the family changes that stir society these days.  Single parent families, step-families, same-sex couples, LGBT, invite us in fact to think – with Lacan-, beyond the Oedipus complex. What has changed and what does not change? This “Note…” will allow us to examine in a sensitive way how the contemporary clinic of the sinthome is linked to the clinic of structure and in what way it is withdrawing from it.

Advanced participants of the Seminar are invited to comment on the following extracts from the “Note…”:

1. “The function of residue that the conjugal family sustains (and by the same stroke maintains) in the evolution of societies emphasises what is irreducible in a transmission – which is of another order than that of life according to the satisfaction of needs – but which is of a subjective constitution, implicating the relation with a desire that is not anonymous.

                It is according to such a necessity that the functions of the mother and of the father are to be judged. That of the mother: in so far as her needs bear the mark of a particularised interest, even should this be so by the path of her own lacks. That of the father: in so far as his name is the vector of an incarnation of the Law in desire”.  (Translated by Russell Grigg, Analysis No.2, 1990, p.8)

2.  “The symptom may represent the truth of the family couple. This is the most complex case, but also the one what is most open to our intervention.

                The articulation is much reduced when the symptom that comes to dominate stems from the subjectivity of the mother. In this case the child is concerned directly as the correlative of a fantasy. … The child realizes the presence of what Jacques Lacan designates as the object a in the fantasy”. (Ibid, p. 7)

The clinical papers from the participants’ practices will be the opportunity, as always, to have a clinical conversation. Sonia Chiriaco will conduct a patient presentation, for clinicians only, on June 15^th. She will give a conference on “repetition” on the evening of June 16^th, open to the public.

(From the Secretariat of the NLS for Eastern Europe)

Published in “Ten line news” N° 674 – 10th June 2013

Translated by Francine Danniau

          ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Planning
Committee for the Miami Symposium
2013 thanks each and every one of the participants who made this event possible
with their attendance and their work, and who were able to transform this
meeting into a real “Festival” of epistemic and human exchange, as Pierre-
Gilles Guéguen indicated in his recent article for the Lacan Quotidien No. 329.

Colleagues from
19 countries actively participated in this event, sharing their clinical singularities
and knowledge through their presentations. We’d like to highlight the vast
amount of attendees and the bountiful number of papers received. We’d like to
express special gratitude for this. The significant attendance, among which
Argentinians and Americans stood out by their numbers, was proof of the great
commitment to psychoanalysis. Further below is a graphic showing the attendance
breakdown by countries of origin.

In his opening
statement, Leonardo Gorostiza emphasized that the objective of the Symposium was to launch the first issue
of Culture/Clinic, a publication of
the University of Minnesota Press, edited by Maire Jaanus and Jacques Alain
Miller, with the collaboration of Marie-Hélène Brousse. Highlighting the significance
of this new publication, he pointed out that, according to what’s stated in the
editorial, the objective of this publication was to provide “a space for open debate and controversy, in
which the clinical experience, always unique, as well as the current state of
civilization, which must entails collective considerations, can exchange their
points of view and overcome what often becomes a paralyzing opposition between
the individual and the social.”

By locating the
coordinates of current times, he pinpointed that we live in an era that is now
frequently found outside the limits of the aegis of the Father and tradition, proving
the limitations of the Freudian Oedipus in finding a way to understand the
transformations of the clinical practice nowadays, as well as to shed light on current
social phenomenon. “As a matter of fact –he
concludes—we are confronted by what has
been called a feminization of the world, which might be one of the deepest
phenomena of our era, one that we can debate and discuss during this Symposium.”

 This was confirmed through the development of
the table discussions. An intense debate took place in the plenaries as well as
in the simultaneous meetings, driving forward the formalization of several of
these topics, and displaying the value of the work done throughout the world
with Jacques Lacan’s teachings.

On Friday, May
31th at 1:30 p.m., the event opened with a presentation of Culture/Clinic by Maire Jaanus, Veronique Voruz, Scott Wilson,
Marie-Hélène Brousse and Russell Grigg, followed by a lecture by guest of honor
Joan Copjec with commentary by Elisa Alvarenga, Marie-Hélène Brousse and
Veronique Voruz. Afterwards, a roundtable of Miami professors Irma Barron and
Diana Barroso (CAU) with Daniel Brady and Nan Van Den Bergh (FIU) and
commentary by Pierre-Gilles Guéguen followed. The afternoon moderators were
María Cristina Aguirre and Thomas Svolos.

On Saturday June
1st, a full day of conference took place in which colleagues from all over the
world presented 64 papers in four simultaneous rooms, each with their
respective discussion, addressing various topics such as “The Women of Today,”
“Feminine Masquerade,” “Mother vs Woman,” “Women’s Destinies,” “Hysteria Once Again,”
“Madness, Women and film,” “Feminine Jouissance” and 25 other stimulating subjects.

