The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
There is absolutely no contradiction (let alone a glaring one) in my "objective opinion, IMHO."
Please do read the phrase carefullly back again.
In my opinion, saying that most Paris unions are radicalized and hard left represents today an objective reflection of reality. Subtle, isn't it :) Otherwise said, I don't agree that saying that constitutes or echoes UMP propaganda, but common knowledge and common sense.
As to PR, I, unlike you, have no idea whose PR was stronger, so until the contrary proof, I will believe what I retained from mainstream media, which is what I said before. IF what you say is correct, we'll be able to discuss PR strength and media bias.
I read everything coming my way, period. Not interpretting, and certainly not superficial. This is (yet another!) politically biased assumption :) Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
I know people who are much further to the right than you are but nonetheless, the way that you frame your debate and the concepts you use put you on the right - and most mainstream media is quite right wing so if you are happy to believe what you read and hear without trying to deconstruct it, then you can expect for us to challenge that when you repeat it on here as your version of the 'truth'.
The only clear political idea I might have stated here was that the individual is a rational being, endowed with critical thinking, free choice, libre arbitre, in spite of all societal conditioning. That makes me a classical liberal, I suppose. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Which part of my discourse smells right wing to you?
Most of the things you say! Your ideology is fundamentally different to mine.
Although you have not articulated it as such your reasoning comes across as implying that individuals are more or less in control of their own fate. If they work hard enough (negotiate their contracts well), and apply themselves then they will not be at a disadvantage. ie it is up to the individual.
That's very much a right wing piece of rhetoric.
Also the fact that you view motherhood as a role that the woman should take up to the full (if they have children), that is what I referred to when I said it came across as being socially conservative - ie not thinking that these gender roles need to be challenged because they are 'natural' and that is how things should be. I challenge that notion.
I'm surprised melo/kcurie have not brought in anthropology here because we've been talking about social constructs and the age old debate of the natural vs the social and that very much underpins where our different ideologies come from. I'm more on the side of there being no clear line between what is deemed as 'natural' in terms of gender roles and place in society and what is socially constructed. So I challenge it all.
Coming across, getting impressions, having the feeling that ... you do realize such impressions may come from you being leftwing conditioned :)
Individuals: I rationalised the thing: I said free, educated, adult individuals, however conditioned, can still find their critical thinking and make decisions. Not all the time, not in all cases, there is a continuously moving balance in my view, things are not so clearly cut out as linca or you seem to have it about society conditioning. Sometimes "conditioning" is the result of evolution, is normal accumulation of social wisdom. I don't think you can deny this.
Negotiate contracts: well it was my own case, alas. And I saw women in job interviews and evaluation interviews. I even interviewed them. None was tough enough. I'm not either, btw, I've a scientifical formation (hence inclination to logic approach and rationalizing), I'm terrible in business or sales. Business can be tough. Not always good, not always fair, so not always up to the individual. Is this reasoning rightwing? Frankly, when we take everything one says not as his real life experience, but as ideologically conditioned views, it's a sign something went wrong.
Motherhood is natural. Well isn't it ? Do you honestly and nonpolitically think a mother's 6th sense doesn't exist? Do you think men are so much worse in taking care of a child only because of social constructs ? Are you denying women are more sensitive, more intuitive, more empathical, more attentive, more nuanced, kinder at heart even? This is not rightwing politics, not ideological, but my own personal unique experience with life. It might be socially conditioned though. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Yet by my own nature I am left wing and when I found the political discourse that gave me the means to articulate how I felt things should be, it was amazing. This is fundamentally my way of approaching the world. So I was not leftwing conditioned by any means - I became left wing when I found the discourse that I felt comfortable with.
You haven't mentioned ideology but to refer to wiki: Ideology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An ideology is a set of beliefs , aims and ideas, especially in politics. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society.
So we are discussing our visions of how things should be and our ways of looking at things. Even if this is personal and doesn't result from being a member of a political party or being a political activist (ie not buying into an organised ideology), it still counts as ideology. I see yours and mine being very different.
I used softer words such as what you say 'comes across as' because I don't want to go pointing my finger and saying you are this or you are that. My impressions come from the way I read into the language that you use and the concepts you are putting forward. Also your view of what constitutes 'right wing' may well be a bit different to mine. So you put yourself as moderate where I put you on the right based on the way you have discussed these issues with me. You think I am left wing conditioned but you don't think that you could be right wing conditioned?
The one thing about right wing rhetoric is that it does a fantastic job of getting the message over that this is all common sense, rational and reasonable and because most of the messages you absorb (through the French media you believe to be left wing) are aligned with right wing rhetoric, it's the 'norm' to you that you think is moderate. I haven't been able to express that too well.
Back to women in business and sales. Why do they need to be so tough? Is it because they are mostly dealing with male clients who expect a certain type of interaction in setting deals? What about female clients who may prefer to work with a female sales person? Research does show that our instincts mean that we prefer people who are like us. This is where prejudice stems from, the important distinction being whether that prejudice then turns into discrimination through the way people act.
