Posted Oct 2, 2022, 5:53 PM
Who said that there was only the left to read “Liberation”? This Saturday, the daily article on the actions of a collective of women within EELV circulates well beyond the usual circles. Part of the left is worried about this and speaks of an “inquisition”; the rest of the chessboard is full of it: the left is lost, we told you so!
For having put “feet in the dish”, according to her favorite expression, and pushed Julien Bayou to resign, Sandrine Rousseau is experiencing the same phenomenon. His radicalism creates unease within the Nupes and a mixed feeling of fear and hope elsewhere. “She is our best agent”, do we have fun in the majority. The one we love to hate and who, by her excesses, will implode her camp.
We are not there yet, of course. But Sandrine Rousseau is not only the one who pushed the logic of permanent buzz the furthest. Shock to advance the spirits, she theorized (on laziness, the barbecue “symbol of virility”, the penalization of the non-sharing of household chores…). She comes, by her questioning of Julien Bayou on a television set, to pulverize all the borders.
” I regret nothing “
The already abused border between public life and private life, that of law and morality, which amounts to “supplanting the right of all by the morality of a few”, notes political scientist Chloé Morin. And finally that of the instrumentalization of this morality for political purposes. Not political politics, she defends herself (even if she supports a candidate opposed to Julien Bayou for the next congress), but politics with a capital P. Or rather a capital F, the cause of women, first in her eyes.
” I regret nothing. I protect the fight of women, whatever the price”, she said Sunday on France 3 with sacrificial accents. “If I have to leave politics for having defended the cause of women, it will be an honor”. “I won’t let go,” she also said moments later.
And won’t let us go, maybe that’s the problem. The radical struggle against “predation” (of nature and of women) authorizes everything, to break down borders, to impose a world cut in two (ecofeminists vs. anti), to consider each man as a predator in power, to consider the other fights as secondary.
You have a doubt about the method, you are looking for nuance? You are an opponent of the cause, and will be judged as such.
In an already electric debate, choosing radicalism can have two effects. Open up public opinion to hitherto unacceptable subjects (Overton window). This is the objective of Sandrine Rousseau. Or tense up, damage the cause and come back like a boomerang against the sender. Make your choice.
