If “the private is political”, then freedom disappears

Published March 27, 2022


“Private is political” recently explained the unfortunate candidate for environmental prime minister Sandrine Rousseau at the microphone of the feminist-feminist web magazine miss, “private” here means privacy, personal life. By virtue of which she would like to see recognized an offense of non-sharing of household chores within couples, combating the fight against ecofeminism.

Sandrine Rousseau’s new idea

We could obviously tell ourselves that Sandrine Rousseau’s propensity to utter nonsense in order to be noticed completely disqualifies her, and that it’s a waste of time to be interested in her manifold delirious excursions.

Although an economist and former vice president of the University of Lille, she does not prefer “women throwing spells over men building EPRs” ? Did she not try to sacrifice herself as a woman by condemning a purely imaginary sexist quarrel that her competitor in ecological primary Éric Piolle would have been guilty of? Did she not explain with her worked sense of nuance when she had been thrown out of the campaign team by EELV candidate Yannick Jadot, whom she had constantly criticized that it depressed her? “playing politics in groups of the Ku Klux Klan”, that is, within organic groups too white for his liking?

It must be assumed that the high authorities of the EELV do not take it too seriously and / or that they intend to exploit his repeated media outbursts, since they have validated his candidacy, or rather his legislative parachute in June next year, in a Paris constituency. where members had already expressed their choice of another well-established candidate. It’s wild how very conscientious feminist “politics otherwise” looks like two drops of water, which is always politics …

But it is precisely because of her legislative ambitions that it is better to be aware of what she has to say, even though her proposal on the crime of not sharing household chores does not oblige the EELV, as she clarifies at the end. of the interview (video, 58 ″):

Basic postulate: it is exclusively women who carry all mental strain » within pairs, as Emma drew it (which I have already told about in connection with the pension reform) in one of the most instructive comics. Who plans everything in the family? Who thinks we’ll have to buy shampoo, clear the table, start washing, sign the correspondence books? Women, always women, only women! Another striking inequality between men and women that needs to be rectified immediately!

So here it is: Just as it is possible criminally to condemn physical violence against women in relationships, it would be necessary to establish an offense of non-sharing of domestic duties. In other words, the non-division in question is a form of violence perpetrated against women and, as such, must be subject to its sovereign sanction.

The private is political: a dangerous and unusable assumption

We do not really know how Sandrine Rousseau is considering this offense. Will women be encouraged to go to the nearest police station to report their spouse for not sharing laundry and ironing? Will an investigation be conducted involving testimony from children and friends or neighbors of the couple? Hi the condemnation and the Inquisition.

Or will couples in the future have to submit a job sharing statement along with their tax returns – a bit like corporate CSR accounts – and expect “good behavior” checks? household goods “as there are tax audits?

Another difficult point, what do we call the division of household duties, and what tasks should be included? A study by the Observatory of Inequalities, published last September, looked at just three of them, three tasks generally believed to concern women above all: who prepares the evening meal, who does shopping, and who vacuums most often.

But one can think of many other household obligations that involve both men and women: Who takes care of budget, paperwork, taxes and social security? Who takes care of the bins, the do-it-yourself, the garden, the car, the bicycles and the computers? Who delivers the children to school, who goes to parent meetings, who accompanies the youngest to football practice and the oldest to dance class? Who participates in the relocation of student children?

Good luck to Mrs Rousseau in deciding what a clean and perfect distribution would be. Daily life in a relationship is so diversified and so changing over time depending on the composition of the family, the age of its members, the presence of grandparents and the work or non-work of the parents that if she wants to achieve a division of tasks consistent with her vision of the world, she will have no other resource than to plan everything, and therefore limit everything, to the minute.

Just as a Gérard Filoche absolutely wants the working week to include 32 hours divided into 4 days, and that the day is divided into 8 hours of work, 8 hours of leisure and 8 hours of rest, she must establish schedules for all the members of the family and impose them i I do not know what code of family life. Inspectors similar to labor inspectors will come to check and may even be seized by disgruntled family members. Hi authoritarianism, hi atmosphere.

In addition, the study mentioned above shows that the balancing of tasks within couples is progressing – excellent news, which in advance disqualifies Sandrine Rousseau’s attacks of authoritarianism. Just as environmental considerations have gradually found their way into people’s minds for decades, the relationship between man and woman in the couple and with regard to children changes enormously, as everyone can convince themselves by observing their own adult children and thinking back to their own parents. or grandparents.

But above all, how can the internal organization of a family worry Sandrine Rousseau? She tells everywhere that she lives with a wonderful “deconstructed” ; we are happy for her. But should his preferences be universally imposed? Are men and women so utterly stupid that they are unable to pull themselves together and organize themselves within a couple and settle any disputes that may arise between them about the division of tasks? Are they so devoid of personal aspirations that everything must be organized for them, as if the truth in the search for happiness were to come from a self-proclaimed superior authority?

The comparison would certainly terrify her, but by campaigning like this, Sandrine Rousseau adopts (with a head start, it must be said) a framework for action and political reflection, as her sworn enemy Eric Zemmour would not deny.

The two, of course, have completely opposite ideas about the political content that must be imposed on the private sphere. Zemmour, for example, plans by law to restrict parents’ choices regarding their children’s first names. “so France remains France”. What Rousseau does not care about, while Zemmour literally makes fun of equality between men and women.

But both agree that their conception of life, which is considered superior to all the others and in both cases placed at the level of civilization, must be imposed on all – otherwise our future will be only abysses and collapses. Specifically, we are faced with two constructivisms, two authoritarian approaches to politics – one on the right that could be described as a conservative identity, and the other on the left, an intersectional blend of ecology, feminism and anti-capitalism.

Yes “the personal is political”, it follows quite directly that the individual is deprived of his ability to make informed and autonomous choices and decisions. His only freedom will therefore consist in blindly complying with what the political authority has decided for him – or in being outlawed, punished, rejected from society. Chinese style.

In other words, if “the private is political”, there is no longer either individual or freedom. We already have a small idea about it in France in connection with our triple welfare state, strategist and nanny. Let us instead think about expanding the private sphere.

On the Internet

Leave a Comment