Your article basically suggests that no women in her right mind would vote for Sarzosky over Royal, and that only conservative men would/should support him. Reality seems to disagree. Are you willing to consider the possibility that you're incorrect, or are missing something?

What to make of the fact that 52% of women gave him their vote?

Are you so sure that French women are, um, stupid?

IOW, what I make of it is that more women liked Sarkozky and his party's policies in general than Ségolène Royal, apparently.

I don't like Sarzosky much myself. And I realize that you can make an argument of misrepresentation--that people thought his policies were different than they really are.

But absent such an argument, I am predisposed to think that French women are autonomous, intelligent, people. And if you want to attack Sarzosky, first you have to get around that autonomy.

Perhaps for French women, it is more important to have policies they like, or a party they like, than to have a woman for a President. Perhaps (shades of burqua-gate) your perception of what their compelling political needs are is different from their perception.

I'm really NOT defending Sarzosky. But damn, now you're comparing all his supporters to right wing ultraconservatives. Which means what, exactly--that 52% of French women are right wing, ultraconservative, voters? I don't think so.

Sailorman, do you require the same argument for every politician that is criticized? Yes, when ou criticize a politician, you do therefore implicate everyone who voted for him or her. I don't think that I would say that 52% of French women are stupid. But I do think that 52% of French women just did a really fucking stupid thing.

Anna was not suggesting that women should vote for women just because they're women. Women can be tyrannical misogynists, too.
But one might expect that women would vote for woman-friendly candidates.
How'd you get "French women are stupid" from this post?

Slighty tangential, but still related: Does anyone have thoughts on how all of this jives with Sarkozy's appointment of Rachida Dati as justice minister?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10693497

I haven't been following the story as closely as I should, but I don't trust this as a goodwill gesture.

Cara, there's a difference between implying 'Bush sucks" and implying "no woman in her right mind would vote for Bush."*

Anna notes that "the next five years don’t look so good for... women" which in context implies that they would have looked BETTER for women under Royal.

She describes the (public) issue that "Sarkozy... has not made it one of his priorities to pursue true equality between women and men;" discusses his "paternalistic tone;" and alleges "rumours of domestic violence charges brought ...by his wife."

She even sticks on a "just like Ann Coulter!" tag. And if that's not an attempt to create guilt by association, what is?

Here, let me put that Ann Coulter reference differently for you: "More French women agree with Coulter's (shudder) political choice than with Anna's. Please explain why. Absent such an explanation, please consider that Anna's analysis of what is "best" for women may be wrong."

Since these issues were public, and since she hasn't suggested that French were unaware of them, the only reasonable interpretation of her comment is, essentially, that French women should have known better.

In other words, that they made a dumb/stupid decision.

What strikes me as insane is that neither Anna or you seem to discuss the fact that your opinion is at ODDS with the majority of France's female population. You know, the ones who, in theory, have a vested interest in all this.

So you don't seem to be saying "hmm, is Sarzosky better than we thought?" or "hmm, why did all those women vote for him?" Those questions might actually demonstrate what the women of France want(ed), which given that this is THEIR president is pretty goddamn relevant.

It's one thing to have an opinion. It's another thing to refuse to adapt that opinion in the fact of factual evidence.






*Why would I, as a rich person, vote for a candidate who would raise taxes? Because paying lower taxes is less important to me than having a better country.

Why would a woman vote for Sardosky? Because, perhaps, she does want to pay lower taxes, or does want to control immigrants, or...

Every person, man or woman, gets to define his/her own priorities. Anna is making a bad a priori argument, by selectively presenting as a "woman's issue" everything that Sardosky lacks. Women care about economics; about immigration; about security. Those ARE womens' issues.

Okay . . . no woman in her right mind would vote for Bush. That is my official opinion. Any woman who does, I believe, either does not know all of the facts or believes the misogyny that's been thrown at her all her life that she has come to participate in her own oppression.

Of course women care about things like economics and immigration. The argument here is that women are voting in a way that will cause economics, immigration, security, etc. policies to NEGATIVELY affect them.

It is a good question to ask WHY women would vote for such a candidate. But asking that question doesn't make the decision any less stupid. I honestly don't see what your issue is in saying that voters sometime make dumb decisions. They did it in 2004 with Bush. Why? I've got no fucking clue. But I had no qualms about saying that everyone who voted for him (family members included) were acting like fucking idiots. I have no qualms about saying it now. Just because I know why my father voted for Bush (lifelong Republican, concerned about national security), that doesn't mean that I don't think it was a decision that is far below his intelligence level.

I recently saw the Criterion Collection edition DVD of La Haine (Hate), set in those racially mixed, high-unemployment Parisian suburbs. On the audio commentary, which was recorded before the general election, the director, Matthieu Kassovits, basically compared Sarkozy to Le Pen and issued a dire warning concerning his election on at least French domestic matters and civil rights.

I agree with Sailorman.

