Did economist Thomas Porcher's tweet in response to Audrey Pulvar's embody a form of male condescension towards the leftist candidate?
This is in any case what affirmed Saturday the one who is also adviser of Paris and assistant of Anne Hidalgo.
A defense for which she has been strongly criticized on social networks.
To read also: Thérèse Hargot: "For a feminism of reconciliation with men"
"
When, at the height of calm and no doubt animated by good intentions, you do a magnificent mansplaining ... #ViensOnVaTexpliquerCocotte #FatigueAbsolue
", retorted Audrey Pulvar to the economist, himself marked on the left, who had made him the following review: “
Dear @AudreyPulvar, a word of advice: don't listen to those who tell you to tax fuels. It would be unfair. For information, rate of active people using their car to go to work by department: 77: 63% 91: 61% 78: 56% 95: 54% 94: 41% 93: 38% 75: 14%
”. The member of the club of "
appalled economists
" formulated this criticism in the form of "
advice
" in reaction to a video by Audrey Pulvar in which the Ile-de-France candidate Audrey declared that she wanted "
set up an ecological tax system to partly finance free transport
”in Île-de-France.
But what is "
mansplaining
"?
Of Anglo-Saxon origin, which appeared in the early 2010s, this portmanteau word formed from the English "
man
" (man) and "
explaining
" is a feminist concept designating a situation in which a man explains to a woman in a condescending or paternalistic way something that she already knows, as if she is not able to know it herself.
In the expression "
Dear Audrey Pulvar, a piece of advice: do not listen ...
", the candidate from Ile-de-France therefore saw the mark of such male condescension.
"
Intellectual dead end
"
Many Internet users have laughed at this defense chosen by Audrey Pulvar because it allows, in this case, to delegitimize a criticism without having to answer it on the merits.
“
Oh yeah, okay.
When did expressing an opinion or a disagreement become mansplaining?
@PorcherThomas expresses a legitimate fear to you by defending those who work.
At least try to answer on the substance
”, reacted another economist, David Cayla.
"
Intellectual dead end ... when you don't know what to say, you can try mansplaining." We would like some substantive debate for the elections, please. The fuel tax deserves constructive discussions, not front positioning
, ”adds a user. And what about the main interested party? "
Oh mash ... Wonderful ... No, no it's just that the carbon tax on fuel taxation started when the PS was in power. However, it seemed to me that you were mainly campaigning with this party. But hey, if you like,
”replied Thomas Porcher, visibly incredulous.