Marc Salomone / Email: marcsalomone@sfr.fr / blog: madic50.blogspot.com
Paris, Saturday November 25, 2023
For: NousToutes
contact@noustoutes.org
For: Paris Women’s House
01 43 43 41 13 / maisondesfemmesdeparis@orange.fr
REFLECTION ON THE ROOTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
“NousToutes is a feminist collective open to all, made up of volunteer activists whose objective is to put an end to the sexist and sexual violence of which women and children are massively victims in France.
The collective is action-oriented with two main objectives:
Demand effective public policies against gender-based and sexual violence in terms of budget and methods,
Raise public awareness of the facts and mechanisms of gender-based and sexual violence through actions, communications and training.
The collective brings together citizens, associations, trade unions and politicians. It is organized into committees by city, department, school, university, etc. The actions are initiated by activists and are sometimes relayed and coordinated nationally. Mobilizations take place in public spaces or on social networks depending on the nature and objective of the action. »
The NousToutes collective reflects all French feminist approaches and undoubtedly all French actions. It is a trade union organization that deals with politics.
He wants to “end it”, that is to say, change the world on this point.
Its first “main” objective is “to demand from public authorities”, that is to say from the State.
Its second main objective is to “raise public awareness”, in other words to mobilize the masses to get the State to “put an end to it”.
Modeled on the Anarcho-syndicalist CGT before 1914, the collective does politics without doing it while doing it. This gives very beautiful manifestations that are as thunderous as they are powerless. On August 1, 1914, everyone went to war.
The collective wants to mobilize to modify the definition, organization and exercise of public powers with regard to its object, the place of women and children which at this stage is linked to them.
This will only happen if the collective defines its power objectives itself.
However, he says what he does not want (violence) but he is silent about what he wants (the place of women).
The ruling order has its own agenda regarding these two objectives. The refusal of violence is characteristic of any dominant order, the evolution of the place of women is the official goal of all current public orders, including the Taliban and the Supreme Court of the United States.
At this level of the discussion, the collective mobilizes women, democrats, to demonstrate their silence on the content of a State which will have “done” with violence against women and children.
The operating framework of said public policies is left intact, as it is. At most, it is claimed from the “budget” (union function), and the “method” (its political function).
Who sets the budget? Which method? Emptiness of proposal, silence of the collective, expectation of the government, of others.
General De Gaulle would have added “vast program”.
Violence is everywhere and all the time.
Feminist action would undoubtedly gain in awareness and effectiveness by questioning this so-called violence and how public policies are affected by it?
Apart from a simple moral judgment, why would governments be singularly concerned about it and why could they do anything about it?
Feminists have content to place in the “method.” It's education. She is indeed calling for a “budget”.
On November 24, 2023, a representative of the Maison des femmes association speaks about violence against women.
She says, among other things:
“To stop this bleeding,
We must go back to the roots of violence, we must move towards the sexual education of adolescents. However, the question of children's education is not yet properly understood.
When you have learned that solving things requires violence, that becomes your modus operandi.
This is where we need to start working. »
Another feminist proclaimed on this occasion that it was necessary to fight Virility through education.
Devirililizing four billion men will indeed take time.
Education has become the catch-all of public powerlessness.
It’s practical, it doesn’t eat bread.
On the one hand, it is impossible to impose anything.
On the other hand, even if something were to happen by extraordinary means, it would take twenty years before any effect whatsoever would occur.
This allows us to face many events and as many elections.
I've been hearing this since the miniskirts of 1965. Others have heard it before.
For it to work in any way, everyone would have to agree on the pacifist goal of boys' education. Which is very far from being the case, today less than yesterday.
What directly concerns governments, public policies, public authorities, etc., in this violence, is the law.
The famous “roots of violence” are certainly multiple. There is one, however, which is directly remarkable, although we still have to dare to see it, and that is that this violence is legal. And that’s about “public policy.”
In the real world, it is indeed not for nothing that violent spouses always declare that they act in good faith, with perfect serenity.
This is so because they are the arms of what is certainly no longer the law or the right but still a public reference.
As such, the woman is subordinate to the man who exercises against her a right to protect public order.
This legal reference was still French law until recently.
Law of 26 Ventôse in XII (207): “the husband owes protection to his wife and the wife owes obedience to her husband”.
The legal dismantling of this status established in modern France by the Civil Code in 1804 did not begin until 1938. The status of head of family did not disappear until 1970. Equality in law for spouses was acquired in 1985.
INSEE only moved from Head of Family to Reference Person in 2004. This reference was not included in the censuses until 2016.
Not so long ago, men killed out of “passion,” in other words, out of “honor.”
In 2020, the courts established as case law that a child aged 10 could consent to sexual penetration.
It is therefore as actors of public order that they are aware of acting.
Assigning them to the sole caricature of a psychiatrizable barbarism is a form of blindness which may be pleasing in terms of the public disqualification it entails, but it is first and foremost a source of blindness, therefore of impotence and ultimately of complicity. moral and political.
This caricature has all the less of a future since the seizure of power by Khomeini in Iran, in 1979, and especially by the Taliban in Afghanistan, in 2021, followed by the deinstitutionalization of the right to abortion by the Supreme Court of States -United, in 2022, everyone knows that the disqualification of one sex (the “weaker sex”) by the other (the “stronger sex”) is part of the two pathways aimed at codifying modernity.
Education takes time, on the other hand, as the Polish political parties, the Taliban, and the judges of the Supreme Court have shown, it is possible not to postpone until tomorrow the transformation of the legal structures which organize the relations of the two sexes.
It therefore only takes political will, a little courage and generosity, to impose democratic reforms in the same way; the other channel of codification of modernity.
In France, the essentials have been, if not done, at least put in place.
1- Since 1789, men (humans or males) no longer share power with animals, totems, pieces of wood, extra-terrestrials and their Books.
2- Since 1945, full equality in law has been achieved.
3- Since 1999, gender parity in the organization and exercise of public powers has been established in the Constitution.
4- Feminists just have to take the skates.
It is enough to think that parity is not a vocation, a challenge, an ambition (competitive parity of 1999), but a constitutive element of legality (parity of rights to come), so that the two sexes no longer have to justify their equal, joint, legal, universal presence in all organizations and departments of public and similar authorities.
Unless we think that women, in 2023, still need to do internships, to gain experience, to prove themselves; it seems self-evident that the presence of women's rights wherever collective human organization is thought, organized, exercised, directed, would change the public and private relationships of the two sexes towards each other. .
What would be disqualified are the doctrines, rumors, ideologies, substantial or vague, leading to the domination of one sex over the other.
At this point, education, feminist movements, budgets, repression can intervene effectively.
Saint-Just said that “happiness is a new idea in Europe.” Two centuries later we can expect that it will no longer surprise.
What to do ?
I suggest presenting the question relating to Legal Parity as follows:
A- Proposal
1- Delete:
Art. 1, paragraph 2
“The law promotes equal access for women and men to electoral mandates and elective functions, as well as to professional and social responsibilities. »
2- Keep
Art. 4, paragraph 2: political parties
“They contribute to the implementation of the principle set out in the second paragraph of Article 1 under the conditions determined by law. »
3- Register
Art.1, paragraph 2
Public authorities, deliberative assemblies, public service organizations, de jure, de facto, by delegation or circumstances, are constituted and directed by the equal, joint, de jure, universal presence of both sexes.
B- Comment
This article is made up of two parts:
1- The first is to be discussed by the jurists involved in the preparation of the text (“Public authorities, deliberative assemblies, public service organizations, de jure, de facto, by delegation or circumstances”).
2- The second is of course up for discussion but the block must be returned at the end of the examination (“are constituted and directed, by the equal, joint, legal, universal presence of both sexes.”).
We must still understand that all women, without exception, have rightful access to the functions they are capable of exercising and not be concerned with mobilizing peasant women to assert the rights of the aristocracy or to eliminate the evils -thinking for the benefit of the pure.
