Ophelia's Journal.

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:09 am Post subject:

Lawrence wrote:

Ophelia

Want your information about BondyBlog in English? No problem!
Here is what I found on the web (from 2006).

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: demographics

Steve, I'm not sure which aspect of demogrphics you're interested in, so I'll quote from the wiki page:

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:06 pm Post subject:

Now this article is going to be my starting point about our "politique de natalité", and I'll tell you straight out: At the most, half of it is fine and should be kept, and really, the other half should be thrown out of the window at the nearest opportunity-- that is to say, never. I'll explain.

What is good about the family policy is:

- helping women with children who work.
France has been doing very well with this, providing child care for example, but really a lot of good, well thought-out measures here.

- helping low-income families to raise their children (with cash).

So far, so good, though my generosity would stop at helping people to raise two or three children per family. Why raise 10 if you don't have the means to raise 1?
Fortunately, people no longer feel like raising such large families, whatever money the government is promising as a lure. But when I was a child, there were still traditional style families like this, and the government thought they were all heroes.

I'm writing all this here, but in France I'd be getting hate mail I suppose for such non-conformist opinions, for views that go against our most noble and deep-rooted traditions.

So, since I was a kid, I've been hearing cries of despair "The French are not having enough children", we were going straight into the abyss, the population was ageing, and so on...
We got campaigns explaining all this, they tried coaxing, campaigns, money throwing, in turns. People didn't much care. They went on having the number of children they wanted to have, and that was o, 1, or 2. The government wanted 3. That's when you got the big bonuses.
In the 1970's, President Giscard d'Estaing came up with the idea of giving families a 10,000 franc bonus on the birth of the third child (incidentally, a lot of people were still talking in pre-1958 "Old Francs", so this was called " a million francs". In popular saying, "gagner le million" (to win a million francs) was having a third child. It was a lot of money in those days, and incidentally, nothing changed.

I was really sceptical about the government's ability to influence people's decisions. Even now, I think it must just be a combination of prople's feeling like having more children, and then finding that the right policies are in place.

Then very recently things changed, and we have reached the level that government, having moderated their wishes over the years, find good enough. The publicity campaigns had been given up a long time ago.

Then it was Germany.It was clear that in their case, the birth rate was very low. In the 1980's , there were hundreds of cartoons showing " the last two Germans" in a museum or a zoo.

All these years later, I say to those same worriers that the Germans are doing very well, and the country is in no danger of being wiped off the map.

When I was a child, I learnt at school that there were 50 million French people, and now there are almost 64 million of us, so what's the problem?
The increase is due to some extent to people living longer, and to some extent to immigration, but really I wish I never had any more serious problems than demographics in France to worry about.

The idea that we have to put immigrant families on a plane back to their country of origin is sad enough. Having old fortress Europe shouting at the same time that we don't have enough children would be absurd.

Oh, and one more thing: the media say that French people having more children is a sign of optimism. Yet they are puzzled, because opinion polls do not see people expressing optimism.

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: Politique nataliste, the roots.

Politique nataliste, the roots.

How did it all start?
What follows is my explanation, I haven't checked it in books, but I'm sure this is it.

It started (as all things, good and bad, did) with the French Revolution.
We waged wars on our our neighbours, and needed conscripts.
The Revolution led to Napoleon taking power, so more wars, more conscripts, more men killed.
In those days compulsory military service lasted for seven years, and of course many of those who took part in the Russian campaign never returned.

This is when the state began to get organized, and I'm sure this is when the mentality was born.
Then we had three wars with Germany. The birth rate was high in those days, but so was the need for conscripts.
Then with World War I, 1.5 million men died in France. I've just read that France had had the highest human losses in proportion to population, the only country with more deaths being Russia, 1.8 million.
For quite a while there were a lot of young widows. The remaining families had the same high numbers of children as before but numbers were not made up until 1950.
So our governments, after organizing or allowing the butchery to go on for four years, were suddenly very worried about demographics, and were frantic about the need for more children.

Then in World War II, the French army was vanquished very easily, and you could have found all sorts of reasons for it, but they said we were vanquished and occupied because we didn't have enough conscripts, and if we'd had more children...
So their worst fears had been realized, we'd been outnumbered!

Then, the way I see it, they never looked back.
After WW II a lot of things changed, the risk of war was small, and later we gave up conscription but the fear is still there, and, even more than the fear, the idea, which they developed in earlier campaigns and have had the good sense to tune down now, that having children is a patriotic act and that the grateful nation should reward you-- in cash and with a variety of advantages.

To me that's nonsense, and people my generation or younger probably sometimes suspect that it is, but it goes on.
Having children is a private decision. People have children because they want to have them, not because of the state.

Of course the state still needs children, but it does not follow that people should be given money (or medals?) or any other incentive.
As I said, low-income families must be helped, but once health care and education is provided, the middle class and the rich should raise their children themselves.

I and my family benefited from those policies but now that I'm a taxpayer and I see bugets being cut in health and education I think the family policy is excessive, and based on old-fashioned thinking that people can't even analyze or question any more.

It seems that most French people can't make the difference between "a democracy guarantees your basic rights " and " it is your right as a citizen of this country to receive money for food and clothing for your children in return for having had them." Both are fundamental; this is mind-boggling to me.

So, to quote the official from the previous article:

"A senior official of the French Health and Solidarity Ministry said: "As allowances are fixed or means tested, high and middle income earners don't reap much benefit. So assistance through tax breaks is essential."

A lot of people will express opinions like this.
Some years ago I heard a man (with a good job) complaining that, whatever reassuring talk the government was giving, he still noticed that, with each successive child he had, his spending money (and lifestyle, poor man) diminished. And exactly why should he have as much money for his hobbies when he had three kids than before he had them?

Anyway, to put things into perspective: About the power of the state to influence people in their private decisions.
Everybody knows about the Chinese one-child policy, but what is perhaps less well-known is that before this was implemented, throughout Mao's reign, the Chinese had been strongly encouraged to have as many children as possible. This, Mao said, was necessary to make China strong and be a world power. And people obeyed. I was surprised to read this in the memoirs of a woman who had lived those days as a child-- it was awful.
Naturally, Mao did not provide housing to go with his ideas-- and I saw that he had been even more of a fool than I had known.

Poor people, being taken from years of many-children propaganda to strict enforcement of a one-child policy with the next regime.

stcamp · Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:43 am Post subject:

Hello,

China, I believe, has 40 million more young men than women.

Something I had not realized before but the number of young males within a cerrtain age range can drive a countrys foreign policy. See Pakistan, Middle East.

For France, I knew that they have the highest birth rate in Europe. Except maybe Ireland? What is interesting to me is the ratio. Compare the Muslim birth rate to the native population. What does that do to the population mix in 100 years? The culture?

Steve

Ophelia · Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:31 pm Post subject:

President Camacho · Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: Religion

That's interesting. I wonder what the general deterioration of religion is over the entire population of France. I think the study may have been a little too focused on muslims. I like what you had to say about the chinese. You're right, someone always has to pay. Very nice argument.

Ophelia · Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:32 am Post subject:

Hello Camacho, and thanks for your feedback.

Statistics about religious affiliation in France vary. I could find nothing in Wikipedia, so here is one answer:

Ophelia · Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:53 am Post subject:

Somebody recommended the folllowing book to me:

"The Past in French History", by Robert Gildea. I have only read the reviews, but it seems interesting.

"It deals with the importance of historical concepts for French politics: it looks at the different trends of Monarchism, Bonpartism, Orleanism, elements which seem to recur in French history from Louis XIV to De Gaulle (and one might say even to Sarkozy). Then it looks at the development of ideas like "revolution", "laicité", "patrie" et "grandeur."

Ah, "grandeur"...one of those skelettons in the cupboard I had completely forgotten about. Impossible to translate, but fortunately it was taken into the English language in 1600, together with "folie de grandeur".

Do people still speak about "grandeur" in France? If they do, it would have to be in a presidential speech, and certainly not in the old military meaning any more. Did Miterrand and Chirac speak about "grandeur"? Only specialists would know. I, together with other French people, was bored to death by their speeches (fortunately very infrequent) and by the presidents who thought they were monarchs (our fault for keeping them in power so long that they got delusions of...grandeur, exactly).

They probably mentioned the importance of our "rayonnement": the prestige and influence of our culture, our language, the egalitarian principles of the 1789 Revolution.

I think now, if Sarkozy mentioned "la grandeur de la France" it would be in a way that no one hear can object to, such as generosity, solidarity with poorer nations.

I imagine otherwise the concept would only sell with the electorate of the far right.

President Camacho · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:42 am Post subject: Myspace

Ophelia, give me the link to your myspace page

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject:

I'm not on myspace (would that be the generation gap?).

You can send me a pm though (at the top of the page, where it usually says "you have no messages" is where you can send a pm).

Ophelia · Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: national anthems

Today's thoughts take me to national anthems.

As often, President Sarkozy makes the news, and one of the things he keeps repeating, as an example of teaching stricter and patriotic values to the young, is that French children should learn the national anthem at school.

The two things he keeps repeating I find appalling, not because they're bad ideas, but because it shows once more that politicians have no idea what is happening in schools.

Idea 1: The Marseillaise is already taught in schools, no use making a fuss.

Idea 2: (that would be a bit long) is impossible to put into practice. It was probably last used in Catholic schools when Sarkozy was a student and classrooms did not yet contain anything students might want to steal.

So, La Marseillaise: It dates back to the French Revolution, and was composed as a war march for one of the factions.

Having a national anthem that goes back to the Revolution is fitting, it would be difficult to oject to that.

There are two problems with the Marseillaise though:

1- The lyrics.
It's a very gory war song, and I often envy countries that have something peaceful and beautiful instead.

The Marseillaise is fine when it is instrumental only, for occasions like the Olympics.
The lyrics are about torrents of blood, about enemy soldiers who are going to strangle your wife and children in your very arms... In US terms, those fine feelings got a lot of mileage in the past, and now it would be nice to sing about something else.

2- Unless you are a trained singer, it is impossible to sing La Marseillaise in tune, as it is extremely difficult. So here are all your well-meaning citizens, singing out of tune (but together though).
This is solved, more or less, by singing it very loud. Well, it's not a lullaby, and "at the top of your voice" will do for the rivers of blood and the blood-thirsty enemy.

Ophelia · Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject: European Union.

As I often do, I then wondered about the European Union.

They have an anthem, and it's beautiful: Beethoven's "Ode to Joy", from his ninth symphony.
It's been the EU anthem since 1


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT