blog: madic50.blogspot.com / Book: The
Two forms, ed. Amazon
Paris, Thursday, October 17, 2019
CONTRIBUTION (34) TO THE NATIONAL
DEBATE WISHED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC IN 2019.
ANALSYSIS OF THE FAILURE OF CORPORATE
POLICY, ANARCHIST, VOLONTARIST, SECTORAL, FEMINIST MOVEMENTS AND
FRAMEWORKS OF FEMINISM AND REFLECTION ON THE NEED FOR LEGALITY.
(Continuation of the contribution 25
September 2019 relating to the Grenelle of the equality men-women;
cf: madic50.blogspot.com)
THE POLITICAL DEROUTE OF VOLONTARIST
AND COMPETITIVE FEMINISM.
1) - The shared faults
Feminists perform in public to
celebrate the general decline in women's rights. The most spectacular
themes are abortion, contraception, violence against women.
The culprits are the Government that
understands nothing and the sovereignist men who cling to the
acquisition of rights by women and seek to regain the lost place.
It is the tragic opposition of
feminists draped in "sincerity" and other "insincers".
They are the vestals who celebrate the
martyrdom of women by the inhibition of their purity.
On the one hand, the major political
misconception of feminists who are unable to look at their own
participation in these sectoral setbacks and the global undermining
of women's rights is examined.
In fact, they play a decisive role at
the same time:
a- Inability of Democrats to impose
parity and extend the public presence of women.
b- In the capacity of "sovereignists",
macho, to return to what seemed acquired.
2) - Competitive parity
In 1999, the Prime Minister, Lionel
Jospin, judges the time to install the question of parity in the
governmental action and the constitutional order.
The public example of the moment was
the composition of the National Assembly.
What do feminists do then?
Among the 100 women to whom Le Monde
offered to write an article on the subject:
1- Only one, a sociologist CNRS, has
pledged for gender parity in the National Assembly.
2- All the others voted for competitive
parity in the applications.
That is to say :
a- Or against parity laws, except
provisionally,
b- By transforming the parity into
quota problems applicable according to the principles of corparatism
and the vagaries of future clashes.
According to Prime Minister Jospin, the
resulting constitutional law adapted parity to "two-round
nominal scrutiny". I do not remember what scruple allowed the
presence of women.
The Prime Minister, Michel Rocard, has
completed ridiculing this law by declaring it spawner of electoral
rolls called "chabadibada".
The clearest political result of this
device is that it has allowed parity to be useless, if not to allow
feminist caciques to gloss over an insufficient parity and now on a
declining parity.
In a debate on Public-Senate, a
thirty-something, President of the feminist association "Nous
toutes", concludes the debate with these words: "We do not
want Grenelle. We want "sorrel".
Are these women able to cope with the
Heads of Hospital Services who refuse to practice abortion?
3) - Parity of right
The only organization that allows women
to be present in all of the Company's management places is parity of
right.
The Constitution must therefore
organize the universal, joint and equal presence of both sexes in the
organization and exercise of public powers; especially in the
Assemblies that compose or depend on them.
The grotesque additions of 1999 must be
removed.
Since women are present everywhere by
right, the questions of their valorization, debates of law, of force,
of politic, of ideology, arise in radically different terms.
Both sexes do not form policies. they
participate in the determination of their universality.
As such:
a- The enslavement of one sex by the
other is a necessary component of any policy of statutory
enslavement.
b- Gender equality is a component of
democracy.
c- Parity is a component of a
democratic globalization.
At the very least, parity of rights
would imply over time a complete disruption of public representation
of women and institutional relations between the two sexes.
4) - Question the action of feminists
All leaders of feminism are
baccalaureate + 5 and women of responsibility.
How can one seriously believe that they
can never consider the question of the equal presence of both sexes
in the deliberative assemblies?
They would content themselves naively
with their imprecatory lamento?
Listening to such a constantly renewed
deafness, it is plausible to think that these ladies may not be so
insistent that women are everywhere because it implies that they are
all there.
The bins + 5, here as elsewhere, women
or men, do not want that the workers, the employees, the seasonal,
the sans-grades, invest places of decisions even local.
Before accusing others of the debacle,
everyone must sweep in front of their door.
Marc SALOMONE
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire