Talk Elections

"A French female minister was jeered while addressing parliament by right-wing lawmakers who heckled her because of the dress she was wearing. Later they explained it was not catcalling, but admiration of a beautiful woman."

http://www.rt.com/news/france-parliament-dress-duflot-599/

I'd love to hear Antonio explain how this could have happened anywhere and in no way indicates France being just a tad sexist.

Right-wingers are generally sexist, yes.

People are late on the pickup. This stuff is last week's news.

Anyhow, people would do well to understand the specific backstory to this incident and the incessant buzz about Duflot's fashion before trying to use this story to make some personal point.

So you're claiming that this kind of thing only happens in France and never would anywhere else ? Really ?

It has never been possible to discuss an issue seriously with you because, every time, you just end up resorting to strawmen. This is just the Nth example. Contrary to you, I don't consider this issue in absolute terms. There are many sexists in France. Of course, there are much less of them in Sweden and in other Scandinavian countries, in the case you wanted to make a point about this. Now, if you are taking Europe (or, if you prefer, Western world) as a whole, I don't see how France stands out of the bunch as a particularly backwards place. It might be a bit worse than Germany (even though the French welfare system actually makes it far easier for a mother to keep working than it is in Germany), it is way better than Italy and probably most of Eastern Europe.

Note how our argument started with your bizarre habit of singling out France as some kind of sexist hellhole, with your first reaction to the DSK affair basically being "well, that's not surprising considering he's a wealthy Frenchman". All I have been claiming, since then, is that maybe France is not that different from its neighbors and that many other countries have, like France, a lot of progress left to do. I don't know why such a simple point is so hard for you to understand, to the point where you're still trying to spin an event of this kind in an attempt to prove me wrong.

And before you assume this kind of behavior is considered as normal and commonplace in France, I have to point out that this story got reported (and duly called out) in the media. Keep in mind that the French political class is one of the oldest in Europe, and sexism, as every legacy of the past, is far stronger among older generations. The backwardness of our political class is something discussed in France and criticisms to it are near-unanimous.

To reply to everyone in order:

Lief: that's BS and I think you know that. But thanks for trolling. Any Swedish conservative who did this would be done politically.

Hashemite: I know it's old, but I hadn't seen a thread about it here yet. And it shouldn't be surprising that it takes longer for French news to reach, you know, non-French people like me as opposed to French people like you. :P

Furthermore, I'm aware of the jeans story and all that. It is even in the article I posted!

Antonio: you really don't have much of a sense of humour do you? I realize that it's psychologically a bit hard to argue things that are obviously not true but you'd be better off facing them rather than take your frustration out on me.

Anyway, I can't imagine that many Western parliaments where a woman entering in a dress would give this kind of reaction. Of course, that doesn't mean that France is the most sexist country on Earth (for someone complaining about strawmen you sure like to create them! When did I ever make that ridiculous claim?) nor does it mean that other countries do not have work left to do when it comes to sexism.

You should be able to take a joke about French sexism while simultaneously realizing that the jokes are based on truth. But I guess inability to laugh at oneself is also one of the hallmarks of French culture!

Claiming it's a joke (which it obviously isn't, since jokes are supposed to be, you know, funny) is a nice way to evade any criticism and fail once again to address the issue of why of all European countries you keep singling out France.

There were certain... issues... after the 97 election with its big intake of female Labour MPs and an apparent tendency of many Tory backbenchers mime variations on the theme of melons, but that already seems like an unpleasant detail from a past further back than it actually was.

Haha, I like the idea that I "keep singling out" and has "a habit"

Can you find more instances of me doing this? I mean, if it was a habit of mine I'd expect that over 8 years and thousands of posts here you could find a lot of examples, right? I can recall two - the DSK thread (where I did the same as, you know, every major media outlet in the world) and this thread which, again, is for amusement value.

And your indignant way of arguing is truly adorable. The joke is obviously very funny, given your reaction. Four angry paragraphs! See, like mane good jokes, this one is interactive and dependent on audience reaction.

Interesting. But it sounds from your wording as if it was a bit less blatant than this incident? :P

But, of course, 15 years is a long time when it comes to women's issues (as well as many other similar ones).

I don't think any external observer is going to find either your comment or my reaction to it "funny". You raise a valid point, though, by pointing out the absurdity of my bothering to write a long post to debunk your idiotic remark. I shouldn't have wasted my time this way. I'll try to keep this in mind next time you make a similarly ludicrous claim.

Aw, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. But if you want to play with the grown-ups you have to grow a thicker skin.

And, more importantly perhaps, if you want me to take you seriously you need to base your views and facts and not your wishes. You have accused me of repeatedly attacking France for sexism and I asked you to provide evidence for this claim of yours. I'm still waiting.

I provided you with many examples of how French sexism is pervasive (see this thread, for example) and quotes from numerous international media outlets backing my position. I'm still eagerly waiting your rebuttal in form of examples of this happening in another Western country, for example. In the form of someone other than you with some credibility arguing that France is not sexist. And so on.

Your combination of indignant personal attacks and no actual knowledge or facts wouldn't be endearing if it weren't so ridiculously bombastic that it actually becomes funny. See, what made your response funny was precisely the fact that in 4 paragraphs you actually brought NOTHING to refute my one line. Since you did not actually bring any facts to the table. I know French "philosophy" was never big on logic, but still.

It's also worth noting that the guys who did this include the likes of Patrick Balkany, who is a creepy old sexist man who probably wants to hit on women like Duflot. And I'm pretty sure that the UMP's parliamentary cohort of old men are having sadistic fun tormenting Duflot, who is half their age (or more), like a bunch of Grade 12 football team jocks/bullies ganging up on some Grade 9 girl.

You must admit that when you're a 65 year old right-winger who has been used to having only similarly old and stuck-up women as cabinet ministers (most of them - MAM, Bachelot, Morano - of limited intellect), it is quite a sea change to get an avalanche of young(er) women like Duflot, Vallaud-Belkacem, Batho, Fillippetti and Pinel all at once; especially when Duflot acted like a high school student council rep until not too long ago and seems to enjoy pissing people off by wearning jeans and acting 'hip' like a greenie.

There is probably a lot of truth to that analysis but if anything you're making the whole thing sound worse. :P

(And I don't get the jeans thing - women can't have pants in France?)

The "facts" you brought up ? The DSK affair, which is about a single person which, as it became evident later on, was not completely sane and certainly isn't representative of French people. A couple headlines published during said affair, whose coverage by the media was not exactly an example of journalistic competence. There is also the anecdotal evidence of your French teacher which you kept bringing up. I'm pretty sure it's not hard to find similar anecdotes about every country. Maybe if that teacher had been Spanish, Italian, Polish, Greek, German or whatever, you wouldn't be so obsessed with France. You also mentioned something about contemporary French movies which doesn't make any sense to me, but that must be because I'm biased. And then there is this, an event which shows what's wrong with French political class, but certainly isn't enough to make you claim France is the most sexist place in Europe.

I didn't bring up facts because I don't have to : you are the one claiming that France is somehow special in regards to sexism, so you are the one who should provide evidence. And no, what you've brought up so far doesn't even come close to backing your claim.

The jeans thing is, yes, unbelievably retarded and largely the work of the Morano gang, who has desperately been trying to score political points by getting enraged over tiny things like the jeans incident or the Algerian flags on May 6. But the jeans thing was, sadly, taken pretty seriously. A lot of people considered that a cabinet minister can't wear casual clothes like jeans, especially to the first day, and should dress in a 'formal' manner or whatever. It's part of the fairly disgusting double standards which seem to apply to women politicians in France and elsewhere (but a lot in France, true enough), who get scrutinized on their physical appearance and fashion tastes. I don't give a crap what a woman minister like Duflot wears, as long as it is decent, and there is no problem with wearing jeans.

Also, on a last note about Duflot, she's really hated by right-wingers and not all left-wingers are fond of her either. Probably plays a role too.

Haha, but seriously. Every girl I know who's been to France tell the same stories. My mother was nearly abducted when she was there as a young girl. A friend of mine who is living in Paris posts about it regularly ("French creep of the day"). It is very well known.

And see, I've brought you several examples and demonstrated that a lot of people agree with me. You have brought literally nothing. Beyond this and DSK we have the Mitterrand stories, for example. If it is so easy to find similar anecdotes about any country, then why can't you refute me more easily?

I mean, do you realize that you have managed to say nothing actually relevant so far in this thread? Not a single point to support your side of the argument. It's quite amazing and if I were a bigot I would add very typically French.

PS: I didn't "keep bringing it up." I just found it interesting that your reaction seemed to be that I had hurt her reputation and honour by mentioning that she was subjected to a sort of rape attempt.

Haha, wow. France is amusingly conservative sometimes (then again, so is much of contintental Europe compared to Sweden).

Antonio, here you have a few examples:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/04/french-election-francois-hollande-politics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/04/french-election-francois-hollande-politics)

http://danny.oz.au/jennifer/visitor/7.courtship.html (http://danny.oz.au/jennifer/visitor/7.courtship.html)

"Now, there are "dragueurs" in every country, I imagine, but in France it is practically obligatory for a heterosexual male to be a "dragueur", at least to some extent."

And of course, as I think I mentioned last time around as well, France was (IIRC) second-to-last country in Western Europe to give women the right to vote.

I was about to type a polite and moderate answer to your post, until I read this part and was reminded how much of a sick, pathetic liar you are.

You can call me an idiot, a retard or whatever you want, but don't you ever dare to slander me again with falsehoods like this.

This thread is hilarious. Very good, Gustaf.

You should really try and argue a point without ad hominems every once in a while. I can go back to dig up your response again. It seemed a bit odd to me, but maybe that was a language thing.

Anyway, here's a ranking of countries and their sexism (some Harvard guy): http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-2011/ (http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-2011/)

France is at place 48, right between Jamaica and Kazakhstan. Italy is the only Western European country below France. Globally, the only Western countries below (if one counts them as such) are Israel, Singapore and Japan.

Are you finally going to bring any argument beyond calling me a pathetic liar or is that beyond your capabilities?

Then please go on and find the quote. I am certainly not going to let you say this and keep debating as if it were nothing.

Well, I can't quote it since the thread is locked, but here is the link: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130856.msg2899760#msg2899760 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130856.msg2899760#msg2899760)

It went: "And no, your now famous French teacher isn't an evidence of anything."

The "now famous" rang very strangely in my ears. It certainly seemed to imply that women get shamed by being raped. Which is, I should add, a very, very common notion and an explanation for why so many rapes go unreported.

I don't think that such is your opinion if you think about it but since you were lobbing incessant personal attacks against me (sort of like now) I wasn't in the mood for charitable interpretations.

PS: decent job at finding an excuse to STILL not come up with any single argument for your position.

I'll also add, in the vein of calling someone a pathetic liar using strawmen, that I pointed out that France was far from the most sexist country on the Earth in one of my first replies in that discussion.

The "now famous" was obviously a reference to the fact you had been mentioning her several times. It boggles my mind that you managed to interpret two absolutely bland words as if they were implying something so bizarre. But actually, I think it tells a lot about you and your tendency to assume that your opponents always have sinister hidden beliefs. I guess it would be useless to ask for apologies ?

As for the argument per se, I was about to post that I might have underestimated certain aspects of France's sexism before reading your comment. After all, I've been raised in a very progressive family where sexism almost never manifested itself, and, having lived a very sheltered life, I might never have witnessed sexist behaviors which exist in the society. So, yes, maybe my rebuttal of your claims was excessive. I still stand, however, by the fact that sexism is not as commonplace in France as you claim it is (which is demonstrated, if needed, by the public reactions to the story you reported in France itself). Especially because the patronizing attitude toward women which your articles describe is very generation-connoted (one of the problems with France being that old people dominate certain activities, like politics) and is thus fading at a steady pace.

And finally, even if France were as sexist as you described it, I still tend not to like generalizations of this kind. Remember that our discussion started when you said "I don't want to be bigoted but what is rape in NY might not be considered rape by a French bigshot." You might not have "wanted to be bigoted", but you still were, considering how you inferred something about a person's mindset based on his nationality. If the guy in question had been an African and you had said the same thing, I'm pretty sure you would have been called out for racism, even though you'll agree with me than sexism is stronger than average in African countries. That's a simple rule : you don't draw conclusions on single individuals based on generalities. The ironic thing is that you often call people out for their bigoted statements (and I applaud you when you do), yet this time you totally failed to recognize you were following the exact same logic. So yeah, I might have overreacted to this kind of comment and been aggressive toward you (but since you immediately took the same tone, you can't really put all the blame on me). Before you ask, I don't think I had any "national pride" to defend, since if you paid attention to my posts you'll know I don't really feel particularly attached to France and I actually like to criticize it every time I have the occasion. Surely, the fact that the affair involved the guy I was planning to vote for didn't help either.

The irony of all this argument is that it could have been solved very easily, if your reaction to me hadn't been so scornful and self-righteous all along. It is actually pretty funny that you are the person on the forum against which I have had the worst feuds, because, after all, we are not so different policy-wise. There is a poster, Franzl, who is basically your ideological twin and is one of my best friends on the forum. Sure, we often clash with each other, but we always keep it cordial and I think we both learn something by discussing together. It could have been the same for us, if only your arguments weren't so full of patronizing or sarcastic remarks, and if you hadn't on several occasions implied that I was a sexist myself. That's your problem : your arguments are very solid logically and, yes, I admit that you are better than me at backing your claims with evidence. But you always have to wrap them in nastiness and self-righteousness. You are so used to be right that you forgot that sometimes the opposing position is just as acceptable as yours.

Sorry if it's a bit long. If you manage to avoid snarky remarks and answer to my rant constructively, maybe this could be a step toward overcoming our animosity.

Lol, several? As far as I can see, that time was the 2nd time (the previous instance having been 1 year earlier). But, fair enough. If that was what you meant I apologize for thinking otherwise.

As for the rest, I have two issues with it.

1. You still don't seem to get that my original statement was a joke. Your African example is illustrative. I could definitely say something like "I don't want to be bigoted, but the defendant IS black" Any statement opening with the words "I'm not racist, but..." is always a joke (unless it's coming from an actual racist).

The obvious absurdity of the statement should have been a clear hint of that. Of course, as with many such jokes I make there was a hidden sort of provocation. I do believe that the kind of sexism that is more pervasive in France than many other countries make that grey area between rape and consensual sex transgressed more often.

2. I'm a strong believer in cordial discussions about politics. I couldn't be living with an active Swedish socialist, have another one as my debate partner or even do competitive debating if I weren't able to do that. But, in this case, you snapped at me very aggressively from the outset. And I have a low tolerance level for that. If someone shows me no respect, I don't give them any in return. I guess you were in an emotional state at the time though and perhaps I should've been more considerate of that.

Anyway, I'm not really upset and I'm fine with being friends and keeping it cordial and whatnot. I'd point out though that you were very scornful towards my position that France is a relatively sexist country, but now you seem to agree that I was probably mostly correct in that position (with the nuancing caveats you provided above, sure). I was a bit aggressive as well, but, then again, you were calling me an idiot for stating something that was actually (at least mostly) true. That provoked me a bit because I felt it was quite unfair.

As a final note, I never claimed France was super-sexist. And I don't think you or your family or whatever are either. I like to poke fun at national stereotypes a bit, it's just the way I am.

Why is Gustaf acting like such a DB in this thread?  ???

Fair enough.



I find it strange how often some statements you make end up being jokes while everybody had initially taken them seriously. OK, very often I was the one in this situation, but I'm pretty sure it happened to other posters as well. And I don't think I'm particularly inept at understanding sarcasm. Sometimes I can't help thinking that you could be using this as a way to evade criticism when faced with a statement you can't defend, but I always choose to assume good faith in people. I would advise you, though, to avoid doing this kind of jokes again. I don't know if your humour sucks or if some posters are too dumb to understand it, but it's pretty clear it always results in awful misunderstandings.

In this precise case, I think that bringing out the defendant's nationality was particularly tasteless, especially because the affair had just broken up, and especially because you did it in a thread frequented by French posters who could easily have taken offense for such comments.



I certainly have my responsibility in the turn this discussion has taken, I admitted it. I understand my initial reaction was excessive and did not prepare for a serene discussion. With that said, your statement (as you said yourself) was utterly absurd, and if someone had erroneously taken it seriously, it is understandable that they would not be very well disposed toward you. That obviously doesn't justify all my aggressiveness, but this plus the shock caused by the affair might be enough to explain it.

Still, aggressiveness is not what really bothered me. When discussions take a hostile turn, I almost always become stubborn, aggressive and insulting, calling my opponents idiots or nutjobs or whatever. That's not what I blame you for. What, however, I found deeply offensive throughout our discussion was your tendency to :

1) Sarcastically dismiss an entire argument without even addressing it. Just like when I typed four lengthy paragraphs to whom you basically replied "oh, that's so funny".

2) Display utter contempt to your interlocutor, in the form of some tongue-in-cheek remark which basically implies that the opponent is some kind of inferior being. In some way, I find it much more offensive than swear words like "retard" "scumbag" or "bastard". Those find their place in the precise context of a heated discussion, while such a sarcastic remark makes it feel like you don't even consider your interlocutor as one.

3) Strawman. It happened several times that you outright ignored what I was saying, and instead proceeded to answer to arguments which I had never made. Sometimes even after I had already corrected you. I assume you did it in good faith, but this still shows that you don't take enough time reading your opponent's posts and instead just assume he said what the stereotype you have of him would say.

4) Make insinuations about your opponent's hidden beliefs. This is a nastier, more insidious version of the above. On several occasions, you seemed to basically imply that I was being a sexist or somehow tolerant to sexual harassment and rape. Of course, you are too clever to say it outright : instead, you phrase it in a subtle way, like "oh, so you said this ? I think that's exactly what a sexist would say...". Or "oh, you think so ? That's probably because you also think [insert sexist comment]." You are very good at this, I must say, but this is exactly the kind of hypocritical sarcasm which I can't stand, and which easily leads me to insult my interlocutor. I don't know if this is a tactic to destabilize your opponents, or if you actually think they think this way. In any case, you should stop this.

This, more than simple insults, is what really turned me on you throughout the discussion. If you combine these four, what you get is the attitude of someone who seems to consider himself as the voice of Righteousness, and can't understand disagreement otherwise than as coming from morally flawed people which are not worth considerations. I have hypothesized that this might be a side effect of your constant arguments with Opebo, where you have ended up with identifying all your opponents as opeboes.

I know my own attitude didn't help the cordiality of the discussion, but, really, this kind of behavior just didn't leave me any chance to calm down. If even Joe says you act like a douchebag, you should be aware there is something wrong with your arguing style. Honestly, I think you should work on it, because it's pretty clear you're a smart person able of articulate arguments - certainly more so than I am.

I see it's still okay to not be overfond of those sexist, racist,... working masses.

I'm not really serious most of the time. It's an essential part of my personality. I realize a lot of people don't share my humour, but then again, I tend to not get along with such people in the long run anyway. So, no, it's not a defense tactic. :P If people have such a low opinion of me that they might think that statements that are deliberately ludicrous are seriously meant I assume it is unlikely that they will like me anyway.

As to the way I debate.

Your points 1 and 2 refer to sarcasm. I reserve this for cases where I don't really see an argument or see an attitude so aggressive and one-sided that I've already given up on reasoning with the other person. Of course, you might say, why even respond? Well, most of the time I don't. Sometimes I'm in the mood to do it and that's when we end up where we did.

3 and 4 is just a form of arguing that I find useful to cut to the chase. I try to find out where people actually stand by challenging more radical versions of their positions. I find that people get upset over this it is typically because they have taken positions they don't actually agree with the full implications of.

