Noémie Halioua: “Women don’t want the deconstructed man!”

Noémie Halioua is editor-in-chief and correspondent in Paris for the I24 News channel. She co-wrote The New Anti-Semitism in France (ed. Albin Michel, 2018), written The Sarah Halimi case (ed. du Cerf, 2018) and has just publishedr Against each other – Sarcelles, from living together to living apart (ed. by Cerf).

It is necessary to put the church back in the center of the village, the clocks on time, the dots on the “I“. Restating the obvious, recalling reality, returning to the fundamentals that intellectual terrorism is trying with all its might to hide. The sky is blue in the summer, the earth is round and most women don’t want the “deconstructed” man that the Green MP Sandrine Rousseau is delighted to have in her life (and that she wants to make a model for others). This undefined specimen that we imagine endowed with a penis but devoid of masculine attributes, neutral or even feminized, symbolically castrated. Most do not fantasize about this man to whom they could lend their skirt or who cries rivers in front of a rose water film, who puts on makeup in the morning and waits to be invited to dinner. They do not dream of this being with whom we are kept in our ears all day long, androgynous in overalls and a scooter, “assuming her part of femininityin a joyful display. He may be acclaimed by a certain elite all excited at the idea of ​​breaking down sexual boundaries, in practice he does not attract many people. Fashion magazines may rave about Timothée Chalamet’s bare back at the Venice Film Festival, or applaud the new men’s lace briefs from the Tom Ford Spring-Summer 2023 collection, a symbol of the advent of“another definition of masculinity”, these trappings have no chance of appearing on the list of Hanukkah gifts for ordinary mortals. To their dismay, the law of universal attraction remains resistant to this homogenization of genders and sexes.

The majority of women know that the difference between the sexes is not a danger but a promise of adventure, that it is not a springboard towards inequality but a chance of encounter.

Noemie Halioua

The fact is, the boy bands that charm hordes of teenage girls at every gig, those that grace the covers of women’s magazines or land lead roles in movies have little in common with Conchita Wurst or Bilal Hassani. Not that it is inappropriate to fantasize about Conchita Wurst or Bilal Hassani, of course, who can be very likeable otherwise, but let’s say that it is dishonest to set them up as a model of universal seducers. On the other hand, each year, the American magazine People draws up the podium of the sexiest men on the planet: in 2021, it is the actor Paul Rudd which was consecrated succeeding Michael B. Jordan, George Clooney, Brad Pitt or even Idris Elba. Infinitely popular Apollos with female audiences, comfortable in their pomp, not “deconstructednor sensitive to thegender fluidityfor a penny. Unless the spectacle of Elba in a heel or Clooney with false eyelashes escaped me, in which case it would be wise to point it out in the comments of this post.

Read alsoRadical feminists attack the leaders of Nupes

The fact is that regardless of aggressive militant rhetoric, most women continue to support strong and built men, conquerors and powerful, let’s even say protectors since we are not afraid of words, in which they do not instinctively perceive a potential rapist or a rival otherness that justifies a declaration of war. The majority of women know that the difference between the sexes is not a danger but a promise of adventure, that it is not a springboard towards inequality but a chance of encounter. Let’s go even further: for most women, it is precisely this difference that is considered exciting, erogenous, exciting, like the electromagnetic interactions that cause two opposite charges to strongly attract each other. The majority of women know perfectly well that there are rapists, manipulators, machos, perverts, but also tender, generous, gentle people in the other sex and that there is no justification for wanting to kill them. all as such, or to feminize them, which amounts to the same thing (what is feminizing a man if not covering the ground in order to program his disappearance?).

The new inquisitors want to rebuild the imaginations and to do this create new gadgets, new words, new expressions.

Noemie Halioua

Even yesterday, this assertion would not have been worth scratching a few lines on electronic paper, but today it is considered retrograde, old-fashioned, humiliating and has every chance of provoking torrents of insults. This statement which would have been an unnamed banality yesterday has become revolutionary, an act of delinquency vis-à-vis the dominant thought. A risk of being chased by a handful of aggressive activists who judge the majority of women indoctrinated, victims of brainwashing and gender stereotypes from which they believe they are liberated. We would not be able to understand that we want what society has taught us to want, in short we want badly, while they believe themselves from the height of their infinite contempt, freed from all ideology. Driven by a gigantic condescension, they set themselves the goal of straightening up these poor girls (therefore us), re-educating them until they understand what they must desire and love. Women in their majority do not plebiscite the deconstructed man? So we need to “change mentalities», to re-educate their deviant desire, to twist these primary aspirations under the pretext of putting them right side up. Make Sandrine Rousseau’s “deconstructed man” the sexual beast dreamed of by all, make it a universal symbol and impose it against all odds. A bit like those unworthy parents who force the spoon of cod liver into the mouth of the child who does not want it, imagining that this way the bastard will learn to appreciate it, when he ends up the most often by spitting in their face.

Read alsoSandrine Rousseau, the feminist who dreams of carrying ecology in 2022

The New Inquisitors want to rebuild imaginations and to do so create new gadgets, new words, new expressions. For example, using an extensive definition of “toxic masculinity» or «benevolent sexism“. The first aims to condemn the deep nature of the being with a penis by criminalizing it, that is to say denying it its innocence in order to build this specimen artificially “deconstructed“, ideologically and chemically “pure“, in accordance with the system of values ​​judged “irreproachable», lobotomized, infinitely conditioned. The second, to reject everything that constitutes the asymmetry of the relationship of seduction that makes women melt: gallantry, the instinct of protection, the spirit of conquest. The project aims to domesticate crowds, making men feel guilty for who they are, women for what they want, by asserting to both that they are only reproducing internalized social norms for, ultimately, make the meeting null and void. Make the other similar, the same, for everyone, and thus joyfully sign the end of humanity. Alas, the inquisitors have forgotten the ultimate lesson of totalitarianism: it is the search for excessive purity that underlies the toxicity of these regimes.

This is why the writer Pierre Cormary uses, to qualify these inquisitors, the very appropriate term “excisors”, in reference to those castrators of traditional societies who cut the clitoris of young women with a piece of glass, to prevent them from feeling pleasure and enjoying. A process aimed at better controlling these young women, submitting them to the desire of others, making them pure objects that would not be thwarted by their own desire. In the name of a chimerical emancipation from sexual duality, Western circumcisers have as their end the guilt of the flesh, the abolition of the sexes, the liquidation of desire and pleasure, enjoyment and love, anarchists by nature, which always admit a degree of asymmetry and vulnerability, even chaos. Postmodernity wants to put an end to sexuality and love, accused of all the evils of the world, a Promethean project lost in advance, since these aspirations are inscribed in our genes, define the DNA of humanity determined by “the will to live of the species”in the words of Arthur Schopenhauer.

SEE ALSO – Wokism: how gender theory has infiltrated schools and national education?