Happy Birthday Ladies! | FranceEvening

by time news

2024-04-21 17:00:00

Citizens, more precisely.

Indeed, what we are celebrating today, April 21, 2024, is that it has been exactly 80 years since women had the right to vote and stand for election in France. And long after Corsica or other countries. Yes, in the land of human rights, it took 155 years for women to have the right to vote. To vote and be elected, namely duly uniting the masculine and feminine genders, in the fundamental substance of article 1 of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of August 26, 1789:

« Men are born free and equal in rights. »

That is to say in such a way that, legally, the words “ Men » designate both male sapiens sapiens and female sapiens sapiens. In a word: humanity.

However, it took 21 more years for married women to also be equal to men, in “the” most important area in the consumer society that France has become, that of opening and managing a bank account alone, and no longer, as was the case before 1965, only with the authorization of her husband.

No, because although the legal incapacity of the married woman, established in 1804, had certainly been burdened by that of 1818 which allowed her to open a Livret A savings account without the authorization of the husband, it is only with the law of 1881 that married women were able to manage their Livret A alone.

And, then, although the law of July 13, 1907, in its article 1, conferred on married women the right to dispose of the fruits of their labor:

« Under all regimes, and under penalty of nullity of any contrary clause included in the marriage contract, the woman has, on the products of her personal work and the savings resulting therefrom, the same rights of administration as article 1449 of the Code civil law gives the separated woman property.
It can be used in the acquisition of securities or real estate.
She may, without the authorization of her husband, alienate, for valuable consideration, the property thus acquired.
The validity of the acts carried out by the woman will be subject to the sole justification, made by an act of notoriety, or by any other means mentioned in the agreement, that she personally exercises a profession distinct from that of her husband; the liability of third parties, with whom it has dealt by providing them with this justification, is not engaged. The preceding provisions are not applicable to earnings resulting from the joint work of both spouses. »

This right was limited by the cases provided for in Article 2, where the husband could restrict it:

« In the event of abuse by the wife of the powers conferred on her, in the interest of the household, by the preceding article, particularly in the event of dissipation, imprudence or mismanagement, the husband may have them withdrawn. either in whole or in part, by the civil court of the domicile of the spouses, ruling in chambers, in the presence of the wife, or she duly summoned, the public prosecutor hearing.
In cases of emergency, the president of this court may, by interim order, give him authorization to oppose the acts that the woman intends to carry out with a third party. »

Whereas, conversely, the law did not grant reciprocity to the woman, in the event of abuse of the same ilk carried out by her husband. So. This had to be said.

But in addition to the express inclusion in the preamble of the 1946 Constitution, of legal equality between women and men (“ The law guarantees women, in all areas, rights equal to those of men. “), at least in theory, an election in which the women’s vote was predominant.

Apart also from the law of June 4, 1970 on parental authority (“ The two spouses together ensure the moral and material direction of the family. “), a reform that came about because the number of female workers had become high enough to weigh in on the debates.

And beyond, also, of course, the Veil law of January 17, 1975 which decriminalized abortion, “torn away” from Parliament by pressure from the streets where women made themselves eminently heard, what crucial changes have been made , democratically, to French society, by the civic equality which was given to women, by this famous law of April 21, 1944, of which today is the 80th anniversary, which granted them the right to vote and the right to be elected?

Did this ultimately have a significant influence on the direction of the country?

« Unfortunately no ! », I would be tempted to say in view of the catastrophic situation in which France finds itself in 2024, in many areas, at the end of Emmanuel Macron’s second term.

But don’t see any sexist criticism there. Quite the contrary. Let me explain.

Notwithstanding the established fact that 67% of women voted for Emmanuel Macron in 2017 in the second round of the presidential election, it is approximately this proportion that men voted.

And it is also in a more or less similar proportion (around 58%) that men and women voted for him in 2022.

So what I mean by ” Unfortunately no ! “, is that, despite the fact that, statistically, women abstain from voting less than men, it is obvious that it is neither specifically the fault of men, nor specifically that of women, if France is in this catastrophic situation.

Most certainly, the result would have been the same if only men had voted in 2017 and 2022, and if the country had been led only by men since April 21, 1944.

And the reason for this is unfortunately very simple: men or women, politicians take little or no account of concerns. French women and men », as Emmanuel Macron always says, clumsily as possible, making gross French mistakes (1) being one of his specialties, exercises in which, fortunately for him, ridicule does not kill.

However, Jordan Bardella, “first in line” on the list that the RN will present in the European elections in June 2024, being the big favorite in the polls, it would be interesting if an ordinary voter would share her questions with him. Challenges her on subjects that concern her.

For example, the manifest violation of the Constitution, by the decision taken by the Government, voted by Parliament, to engage France in a war against Russia. To send the children of the people to their deaths, without first taking into account the opinion of their parents.

Will Mr. Bardella bury his head in the sand, like Stéphane Séjourné? Or the opossum (2), like Judge Truchot?

Another important subject is the hormonal imbalances suffered by vaccinated women.

Once in office in Strasbourg, will Mr Bardella demand that the European Parliament resume the procedure, currently suspended, which was initiated two years ago by a group of MEPs, so that transparency is givenby the European Commission, on contracts what did she spend with the Pfizer laboratory? Or even the SMS that Ursula von der Leyen exchanged as part of the negotiation of these contracts with the president of Pfizer Albert Bourla.

Duck!

The right to vote necessarily includes the right to ask questions of those who stand for election.

Devil !

How can we choose between this or that candidate, or that list, if voters cannot obtain from the people who offer to represent them, the answers to the questions they ask concerning the true convictions and intentions of these people?

Also, here is what I propose to you, both to you, Ladies, and to you, Gentlemen, who wish to ask questions in this sense to the people who will be the heads of the French lists in the European elections of June 2024: send us these questions by email to the address given below, indicating the head of the list to whom you want it to be asked.

And in the numbers of the show “ The Challenge of Truth » special European elections of 2024, where I invite the heads of the list to come and take up the challenge, (one number per head of the list), I will begin the interview by asking the head of the list of the day, the five questions that you will have sent us, that you will have been the most numerous to ask about it.

So go: get to your keyboards!

(1) « The French ”, this includes men and women. Hence the capital letter in this instance. So split into two distinct groups, “ The French and the French », this grammatical grouping (“ The French “) of all people of French nationality, decreed by the spelling standard precisely to confer an absence of difference, and thereby total equality between French national men and French national women, it is, in my opinion, a gross French error as possible. A fortiori on the part of the President of the Republic, since, according to article 2 of the Constitution, “ The language of the Republic is French. », and according to its article 5, the President of the Republic is “ the guarantor of respect for the Constitution. »

And it is the same, from then on, with its recurring “ all those ” : how awful !

(2) “To make the opossum”, in English, is the French equivalent of “faire le mort.” »

#Happy #Birthday #Ladies #FranceEvening

You may also like

Leave a Comment