On Sunday, June
2nd, the Symposium took off with a panel titled “Women of Today: Lacanian
Women.” Marie-Hélène Brousse, Flory Kruger and Jorge Forbes participated in the
panel, which was discussed by Leonardo Gorostiza. After the coffee break, during
the table panel titled “Female Psychoanalysts Who Have Finished their
Analysis,” four women, AE and former AE, discussed their experiences. They were
Graciela Brodsky, Anne Lysy, Silvia Salman and Ana Lydia Santiago, with
commentary by Eric Laurent and Angelina Harari as a participating moderator.

The Symposium concluded with a large table
composed of psychoanalysts from different countries, who, for five minutes each,
shared closing remarks with their event impressions. They were
Rômulo Ferreira da Silva, María Cristina Aguirre, Mauricio Tarrab, Gerardo
Réquiz, Nancy Gillespie, Jorge Chamorro and Jorge Forbes. Lastly,
on behalf of the Planning Committee, Karina Tenenbaum and Juan Felipe Arango
expressed special acknowledgement and thanks.

A true
“historical event” took place in Miami, and each attendee was a witness to it. In
a recent email, our colleague in Australia, Russell Grigg, called this event
the “Miracle in Miami.”

It is our wish
to see this miracle repeated, and to see the exchange expanded from north to south
and east to west of the United States, with the participation of our colleagues
throughout the world. This event enabled us to witness the results of the
constant clinical and epistemic work of psychoanalysts as a consequence of a
community that maintains a constant dialogue for the advancement of
psychoanalysis.

This Miami event
was made possible thanks to each one of the key players, and also thanks to the
constant work of the Lacanian orientation in the world.

We would like to
extend a round of applause to our guests, both national and international.

We give special
thanks to Jacques Alain Miller who, although he had to cancel his trip at the
last minute, was very present during the Symposium
through the constant quotes and elaborations that were brought up of his
teachings and guidance.

Lastly,
a particular acknowledgement should be made to those who contributed to
organizing this event in the US and in each one of the countries, a long list
of supportive colleagues among which are Fabián Naparstek, Angelina Harari,
Marcelo Veras, María Hortensia Cárdenas, Oscar Ventura, Florencia Shanahan,
Dominique Holvoet, Thomas Svolos,  and 
María Cristina Aguirre,  who,
along with the editors of the “On the
Road ” newsletter, Juan Felipe Arango and Isolda Arango-Alvarez kept us
informed of the latest news.

For
those interested in purchasing some photos of the event, visit the Webpage of
the photographer who offered his services: http://www.prizmaphoto.com/tms2013.html

See
you next time!

Alicia
Arenas

On
Behalf of the Planning Committee

The Miami Symposium
2013

 

Report on the Second Seminar of the Bulgarian Society for Lacanian Psychoanalysis (BSLP) with Bernard Seynhaeve, psychoanalyst, member of NLS, ECF and WAP, director of Courtil

By Evgeni Genchev, vice President of BSLP, member of NLS

 

The II Seminar of the BSLP was held on April 26, 2013 in Sofia in the premises of the French Institute of Culture.

The seminar was introduced by Vessela Banova, President of BSLP and it proceeded with the Discipline of Reading, where two of our members Kristina Krasteva and Bistra Dancheva commented on one sentence each, from the first chapter of Seminar III of Lacan – The Psychoses. The sentences chosen by Bernard Seynhaeve were the following: 1. “When he speaks, the subject has the entire material of language at his disposal, and this is where concrete discourse begins to be formed. Firstly, there is a synchronic whole, which is language as a simultaneous system of structured groups of opposition, and then there is what occurs diachronically, over time, and what discourse is.” – commented by Kristina Krasteva and 2. “The insult is always a rupture in the system of language…” – commented by Bistra Dancheva.

In her commentary Kristina made an overview of language and discourse trying to clarify those concepts from a linguistics point of view.

Bernard commented on the connection of this sentence to Lacan’s elaboration of the question of hallucinations.

Bistra stressed upon the foreclosure of the Name of the Father as a reason for the rupture in the system of language. She also elaborated on the hallucinatory aspect of insulting. She presented two vignettes illustrating her commentary.

The expose of Bernard was constructed as a commentary on the phrase: “I’ve just been to the butcher’s”. He started by coming back to Lacan’s “L scheme” and stressed upon the imaginary dimension. In this trend of thought, he also commented on the phenomenon of Paranoia and Transitivism and the Ego as an imaginary formation. He also made a connection to the late Lacan and the importance he attributed to the unconscious as a real.

Two cases were presented by Yordanka Hristozova and Ekaterina Vitkova.

The case of Yordanka presents her work with a psychotic man who presents a clinical picture of Schizophrenia. Her interventions make possible for this psychotic subject to maintain a very fragile equilibrium and to overcome some psychotic crises without a serious passing to act.

The case of Ekaterina presents a man with a clinical picture of Ordinary Psychosis, who tries to fill in the hole in the knowledge with medical signifiers.

The discussions of the presentations and of the cases introduced different aspects of the very big topic of Psychoses in Lacanian Theory and in the psychoanalytic practice. 

