The affaire Dolera-Clotet exceeded from the beginning the limits of the journalistic apostille to be a subject of sociology thesis, but, after the explanations of three folios that Leticia Dolera published this week on Twitter, the story acquired philosophical resonances that in this little column can only be insinuated. Leaving aside that, when someone needs to spend time and write three pages meditating each word to justify an action, the only thing that conveys is that he is not convinced of that justification, and also to attribute the misunderstanding to an "error of communication "is resorting to the hoax" I will not have explained well "of the discussions, which is always a form of complacency with the interlocutor (who uses it is convinced to have explained it a thousand wonders, but doubts the intelligence of the other and condescends to tell it more slowly and with easier words), here is ontological chicha. Not only because motherhood is at the core of feminist discussion, but because of the moral issues at stake.
Summing up a lot: who faces a dilemma that cracks his ideals is condemned to always make mistakes. There is never a right decision. If Dolera decides to continue counting on Aina Clotet despite her pregnancy, she is assuming unpredictable damage to a project that involves many people. If he decides - as he did - to do without her, he has to face a huge contradiction with all his speech. The nature of the dilemma is that: whatever you do, you lose. It is the classic dilemma of the train that is going to run over five people on one road or on the other: who to save? That's why Dolera's statement is tender, because it is an attempt to get out of the mud without blemish.
The only good thing about dilemmas is that they reconcile us with our human nature. They remind us that ideals and moral codes are shirts too narrow that only adolescents feel good and that burst at the slightest contact with adult reality.