Concrete changes in how you travel during the crisis (page 7 of 9)

Hi Marie-Anne,

The wind’s picked up here and some shutters have been banging—autumn’s starting with a bang! I’m sitting here with a hot chocolate and this discussion’s gone off-topic!

I don’t know about other regions in France, but for Brittany, here’s something to read about the place of women and the Breton matriarchy through wars, religion, and—at one point—a secular state also run by male chauvinists, oh yes! It’s the thesis of a young woman and student who ran for Queen of Cornouaille in 2019, and the second link is her interview:

http://www.eostiged.com/images/contenu/Dossier_Erell_Reine.pdf

http://www.eostiged.com/actualites/229-interview-reine-erell

Otherwise, there’s Anne Guillou’s book on the subject—see here, the 3rd book in the list: https://www.skolvreizh.com/index.php?page=shop.browse&manufacturer_id=97&vmcchk=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3

Happy reading! 🙂

I don’t need your indulgence or approval to work, every day, with an audience that’s more open and less clingy to prejudices, with the institution’s approval.

What’s your audience like? People who are "open" or just easily influenced? (I guess it’s pretty easy for a teacher to build little fan clubs.) Your self-satisfaction reminds me of Zemmour’s little smirk—he’s done well in the revisionist game too.

Hello...

It seems obvious when you’ve been digging around the basements of city centers / the basements of fields for 30 years. This distinction has made sense since the appearance of Celtic oppida. There you go... What was the original topic of this discussion, by the way?? 😏

We’ve strayed far from the original theme, but the current one isn’t uninteresting. It seems to me that drawing a line between urban and rural across millennia without accounting for the industrial revolutions of the 18th/19th centuries or the agricultural revolutions of the 20th century, among other things, doesn’t make much sense.

Michel

Ah, finally Sancho Panza comes trotting along to rescue our local windmill fighter...

cqfd my poor Tatra, it was better before, because back then you wouldn’t have been so vilified by all those hypocrites.

Really? And who invented the term "hypocrite"? That was centuries ago, when they apparently weren’t vilifying anyone—how lovely. Everyone was so nice, clouds were made of cotton candy, and rivers flowed with rosewater... Life was so much better.

These days, all it takes is stating a few well-worn truths

Which ones, exactly? Because they don’t seem so obvious to us green and pink/red plebeians. Was it better in the 1920s than now? Is it better under Erdogan than in France? Is a gulag better than a retirement home?

Those are opinions, sure. But self-evident truths? Hardly. Are you Hibernatus, pining for the days before you were frozen, or what?

the green and pink "right-thinking" crowd,

No red? How colorful you see the world—it’s almost charming. Personally, I’ll take green, pink, or even blue over gray-green or brown.

I totally agree. In any case—and this is obvious—we can’t go back, and we can only live in the era we’re in...

Going back to the past, reading Maupassant is enough to get a chronicle of life and realize that living wasn’t exactly a walk in the park back then. Beyond our current impressions and later rewrites.

Going back to the past, Maupassant’s readings are enough to get a chronicle of life and realize that living wasn’t a walk in the park back then. Beyond today’s impressions and later rewritings.

I’m not sure if you could find a worse example than a naturalist writer like Maupassant, who claimed his status as follows: "talented Realists should rather be called illusionists." (Preface to *Pierre et Jean*).

Michel

I’m not addressing you, Michel, but everyone (I don’t know how to reply to myself: HELP). It sounds like a surrealist game. It makes me laugh because it happens often. The original topic disappears, and we end up talking about the past and the present. But I like it. Actually, that’s how it usually goes. I enjoy verbal sparring (there are plenty of people showing off their knowledge, and it all seems obscure to me), but it’d be better to aim higher—without aggression, if possible? There are conflicts of ideas but also conflicts between people. Tatra crystallizes all the aggression, but maybe he provokes it? (It doesn’t seem to bother you, Michel, but I’d be devastated.)