 

 

NEWSLETTER # 4,  May 27, 2013

…ON THE ROAD TO THE MIAMI SYMPOSIUM 2013…   In our last issue, we discussed pay inequality based on gender. This time we will focus on same-sex-marriage. The wave of increasing support for gay marriage in America among younger generations, introduces the debate of same-sex-marriage in the political arena across America. For the first time in the history of the United States, the President of this country spoke out about gay marriage. He said: "I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married." — ABC News interview, May 9, 2012. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/09/obama-quotes-on-same-sex-marriage/#ixzz2UHBcIZkX                 As well as the journalist Chris Hayes indicated this was “a momentous moment, and it was certainly a reason for optimism among those who believe that being able to marry the person you love is a basic human right.” For more information you can check at Chris Hayes: Obama on gay marriage This presidential statement and many others voices, have encouraged the debate and the activism at the federal level. In fact, recently the Supreme Court had to address this matter. The Supreme Court ruled on two hearings dealing with same-sex marriage for two consecutive days. These were filled with oral arguments on two cases involving gay couples' rights, and “the justices left open multiple options for rulings that are expected in June.” The interesting game changer in this civil fight is that “[a] decade ago, opponents of same-sex marriage were lobbying for a nationwide ban on gay nuptials. They now seem resigned to the reality of a divided nation in which the debate will continue to splinter families, church congregations and communities.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/gay-marriage-debate_n_2970336.html The Huffington Post highlighted how Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor “left the lawyer defending California’s Proposition 8 grasping for words with a question about whether the state law banning gay marriage amounts to discrimination.” In this sense, Justice Sotomayor was an important card in this battle. She introduced a theoretical question that touches the core of the debate at the Constitutional level: “Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits? Or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other decision-making that the government could make — denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?” Don’t miss this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/sonia-sotomayor-gay-marriage_n_2965105.html This concern has touched the scholar environment as well. For example, you can find someone like Chase Dimock, a PhD candidate in Comparative and World Literature at the University of Illinois, quoting Jacques-Alain Miller’s article regarding same-sex marriage: “Yet, one unlikely voice of support for the bill came out last month as Jacques-Alain Miller, representing the psychoanalytic community, authored an op-ed in Le Point titled, “Non, la psychanalyse n’est pas contre le mariage gay”. I say this is “unlikely” not because it would be unexpected for a psychoanalyst to support lgbt rights, but because it is uncommon for psychoanalysis to weigh in on current political issues. In this article, Miller (who is Jacques Lacan’s son-in-law and one of the most widely published analysts still active today) does not come out in explicit support of gay marriage, but instead lambastes the conservatives who have misrepresented and instrumentalized psychoanalytic research and theory in their campaign against gay marriage. As Miller promulgates, ’we Psychoanalysts are obligated to declare that nothing in the Freudian experience will validate an anthropology that is authorized by the first chapter of Genesis’.” Dimock continues indicating that he found that Miller “makes a bold statement against any kind of normative moralizing and instead stresses the fluidity of gender, sex, and desire as a guiding feature of psychoanalytic practice and research.” http://theqouch.com/2013/02/06/no-psychoanalysis-is-not-against-gay-marriage-or-how-psychoanalysis-supports-queer-inquiry/ To put it into numbers: In recent days, NPR (National Public Radio) commented on research done by “Mark Hatzenbuehler, a psychologist at Columbia University who studies the health effects of social policies, [and who] analyzed the data gathered before and after the bans to determine how the mental health of people who identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual had changed in those states: "Lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals who lived in the states that banned same-sex marriage experienced a significant increase in psychiatric disorders," Hatzenbuehler pointed out. “There was a 37 percent increase in mood disorders  a 42 percent increase in alcohol-use disorders, and —I think really strikingly— a 248 percent increase in generalized anxiety disorders.” He remarks that “his larger point is really that policymakers, judicial leaders and ordinary citizens need to remember that social policies are also health policies.” Look for more information at /bans-of-same-sex-marriage-can-take-a-psychological-toll For her part, Professor Audrey Bilger affirms that women are more affected than men by marriage inequality “because female couples account for roughly two-thirds of existing legal same-sex marriages”.   She states that “in California, 65 percent of ¨legally registered same-sex couples¨ are female pairs.” Read more info at http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/03/21/women-more-affected-than-men-by-marriage-inequality/ Encore… A treat: Statistics are speaking also about New Forms of Family. The American Academy of Pediatrics released a technical report “Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian” Yes… it is true! “Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Paths to parenthood that include assisted reproductive techniques, adoption, and foster parenting should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation.” Don’t miss… What Lacan knew about women? The Miami Symposium 2013 http://www.miamisymposium2013.org/ Editors:  Juan Felipe Arango and  Isolda Arango-Alvarez

 

 

                                                        Correction
:

The latest message (753.en) “London Society of the NLS : members’
seminar 15 June 2013” was sent in error.
It is for London Society members only.