Monday, February 11, 2008

Ah, I see

Yesterday I wrote:

I do believe that misogyny has something to do with the virulence of the attacks on Ségo, and I can't help noting that several if not all of the more outspoken negative commenters here have been women--something worth trying to understand, perhaps.


This elicited from one of the commenters the following riposte (sans rancune, she assures me):

Quant à ma prétendue misogynie... sachez que je suis une femme !

I must not have made myself clear, though I do think the first passage cited above is not especially difficult to decipher. In any case, Anonymous was the only "outspoken negative commenter" whose gender remained unknown. Now I can eliminate the qualification from my judgment. Ségolène Royal seems to bring out extremely negative feelings in certain women especially--a phenomenon that calls for explanation.

Anonymous also wrote this about the comparison with Hillary in the comments to "Animosity":

Mais c'est là que le bas blesse et que vous devriez arrêter la comparaison.

Bas rather than bât: now that is clever. Could it be that wearing stockings is the problem?

--------------
Re the Clinton comparison, see Paul Krugman's column today. I think he's right about the vitriol directed against Hillary Clinton (a good example of which was the angry tone yesterday of Krugman's Times colleague Frank Rich, whom I normally admire), but some of his own less balanced remarks about Barack Obama might be described as availing themselves of what he calls "Clinton rules." In any case, some Ségo antagonists seem to play by analogous "Royal rules," which authorize an escalation of verbal violence--"unnecessary roughness," as we say in American football.

7 comments:

Boz said...

I'd agree with some of Krugman's comments on what's gone on in the media, although interestingly MSNBC exit polls from Louisiana showed that Obama supporters were much more open to a Clinton nomination than her supporters were to an Obama nomination. Pat Buchanan suggested racism (without any evidence of course), but I think over the course of the race the Clinton campaign has certainly created its own set of "Obama rules" that aren't very pretty.

By the way, I just wanted to let you know that my site Politique is no longer being updated, as I've moved to Sarkozy the American. Thanks so much for the coverage on Royal's Harvard visit! If I were still in Boston I would have died to be there.

Boz

Unknown said...

Thanks, Boz
I've already noted your new site and in fact picked up a lead from you this morning. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Décidemment, vous ne pouvez accepter un point de vue différent du vôtre sans parler de cruelle animosité et de la ressasser à toutes les sauces, ou sans tenter de ridiculiser celui qui vous propose un autre angle de vue... C'est curieux pour un blog qui est censé débattre de la vie politique en France.

Ce n'est pas grave, après tout tant pis pour vous si vous n'êtes pas capable d'entendre sans vous offusquer quelqu'un qui n'est pas d'accord avec vous, j'aurais essayer, toujours avec le sourire !!

Anonymous said...

There may be some misogyny in oposition to Segolène. On the other hand, maybe it's because she was a dreadful candidate?

On the top of my mind :

(i)She went further than any other left wing candidate in the stupids pandering. Her "one flag in every house" thing is still stuck in my throat. Une certaine idée de la gauche and all that. Acting like that was more than the usual rush to the center : it was admitting from the beginning that the right's ideas had already won, and better mimic them, as much as possible. I don't want a PS candidate for that shit.

As a consequence, (ii) her campaign hatched from the mating of travail famille patrie and a "marketing for MBA's" book. No I didn't want her to talk to me "as a mother" (as a candidate to presidency would have been enough) and I don't want the "gagnant gagnant" bullshit.

And (iii) she personaly was very bad too - every time she could, she hid behind her "participaroty democracy" shtick, instead of giving her opinion. The fake angers too.

At the night of the defeat, she acted like a rock star, and said "en avant vers d'autres victoires". No Ségo, it was not a Mitterranderie for the ages, it was a dumb and embarassing thing to say.

I voted for that idiot, pinching my nose. Then I lost, so I'm annoyed. It's occamesquement simple, and it explains most of the annoyment thing.

Anonymous said...

Unable to do anything propoer on Blogger, it seems.

Above's sig is yabonn, not that it matters that much.

PeakVT said...

Maybe Royal is irritating people because she is saying something the French left doesn't want to hear: stop squabbling and grow up. Politics is ultimately about gaining power to implement as much of your policies as possible, not expressing your ideological purity.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Royal is irritating people because she is saying things that are ridiculously demagogic:

"Je le dis, demain, si je suis élue Président de la République, les agents publics seront protégés et en particulier les femmes; elles seront raccompagnées à leur domicile lorsqu'elles sortent tardivement des commissariats de police."

(my quick translation: "I say it, if tomorrow I am elected President of the Republic, the civil servants will be protected, particularly women; these women will be accompanied back to their residence when they leave the police station late at night.)