How does Eric Zemmour speak of women in his latest book? – LCI

They would be Eric Zemmour’s weak point. “You have to attack her on her feminism”, even believe the executives of the National Rally at a time when it becomes urgent for Marine Le Pen to stand out from her best enemy. The polemicist’s remarks towards women are said to be worse than those he holds about Islam, even less defensible than his (re) interpretations of the history of France. Ignoring the old statements of Eric Zemmour on their ability to do “evaporate” power or their “different form of intelligence”, LCI listed all the journalist’s allusions to women in his latest book France has not said its last word (Rubempré).

In this book, Eric Zemmour returns in chronological order to several events and appointments in his private life and his professional career. There is very little question of discussions or meetings with women, the journalist prefers the company and intellectual analysis of men.

Most of the women mentioned are moreover amputated of their last name and constantly reduced to their physique. Entrepreneur Hapsatou Sy is described as “the pretty young black woman with long frizzy hair”, Marine Le Pen “dressed in a strict pants-jacket, perched on high heels, the only concession to her feminine side”. These descriptions are accompanied by pejorative adjectives. “Not a day without Assa Traoré spreading her jet-black mop and Louboutin pumps”, writes Eric Zemmour, when, according to him, “Christiane Taubira shows off with her literary upstart lyricism”.

The sovereignist is also fixating on the former government spokesperson Sibeth Ndiaye. “Her grandfather was one of those Senegalese riflemen who gave life for France; her parents fought to no longer be subject to France; their daughter administratively acquires French nationality, but imposes her African imagination on her adopted country. It would be useless to make these observations to Sibeth, whom she would brush aside with condescending contempt. ‘Racist’, ‘sexist’, we know in advance his agreed upon lines. Being a black woman gives her two unstoppable arguments, and the dispensation of a greater effort “, believes Eric Zemmour.

On page 179, he discusses his trial for defamation and incitement to racial hatred in January 2011. In terms reminiscent of those he has already formulated on the capacity of women to undermine power, the journalist makes this comment about the president of the court, the prosecutor and the lawyers of his accusers (which he lists all in the masculine): “Under their black dress as a prestigious uniform from another era, they wear poor quality clothes with tired material, are hastily combed, carelessly made up; everything in their silhouette, in their attitudes, their absence of elegance, gives off a je ne sais quoi of neglect, carelessness, lack of taste.We see at first glance that these professions – effect or cause of feminization – have tumbled down the bars of the social scale. There is a bond between them, proximity of sex and class. ”

The other allusions to women are less nominative, less precise, but shed light on the thought of the polemicist towards them, what he considers to be their deep nature and the role they must play in society. Regarding the attraction of women to men of power, he writes: “Bum stories have always distracted all presidential campaigns. These are usually the scene of great outbursts and small pleasures. Candidates are in a trance as they slice through the crowd at meetings or descend from the rostrum to cheers; women are drawn like magnets to these ‘political beasts’. “ Or : “In a traditional society, men’s sexual appetite goes hand in hand with power; women are the goal and the spoils of every gifted man who aspires to climb into society. Women recognize him, elect him, cherish him. . Unknown Bonaparte is a virgin and must be denied by an ugly prostitute of the Palais-Royal; Napoleon, Emperor of the West, accumulates mistresses. “

Eric Zemmour also lets his image of women emerge in his vision of men and the “masculine” values ​​of his heroes. “Jean-Pierre Marielle embodied in my adolescent eyes the fifty-something who refuses to become an adult, a compendium of grumpy and lyrical Gauls, of chilled lovers of women”, he writes on page 148. Of Sean Connery, who played James Bond, he believes he “had the chance to play the hero in an era which has now disappeared. A time when virility was not denigrated, ostracized, vilified, even demonized, penalized. A time when a seducer, a man who loved women ‘, was not considered a potential rapist. A time when the beauty of women was not proof of their alienation from patriarchy. “.

Finally, he does not hesitate to defend two men accused of rape, former IMF boss Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Islamologist Tariq Ramadan. “DSK, handcuffs behind his back between two New York cops, walking headlong, it is a reversal of a thousand years of royal and patriarchal French culture. It is a castration of all French men. The seducer has become a rapist. , the conqueror a culprit. ‘The ladies’ man ‘was praised for his protective strength, he is locked up and vituperated for his intemperate violence. Don Juan is dead. As Philippe Muray said,’ we have passed from envy of a penis to penal envy ‘”, dares the polemicist page 200.

As for the second, it “remains convinced that he has fallen into a trap. The young women who accuse him explain that they cannot detach themselves from him, that his aura fascinates them, that his intelligence bewitches them, that he takes the opportunity to manipulate them It is this famous notion of ‘hold’, the latest find of feminists to criminalize man, eternal executioner, without realizing, in their vindictive anger, that their definition of hold ‘and its effects pervert looks like a sister to what used to be called in novels and popular songs the ‘pangs of love’. “