I don’t know if you could find a worse example than a naturalist writer like Maupassant, who claimed his status as follows: "talented Realists should rather be called illusionists." (Preface to *Pierre et Jean*).

One day he also said: It’s cold this morning, don’t forget your light sweater (citation). Basically, Maupassant—the worst example if you ask me. You’re the global benchmark for literature and for tossing out random one-liners without much point or connection. Long live Google.

Anyway, when you’ve made systematic contradiction your whole system, you couldn’t expect much better. My arms can’t drop any lower at this point.

Put in a little effort, and you’ll outgrow the age of "no"...

One day he also said: It's cold this morning, don't forget your warm layer (citation) Basically Maupassant, the worst example if you ask me. You're the world reference in literature and in throwing out random phrases without much point or connection. Long live Google.

I don’t need Google—I’ve often used this passage in my professional work. And the fact that you picked the best counterexample had a funny side I couldn’t resist. 🙂

Anyway, when you’ve made systematic contradiction your system, you couldn’t expect anything better. My arms can’t fall any lower at this point. A little effort and you’ll outgrow the age of "no"...

I have the weakness of reacting when I read nonsense—old habits die hard.

Michel

I can't help but react when I read nonsense—old habits die hard.

Rereading your messages must be pretty painful, and your keyboard must be itching...

Tatra crystallizes all the aggression but maybe he provokes it?

It seems to me that by being provocative and aggressive toward participants, you invite that kind of response.

There are members who get a lot of flak for travel advice or a casual remark, and we’re never quite sure why. But when you’re being provocative, you can’t really complain if there’s debate. That’s just how the forum works. As long as there are no insults or crossing red lines, I don’t see much to criticize in Tatra or other contributors.

Otherwise, you’d have to start your own blog and disable comments.

Hi there. I discovered the story of the Penn sardine workers through the TV movie that aired a few years ago. Thanks for the details with the song and photos. The world of work has always been tough, yesterday just like today.

You might know the song paying tribute to Anne of Brittany, *Si mors à mors*.

I wasn’t criticizing. It’s just an observation, and it’s normal to defend your ideas—as long as, like you said, you don’t cross the line, which is far from obvious since those lines shift from person to person.

For me, the limits are those of moderation. And kindness first and foremost.

If it stings repeatedly and deliberately with no ambiguity, then I’ll step in for a discussion. And if it’s with Tatra, for example, or on sensitive topics, I know it’s going to clash a bit and that I’ll take a few hits—and that’s normal. If it’s clear insults, racism, antisemitism, etc., well, I’ll report it, and it’ll be up to the mods to decide.

Same goes for the messages I post—I’m careful and try my best not to step out of bounds, but I know that in the heat of the moment, things can spill over. We’re human. And in those cases, I trust the moderation team if I’m flagged. No problem.

At the same time, I think a lot of us on this forum are craving travel discussions. And, like me, many have turned to other, less structured conversations that are more "outside of travel in the strict sense." That’s where the extra conflict comes from—it’s obviously easier to argue over values or ideas than over the price of a beer in Utrecht or the quality of the bedding in a hotel in Ulaanbaatar.

Basically, women got the right to vote much later than men, but for you, that doesn’t mean much of anything serious? If women have always had power, can you name a few notable ways they’ve used it? For example, in what situations have they banned an activity for men? At what times have they been able to control their own bodies as equally as men?...

Looks like I’m inspiring you.

No, the right to vote has a long history—it’s always been subject to criteria: status, wealth, category... Suffrage reserved for citizens, or based on income... Nowadays, it’s still denied to foreign residents without sparking your disapproval, I believe.

Personally, I rarely use it and don’t attach much importance to it. Plus, it’s mostly become a consumer object: we vote for one to get rid of the other, then later for a third to avenge the disappointments the second caused us. There’s nothing there that resembles projects or programs.

As for the rest of your point...

I don’t know much about Latin France, but in the rural or coastal Brittany I knew, women often held the power: controlling the purse strings, driver’s licenses, decisions on education, housing, investments, and real estate purchases. Fishermen husbands, even captains, would return from sea only to be denied entry to the living room without slippers and sent off for a drink with the money slipped to them for the evening. As for farmers, often it was the moped or tractor—only the wife had the car license. No need to have a bank account in her name to have a say in choices and decisions back then.

When it comes to controlling their bodies, women have always had abortions, and I truly believe we’ve never had less control over our bodies than in today’s world.

Michel

As I expected, you couldn’t cite a single notable use of this so-called women’s power! It’s telling that the only “ban” imposed on men was being denied access to the living room without slippers. Women’s power was only what men were willing to grant them. And as for the bank account, it’s a very male way of thinking to assume they didn’t need one.

Having secret abortions and risking your life isn’t what I’d call controlling your own body. And in this area, we could add rape, which was long under- or unpunished, brothels where the women were practically slaves, the loss of female virginity often meaning social ostracization (ask your 20-year-old Breton girls about that).

PS: The right to vote *should* be granted to foreign residents—no issue with that. What about you?

I have the weakness of reacting when I read nonsense. Can’t help myself. Michel

If you ever run out of things to react to, feel free to reread your own posts. 😇

Hello,

As I expected, you haven’t been able to cite any notable use of the so-called power of women! It’s telling that the only "ban" imposed on men was access to the lounge without slippers. The power of women was only what men were willing to grant them. As for the bank account, it’s a very male way of thinking to assume they didn’t need one.

To be honest, I don’t understand your demand. What exactly are you talking about?

Having an abortion in secret and risking your life isn’t really what I’d call having control over your body. And in this area, we could also add rape, which was long under- or unpunished, brothels where the residents were practically slaves, and female virginity, whose loss often meant being cut off from society (ask your young Breton women in their 20s about that).

Yes, it *is* a way of having control over your body, of course. And it’s *you* saying it was done in secret—everyone knew about it.

PS: The right to vote should be granted to foreign residents—no problem with that, and you?

I couldn’t care less.

Michel

To be honest, I don’t understand your demand. What are you referring to?

For demands, take it up with a judge—this is just a casual exchange.

To be honest, I don’t understand your demand. What are you referring to?

For demands, take it up with a judge—this is just a simple exchange

You’re ordering me about I don’t even know what for... I’ve given you plenty of areas where, in my experience, my observations, and my references, women are the decision-makers and influencers: real estate, legal transactions, major purchases, children’s education, budget management, organizing family events. If you find that insignificant, that’s your call.

Michel

It was estimated that in the mid-1960s, there were 800,000 abortions per year in France. Illegal, of course; so what?

Dig deeper into the mortality rates of those illegal abortions, and you’ll have your answer to that "so what?"

Right now, you’re mostly free to be afraid like everyone else, to say the right thing, to make sure you don’t fail to comply with the ocean of rules, norms, and obligations that constrain you for your own good, and to take the free medical tests that your health insurance keeps pushing on you to ensure you die too old and bored.

It’s clear you’re actually talking about yourself here! You remind me of those pseudo-nonconformists who are everywhere these days, amusing or riling up (depending on who you ask) the crowd by projecting their fears and lack of confidence. A pretty tame herd in the end, one that could fit the "useful idiots" label falsely attributed to Lenin. But where does this such a dark view of the world come from? (The answer "I’m not pessimistic, I’m realistic" doesn’t fly—it’s been overused.)

I’ve pointed out plenty of areas where women, in my experience, my observations, and my references, are the decision-makers and influencers: real estate, legal transactions, big purchases, children’s education, budget management, organizing family events. If you think that’s insignificant, that’s your call.

Michel

You forgot the ban on walking in the living room without slippers and the right to drive a car! Your "experience" is actually a pretty male-centric and somewhat old-school perspective!