In any case, at present, and even more so tomorrow (as seen in the USA), husbands who bang continue to enforce a philosophy of law (see positive law) which is based on the persistence of legal, written preeminence or implicitly, from one sex to the other.
No, education is not “the roots of violence”.
Yes, it is possible to act currently on what is a priority determination of “violence” and to make education effective.
Thanking you for your attention,
Marc SALOMONE
Marc Salomone / Email: marcsalomone@sfr.fr / blog: madic50.blogspot.com
Paris, Sunday November 5, 2023
FILIATION OF ARCHAISM OR CONTINUITY OF DEMOCRACY
On March 8, 2023, during International Women's Rights Day, the President of the Republic made a commitment to constitutionalize these rights.
What is his place here?
1- The intermediaries want to subordinate the Constitution to the debates on the achievements to be preserved or the bastions to be conquered.
Adding Freedom to Abortion to the 1946 preamble is certainly useful.
This doesn't answer the question asked. That of women's fear of a constant possibility of regression.
2- For those, such as him, who have the quality, the Constitution is discussed with "this top of the pyramids from which forty centuries contemplate us", with Saint-Louis, the Constituent Assembly, the CNR, De Gaulle.
On this question of the infinite tangle of personal ties; it is indeed time to get to the point.
Women's fear comes immediately from the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court of the United States, following the action of American evangelists.
It is in fact the resonance of an international discussion on the modernity of law.
Is this always constituted by the past domination of one sex or by the equal action in the making of both?
Following Khomeini, the Taliban took up the issue in all its scope and established archaic radicalism as the principle of modernity. We can no longer see it as a local anomaly. Ultimately, we will have to comply or allow democracy to win.
1- Feminists are not mistaken. They keep saying that archaism is no longer a waste, a leftover, a fossil, but a subversion that can overwhelm everything.
2- The judges of the Supreme Court of the United States are here the auxiliaries of the debate opened by the Taliban. They apply the general principle of the modernity of the law defined by them to the particular case of abortion.
It is therefore up to the French Head of State, through the ad hoc procedure:
a- or to legitimize the filiation of archaism which consolidates the shaken domination of one sex over the other by the frank disqualification of the latter.
b- or to formalize the path to democracy by extending the legal equality of everyone through the joint, equal, universal, legal presence of both sexes in the organization of human administration.
What is commonly called Parity.
The constitutionality of Parity was enshrined in 1999 by Prime Minister Lionel Jospin and President Jacques Chirac.
They stopped halfway by giving the already established and preeminent sex the task of ensuring the promotion of the other. This is Competitive Parity.
It's up to President Emmanuel Macron to move the world to equal rights. Both sexes are equally constituents of human administration.
I suggest presenting the question relating to Legal Parity as follows:
A- Proposal
1- Delete:
Art. 1, paragraph 2
The law promotes equal access for women and men to electoral mandates and elective functions, as well as to professional and social responsibilities.
2- Keep
Art. 4, paragraph 2: political parties
They contribute to the implementation of the principle set out in the second paragraph of Article 1 under the conditions determined by law.
3- Register
Art.1, paragraph 2
Public authorities, deliberative assemblies, public service organizations, de jure, de facto, by delegation or circumstances, are constituted and directed by the equal, joint, de jure, universal presence of both sexes.
B- Comment
This question is made up of two parts:
1- The first is to be discussed by the jurists involved in the preparation of the text (“Public authorities, deliberative assemblies, public service organizations, de jure, de facto, by delegation or circumstances”).
2- The second is of course up for discussion but the block must be returned at the end of the examination (“are constituted and directed, by the equal, joint, legal, universal presence of both sexes.”).
To use Victor Hugo's expression ("history is going to be erased"), the President must be the one who "erases" ten thousand years of an organizing principle which has surely provided services but which has had its day and which today only has the face of death.
This is the natural place of the French Constitution. The People and their representatives will write the sequels.
The World risks noticing this reform and History remembering it.
Marc SALOMONE
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire