With Royal trailing in most opinion polls for this weekend's run-off elections, found this article to be rather interesting.

###############################################
Source: - http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/29/opinion/edcourt.php

France's moment of truth for femininity
By Isabelle de Courtivron The Boston Globe

BOSTON:

French women enjoy good press. Recent bestsellers in the United States tell us that they stay thin, dress well, have easy access to daycare, don't feel the need to marry out of economic or social vulnerability, and mostly get along well with French men.

Indeed, the French are proud to claim that no "war of the sexes" exists in their culture, as it does in all those "Anglo-Saxon countries" (read: the United States). Women and men in France supposedly have a special relationship, based on a history of chivalrous heterosexual seduction, harmony between the sexes, and the sacrosanct concept of "mixité," which ensures that in no sphere are women and men ever separate.

Like all myths, this one has some degree of truth. But the political arena has always been an exception to this idealized model. In politics, France is more regressive than Germany, New Zealand, Chile, and Liberia, all of which are led by women. Let us not forget that women did not get the vote in France until quite late, after World War II, for fear that they would vote like their husbands or, worse, like their priests. Among 27 European countries, France is 22nd in terms of how many women are government ministers.

The presidential campaign of Ségolène Royal has shed light on this particular blind spot. Her own fellow Socialists initiated the misogynistic attacks on her candidacy: "Who will take care of the children?" sneered one of her rivals, as others nodded in agreement. Rows of older male career politicians sat disapprovingly as she talked in public meetings - or, more precisely, as she listened. For from the beginning, she decided to listen, so that she could get a better sense of what French people thought about the issues.

This went completely against the grain. In France, eloquent, imperious politicians traditionally make decisions without consultation, in a manner reminiscent of their monarchical predecessors (even if they have to cancel most proposed reforms under the pressure of street demonstrations).

So Royal's approach was interpreted as proof that she lacked any ideas of her own. Though wherever she went she attracted crowds of supporters (not in the bubble of the Paris intelligentsia, but in the provinces ), she was consistently tripped up by the press and by politicians of all stripes, who made much of any perceived misstep. When she said she would focus on battered women but did not pontificate in sufficient detail about submarines, she was met with indignation. When she refused to "dress for success," the focus shifted to her legs and to pictures of her in a bikini, and the media debated whether she was exploiting her feminine good looks. It was asserted that she was too authoritarian - or sometimes the reverse, that she didn't project enough authority. In sum, she was not deemed electable or legitimate. The second round of balloting this coming Sunday could prove otherwise.

Indeed, if any woman is to reach the highest office, it should be Ségolène Royal, for she corresponds to a French national archetype of femininity. In a new book the writer Michele Sarde details how this young woman from the provinces represents a subtle mixture of traditional France and the rebellious modernity of Simone de Beauvoir. She is an educated woman who has always worked. With her partner, François Hollande, she has shared both private responsibilities (they have four children together) and political visions (he is the secretary of the Socialist Party).

So where are the feminists who should be celebrating this historic occasion and protesting the sexist attacks on the first serious woman candidate for the French presidency? A petition entitled "1 million women have had enough!" - objecting to the way Royal has been treated - has gathered only 17,000 signatures. "Feminism" remains a taboo word in France.

Femininity and power are still incompatible in many parts of the world. I say this with a glance toward this side of the Atlantic, where the first serious woman candidate for president has endured petty, unfair criticism in areas ranging from her hair style to her marriage. So while women are gaining political power around the world , the bad news is that they still often find themselves blocked by unrealistic expectations and intractable gender stereotypes. Royal's experience may reflect not just a "French exception," but also a more global reality.

Isabelle de Courtivron is a humanities professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This article first appeared in The Boston Globe.

Nice article...but I feel the same sentiment is in most countries including the greatest preacher of equality, the US. People talk about feminism but behind it all, its a man's world. Discrimination takes place in many industries, institutions and housing rights even today (even though they outwardly portray an equal-for-all society). Some things will never change.

BTW, these lines from the article caught my attention: "Let us not forget that women did not get the vote in France until quite late, after World War II, for fear that they would vote like their husbands or, worse, like their priests"

Isn't this how women in Nepal have been voting all along (I know my family and relatives do)?? hahahahahah A World War III where Nepal takes part in would be necessary to let go of this mentality!! hahahaa

Nice Read Capt. saab..just 17,000 signatures huh??

I feel, Feminism is an overrated issue now. It's all in words and not in action. I've actually stopped discussing about this issue. It is a kind of fashion statement these days (with men as well as women). Specially in Nepal, empowerment of women re?? Men should be empowered, not women..it's their mentality that needs to be changed..so why empower women?

Samsara -

Yes, I think that is unfortunately true in the case of Nepal. I don't have the stats to prove it but it is a good empirical guess based on hearsay and conventional wisdom. Of course, I know quite a few women who think very independently from the men around them, but they are still in the minority by all accounts. We certainly have miles to walk before we can sleep on the issue in Nepal.

SNDY -

It is heartening to see someone talk from a position of empowerment. If I understood your comments correctly, my own viewpoints on discrimination overall are not too far off from yours. At the risk of inviting the wrath of those who feel strongly about this issue, I don't deny there is discrimination in practice, but I often wonder if there is a huge gap between perceived and real discrimination. When you look at both the intent of the purported discriminator and the feelings of those who feel discriminated you clearly see that there are some genuine instances of discrimination. But at the same time there are a lot of cases of people's sensitivities being ruffled in spite of no bad intentions on the part of the purported discriminator. I suppose discrimination needs to be carefully looked at case by case to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I believe empowerment through knowledge and education are the best shots we have at leveling the playing field for all - regardless of gender, ethnicity, caste etc. Perhaps with some carefully controlled and planned version of affirmative action to correct historical imbalances to give such empowerment additional muster.

"Men should be empowered, not women..it's their mentality that needs to be changed..so why empower women?"

There you go, there's an empowered person speaking right there.

:)

Capt. saab, u put it so nicely :)..yes, that's exactly what I see..also, it'll be so much better if we deal it case by case rather than just jumping in with a bandwagon. Ask yourself first what's happening in your life before you go out changing other people's life, hoina ta?? Just blabbering here :)

Men should be empowered, not women..it's their mentality that needs to be changed..so why empower women?

oh ho blimey sndy! ..way to go!!! hehe....baaf re...darr lagna thalyo aba ta...our sn di is really an iron lady :D

on another note, the topic and discussions pertaining to it have become so cli·chéd that i refrain to talk about it these days :P

there is certainly discrimination-- big time! and i don't blame human being alone, the mother nature, to some extent is liable for it...

don't believe me? oh well, ask rishi vishwamitra or bill clinton for that matter :P

SNDY - Nah, that's not blabbering - there is a lot of weight in that statement. See, I like it when you talk about "heavy" (if I can call it that :P) stuff - your's is a very valid opinion. I am sure there will be others who feel differently but all opinions have their place under the sun when conversing about an issue like this. (It seems even Loote liked it :D)

Loote - Interesting thoughts there.

Well, two most wonderful and important people liked it..aru k chahiyo r kya ajha..:)

Talking about the French elections and it's results, this article from the Economist about Sarkozy's victory (the Economist had endoresed Sarkozy over Royal)

Plus, the buzz on Sarkozy is mostly good - some have even compared him to one version or another of Reagan, Thatcher, Blair and Clinton.

###########################

Source: -http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9135582&top_story=1



THE French turned out en masse on Sunday May 6th to elect Nicolas Sarkozy as their new president, handing him 53% of the vote, next to 47% for his Socialist rival, Ségolène Royal. Ms Royal conceded, just one minute after the first results were broadcast on election night, leaving the Gaullist 52-year-old former lawyer to take to the stage at a theatre in central Paris. Speaking of the "immense emotion" he felt, he declared that his was "not the victory of one France against another", and promised "to be the president of all the French."

Polls had made Mr Sarkozy the favourite for weeks, but the margin often looked narrow. Two elements seemed to have lifted his score late in the campaign. One was his performance during a televised debate with Ms Royal, in which he kept his cool and stuck to his policy briefs, while she lashed out at him with surprising aggression. The other was that, while Ms Royal made an abrupt turn away from her political base on the left in a bid to court the centre ground, Mr Sarkozy kept to his first-round message: essentially, that France has to change, that work needs to be valued, effort rewarded, and authority strengthened. In the end, he won not only some two-thirds of the far-right vote, but half of the centrist vote too—despite the decision of François Bayrou, the centrist leader, not to back Mr Sarkozy.

It was, in many ways, a remarkable performance. Mr Sarkozy was, until a few weeks ago, a minister in an unpopular government under a tired president, Jacques Chirac. This was the Socialist Party's election to lose. As it is, the Gaullists have now won three consecutive presidential polls, and are set for a run of 17 years in power. Mr Sarkozy's victory was built on a message of change—rupture is his favourite word—that many analysts considered far too risqué for the supposedly conservative French. This election has shown that, given leadership and a charismatic candidate, they too are ready to adapt their country. By sheer drive and political cunning, Mr Sarkozy managed to build up an electoral machine, through the party that Mr Chirac originally founded, and reinvent himself—30 years after entering electoral politics—as a force for change.

The question now is how far Mr Sarkozy will be able to implement some of the controversial reformist elements of his programme. In his election-night speech, he declared that "the French people have chosen change.” Among the first reforms that he intends to bring about are labour-market measures: he plans to secure minimum service on public transport during strikes; to break the big five unions' stranglehold on union representation; to change the unemployment-benefit rules to penalise those who refuse two job offers; and to introduce a single job contract with progressive rights.

Unlike President Chirac, who in 1995 also tried to bring about reform but had been elected on an uncontroversial promise to "heal the social fracture", Mr Sarkozy arrives in office with a clear mandate to change. Not only was his score high, but turn-out—at about 85%—was too. Mr Sarkozy knows that he has to move fast to capitalise on that. On minimum service for trains and buses, for instance, he says that he will let the unions and bosses' organisations try to negotiate a deal until the end of the summer; after that, in the absence of agreement, he will legislate. There will doubtless be resistance, and strikes and street protests are widely predicted. Indeed, on election night there were already clashes between riot police and anti-Sarkozy protesters.

Mr Sarkozy has until May 16th to name a prime minister—François Fillon is tipped for the job—who will form an interim government until legislative elections are held in June. The Socialist Party also needs to prepare to defend its parliamentary seats. But it is now under strain, with its moderate members and its left-wing already blaming each other for defeat. It may be that Mr Sarkozy's victory, and the humiliation of the third consecutive presidential defeat, is what it takes to force the Socialists finally to break with the past and construct a modern party of the left.

View/Share this post only

Talking about the French elections and it's results, this article from the Economist about Sarkozy's victory (the Economist had endoresed Sarkozy over Royal)

Plus, the buzz on Sarkozy is mostly good - some have even compared him to one version or another of Reagan, Thatcher, Blair and Clinton.

###########################

Source: -http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9135582&top_story=1

French election
A force for change
May 6th 2007 | PARIS
From Economist.com

Nicolas Sarkozy is comfortably elected as president. He immediately calls for France to change



THE French turned out en masse on Sunday May 6th to elect Nicolas Sarkozy as their new president, handing him 53% of the vote, next to 47% for his Socialist rival, Ségolène Royal. Ms Royal conceded, just one minute after the first results were broadcast on election night, leaving the Gaullist 52-year-old former lawyer to take to the stage at a theatre in central Paris. Speaking of the "immense emotion" he felt, he declared that his was "not the victory of one France against another", and promised "to be the president of all the French."

Polls had made Mr Sarkozy the favourite for weeks, but the margin often looked narrow. Two elements seemed to have lifted his score late in the campaign. One was his performance during a televised debate with Ms Royal, in which he kept his cool and stuck to his policy briefs, while she lashed out at him with surprising aggression. The other was that, while Ms Royal made an abrupt turn away from her political base on the left in a bid to court the centre ground, Mr Sarkozy kept to his first-round message: essentially, that France has to change, that work needs to be valued, effort rewarded, and authority strengthened. In the end, he won not only some two-thirds of the far-right vote, but half of the centrist vote too—despite the decision of François Bayrou, the centrist leader, not to back Mr Sarkozy.

It was, in many ways, a remarkable performance. Mr Sarkozy was, until a few weeks ago, a minister in an unpopular government under a tired president, Jacques Chirac. This was the Socialist Party's election to lose. As it is, the Gaullists have now won three consecutive presidential polls, and are set for a run of 17 years in power. Mr Sarkozy's victory was built on a message of change—rupture is his favourite word—that many analysts considered far too risqué for the supposedly conservative French. This election has shown that, given leadership and a charismatic candidate, they too are ready to adapt their country. By sheer drive and political cunning, Mr Sarkozy managed to build up an electoral machine, through the party that Mr Chirac originally founded, and reinvent himself—30 years after entering electoral politics—as a force for change.

The question now is how far Mr Sarkozy will be able to implement some of the controversial reformist elements of his programme. In his election-night speech, he declared that "the French people have chosen change.” Among the first reforms that he intends to bring about are labour-market measures: he plans to secure minimum service on public transport during strikes; to break the big five unions' stranglehold on union representation; to change the unemployment-benefit rules to penalise those who refuse two job offers; and to introduce a single job contract with progressive rights.

Unlike President Chirac, who in 1995 also tried to bring about reform but had been elected on an uncontroversial promise to "heal the social fracture", Mr Sarkozy arrives in office with a clear mandate to change. Not only was his score high, but turn-out—at about 85%—was too. Mr Sarkozy knows that he has to move fast to capitalise on that. On minimum service for trains and buses, for instance, he says that he will let the unions and bosses' organisations try to negotiate a deal until the end of the summer; after that, in the absence of agreement, he will legislate. There will doubtless be resistance, and strikes and street protests are widely predicted. Indeed, on election night there were already clashes between riot police and anti-Sarkozy protesters.

Mr Sarkozy has until May 16th to name a prime minister—François Fillon is tipped for the job—who will form an interim government until legislative elections are held in June. The Socialist Party also needs to prepare to defend its parliamentary seats. But it is now under strain, with its moderate members and its left-wing already blaming each other for defeat. It may be that Mr Sarkozy's victory, and the humiliation of the third consecutive presidential defeat, is what it takes to force the Socialists finally to break with the past and construct a modern party of the left.

Blair congratulates Sakosky:

In English


and en fracaise (not bad, huh? :P)