An additional fallacy with this piece is the implication that everything is rosy and peachy-keen in France at the moment -- you know, since they have all those government programs and stuff. Their economy is seriously lagging, bureaucracy is out of control and people feel that they're overtaxed. Blame that on Sarkozy's rise over his pandering to the far right. It's important to note that every attempt of the French Left to decrease unemployment and jumpstart the economy has failed. French voters apparently think Sarkozy can do it.

It's highly unlikely that Sarko will manage to accomplish anything. Unlike in the U.S., unions in France are very active and radical. It would take an act of God for Sarkozy to make any changes to France's labor laws or welfare state without the entire country shutting down.

Anna Weichselbraun obviously has no clue about French politics. In point of fact -- 7 of the 15 cabinent positions (ministries) are headed by women, and for the first time EVER one of them is a Frenchwoman of North African descent.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2115318,00.html

my heart broke when sarkozy was elected, as it hurt my friends in france so much, as they (male and female friends)adored royal and really hoped she would win. they are incredibly fearful of what sarkozy will do to a country they have grown up in and love. i imagine its very similiar to what thinking people here felt when bush was elected in 2000. except without the prolonged anticipation of wondering who we would end up with.

as to the argument that we shouldnt insult this decision becos its what the majority of french women want and blah blah blah, it is a majority by only 2%. 2% is a very small margin. i would be inclined to say half of france and french women, the same way i would say "half of american voters voted a chimp into the whitehouse". it may be a majority, but not in any sense that is impressive. and not in any sense that half their country isnt hurting over the outcome.

i dont at all think it is anti-feminist to say a woman, or a group of women have made a poor decision. the choices we make in life and the causes we support are influenced by our access to unbiased information and also by who we place the most faith in, the opinion of others, our own opinions, or that of god. most women have been taught to trust god or others, but never themselves. the point of feminism in part is to teach women to trust themselves. i imagine, were all women taught to trust themselves and listen to their own truths, you wouldnt see bush or sarkozy in office.

Thanks for commenting. My only intention with this post was to round up all the things that make Sarkozy's (not Sardosky or Sarzosky) election in France kind of scary from my point of view.

My question: What to make of the fact that 52% of women gave him their vote? is probably the least polarized of all the statements in this post and I am frankly quite surprised at how much offense some have taken to it.

Nowhere am I making an argument that voters are stupid or that having a woman for president is better than all other options.

The lead was more to tie in with Feministing’s previous coverage of the election. I am certainly not one of the one’s debating whether women are essentially better candidates. Yawn.

I wanted to comment on what I saw as a kind of painful resemblance to the elections of 2000 in the United States. That the Left, disappointed with what they found a lackluster candidate, cloaked themselves in apathy, and ended up letting the right-wing candidate win, who in retrospect is clearly worse than the leftist candidate.

I didn’t want to imply that things were peachy keen (hence the alarming pay gap between men and women) or gloss over the fact that the country is doing badly economically, I just wanted to point out that Sarkozy’s election perhaps heralds a less social-justice oriented age. And this is especially saddening in a country where les Valeurs de la République actually mean something for both Left and Right (however problematic those values may be.)

In any case, call me naive but I have faith in a strong political opposition and the public discourse.

Anna,

As the one who started all this, sorry. If that's what you meant to write/imply, then there's been a serious lack of communication between us (that's not at all what I thought you were saying, obviously.) I apologize for my part in that.

I would have voted for Sarkozy. It's easy to call someone names like "authoritarian right-wing" when you disagree strongly with his policies. But frankly, there's nothing with wrong with improving the economy of France by getting rid of some Socialist sluggishness. As for immigration measures, France needs them. Bernard Lewis predicts that Europe will be Muslim by 2050 due to their very high birthrate. Do you want a Muslim Europe where women are pressured into veiling and honor killings are more common? In 25 years I want to be able to visit a France that is economically vibrant and culturally and religiously free, and not under some 7th century Sharia law system.

Helo'stoaster,
"authoritarian right-wing" is not a name, but a political position that accurately describes Sarkozy's agenda.

Are you kidding with your "muslim invasion" xenophobia? It comes across as a parody of a bigot.
Quite a good parody too!

Let me add to it...yes, run from teh muzlims, they want to make people wear white shoes AFTER Labor Day!!!!

And they don't know a salad fork from a fish knife!!!

Oh the atrocities that will be commited across Europe's tables if they are allowed to, gee i dunno, live in Europe!!!!

Sailorman,

Thanks for listening. Sorry, I wasn't able to comment earlier. Time change and all.

Muslim xenophobia is definitely one of the contributing factors to Sarkozy's election. The former minister for equal opportunity, Azouz Begag, wrote a book called Le mouton dans la baignoire (The sheep in the bathtub). The title refers to televised comments by Sarkozy suggesting that Muslims in France slaughter sheep in their bathtubs.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x164jq_sarkozy-baignoire-etranger-mouton