I don't think that people who disagree with me are morally flawed. There are actually relatively few positions I find morally abhorrent. These are usually the ones I discuss so people probably have a more radical impression of me than is actually true.

And while I won't deny being a douche, I think Joe if anything is more of one so I'm fine with that. ;)

---------------------------

Now, I guess what it comes down to here is this (and this really isn't intended to be very harsh, so I'll apologize in advance if it comes off that way): I don't have many important social relations on this internet forum. Thus, I have no really strong incentive to make people like me and thus adapt my personality to please you. If you don't share my sense of humour, fine. Few people do. If you don't like my way of arguing, sure. I probably don't like yours either.

But I see no reason to change myself so that random poster X will like me more. If you can prove me wrong about something or demonstrate an inconsistency in my beliefs or provide me with an original insight that I hadn't thought of - great. That's why I come on here. I don't really do it to make internet friends (although it's great when that happens).

So, I accept that I don't always behave as nicely as I could (though I certainly could also be a lot harsher than I am). I'd add that me being harsh is a sign of respect - I don't go after the forum's resident retards, because I think that's mean bullying. So don't take it too personally. But if you treat me with respect, don't do name-calling and approach issues with a humble attitude, I'll certainly do my best to respond in kind.

I perfectly understand that you are not posting on this forum to make friends. I don't think we will ever really get along, so this isn't my goal either. My point, however, isn't about being friendly : it's about having a serene policy discussion which doesn't turn into a violent conflict. The kind of tactics you have admitted to use while debating are exactly what makes it impossible to have normal debates with you. At least personally, I have a very low tolerance to sarcastic attacks, strawmen or - particularly - nasty insinuations. I might be more sensitive to them than the average poster, but I don't think anybody is going to take them well. I might have started the argument in an already hostile tone, but the fact you resorted to this kind of methods is what definitively turned me against you. Had you avoided it, it is quite possible that we would have come to an agreement on this issue far earlier, with my admittance that I was somewhat misinformed on the issue. Instead, my attention shifted from the argument itself to your style of arguing, and I focused on calling you out for it. I know that was not a smart move, but you can understand that it is not easy to admit your opponent is partly right when he is acting like a douchebag.

It seems pretty clear I won't make you change your arguing style, and that's a pity for me because I keep thinking it would be possible to have real debates with you. I can only warn you that, if confronted with this kind of attitude again, I will probably react the same way I have reacted in the past and there is no chance for a constructive discussion to emerge.

Par for the course for him.

So basically French right wingers are sexist tools, and also throw a fit about wearing jeans? Wow, those are some Horrible People right there. Honestly if it was reversed and a right wing politician was wearing jeans and some leftist one bashed her for it I'd have a hard time voting for the critic, though I would believe the French left would never be that stupid (not to mention the attitude is very right wing in nature, "tradition" and all that.)

The expression is "par for the course".

As always, you're generalizing and applying your biases to an entire group based on a small sample. While I have no great love for the UMP, calling the entire French right-wing a bunch of sexist tools is obviously intellectually dishonest and stupid. The jeans thing, as I said, was the work, largely of a small gang of right-wing UMP-Sarkozyst tools led notably by Nadine Morano, who has been a walking self-parody and dictionary defintion for "mentally retarded" since May 6. The whistling and hissing thing, again, as I mentioned, was the work of the old machos/creepsters like Patrick Balkany (find a picture of him, and you'll see just from his face that he's a creepy old macho crook) and a few others. Please note that the decent right-wingers, like Fillon, Juppé, Wauquiez, Le Maire, Baroin and the 'smart' UMP women like NKM and Pécresse all stayed clear of this (even if some might have partaked in the jeans brouhaha). 

Yeah, typo. Fixed.


Well if they were involved in that jeans nonsense too that's still pretty bad. Just read about Morano though, and ha ha, wow. Probably the closest thing France has to Michele Bachmann. And yeah Balkany looks like an obvious creep too.