So men prefer to work with other men in certain environments say. Or white people instinctively prefer to choose white applicants for jobs, because it is more in the personal comfort zone - especially for people who are not regularly exposed to a wide mix of people. There's genuine psychology behind that.
There is also a business case for having a diverse workforce because it means that you can promote an image that will be attractive to a more diverse client base. Using methods such as flexible working can support both the female workers but also the male workers too, some of whom may have caring responsibilities but usually get overlooked and are expected to be present at work all the time.
My own unique personal experience of life has been an extremely diverse one - bringing me into contact with hundreds and hundreds of people from all walks of life, from different groups and situations, and communities. Part of my job is to gain an insight into the things they experience, especially within a work environment, and this has only strengthened my left wing views because I can see very clearly the disadvantage that certain groups face, disproportionately, that results from discrimination.
To push motherhood as being a natural thing for women then goes punishing the women who are not naturally good at it and prevents fathers from playing a fuller role in bringing up their children. That's why I challenge it rather than assuming that that is the natural state of things. Society is progressing I think in a way that enables fathers to play a larger role in their children's lives and that is because the stigma is lessening for women who prefer to go back to work and share the caring responsibilities more evenly with men.
That has happened because the social constructs around gender roles and the assumed role of women in families and in the workplace have begun to change - thus enabling both men and women to have more choice. But as I pointed out elsewhere, the gender pay gap means that choices are still restrained and things like the expectation that men will work longer hours than women, and so on, all still plays a huge part in preventing people from making the choices they wish to.
LOL. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
You could say I was angry at tram strikers (very annoying), but not happy or angry with information I got about that strike. Information just is. On the contrary, I would have been happy to know the strike is justified! Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
I used the word 'happy' as a turn of phrase really. Language thing there. Replace happy with willing.
I identified the UMP (but I could have said "the government that got into conflict with the train unions") as the origin of propaganda you echo via reading the MSM. Would I be hinting at bias, I'd use "issue" in place of "echo".
A specific person's honest opinion is the subjective, not the objective.
"Common knowledge" and "common sense" are artifacts of culture, in this case in no small part that of the MSM -- or at least those parts of it you access -- which again is in no small part influenced by government propaganda. Neither your "common knowledge" nor your "common sense" is an argument in debate.
no idea whose PR was stronger
Don't play naive. Unions have neither the money, nor the media contact manpower, nor the high-level (up to media conglomerate owner) media contacts of governments.
I will believe what I retained from mainstream media
You never question what has been told you? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Marianne, Nouvel'Obs, even Liberation or Le Monde, are MSM, yet in no government or UMP or Sarko The World Saviour's pay. If I add the public media, you'll agree most MSM is leftwing and PRing for strikers - ahem, defending the rights of the poor and the oppressed!
I never question. I'm all society conditioned. I need to be saved! Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
You never tire of holding on to your misperceptions, do you? With the addition that UMP allegiance would now be "libel". (Besides, knowing that you are only an expat in France, I have no reason to associate you with the UMP.)
Marianne, Nouvel'Obs, even Liberation or Le Monde, are MSM, yet in no government or UMP or Sarko The World Saviour's pay.
Libé, despite being generally centre-left, is now owned by a personal friend of Sarko. Though some ET regulars will disagree, I wouldn't classify centriste révolutionnaire Marianne as leftist, just because it slammed Sarko in Bayrouist fervour. But these are picked-out examples, and do not constitute a media majority.
Large swathes of the printed MSM are owned by Hachette Filipacchi, e.g. Sarko's other personal friend Lagardère, while gratis newspapers are dominated by yet another friend of his, the yacht-holiday guy, Bolloré. Bolloré is also interested in TV, so is yet another Sarko friend, Bouygues. Calling today's public TV left-wing, especially with top media figures' support for Sarko during the election, is a stretch (and a common right-wing meme, internationally). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I suggest you take a look at those papers rather than at their boards. A paper's colour is defined by its articles. Yet another common sense issue that seems to have escaped your acuity.
They made a poll last year; they found like 80% journalists declaring themselves leftwing - in general, not just public media. Despite the few exceptions, French public media can be defined as hard left libertarian. This is an objective, public knowledge assessment. Stating that it is politically biased is a crime against common sense. You're incredibly leftwing-society conditioned, if you see any statement more at the right than you as rightwing propaganda. This is exactly what I meant on the Berlusconi issue, btw. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 14 12 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 15 19 comments
by Oui - Jan 16 4 comments
by Oui - Jan 13 84 comments
by Oui - Jan 17 2 comments
by gmoke - Jan 16
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 8 77 comments
by Oui - Jan 14 28 comments
by Oui - Jan 172 comments
by Oui - Jan 164 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 1519 comments
by Oui - Jan 1428 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1412 comments
by Oui - Jan 1384 comments
by Oui - Jan 1177 comments
by Oui - Jan 1055 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 877 comments
by Oui - Jan 772 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 710 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 668 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 611 comments
by Oui - Jan 659 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 230 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3151 comments
by Oui - Dec 3122 comments
by Oui - Dec 2834 comments
by gmoke - Dec 28