FIGAROVOX / INTERVIEW - The media and societal hurricane triggered by the Weinstein affair continues. If the harassing testimonials must be ..
FIGAROVOX / INTERVIEW - The media and societal hurricane triggered by the Weinstein affair continues. If testimonies of harassment must be taken seriously, respect for the presumption of innocence and the need to rigorously define the notion of harassment are just as important, argues the philosopher.
LE FIGARO. - The controversy provoked by theWeinstein affair has taken on a global dimension, with the corollary of a liberation of speech. The hashtag #balancetonporc has resulted in a flood of messages, testimonials and challenges on social networks. France has discovered that harassment and sexual assault seem to be everywhere. Have you been surprised by this terrible picture and this impressive media phenomenon?
Alain FINKIELKRAUT. - I was initially surprised by the formulation of the hashtag that triggered the mobilization: "You also tell by giving the name and details, a sexual harassment that you knew in your job: balance your pig." Surprised is elsewhere a weak word. I had a gag. We are tympanizing day and night with values, but the word "balance" and the practice it induces are contrary to all the values of civilization. The end does not justify the means, the emancipation can not go through the denunciation. A lawyer, Marie Dosé, said it very clearly: "A guilt can not be decreed on the social networks but questions itself judicially." It is not a progress but a dangerous regression that to release the word of the test contradictory.
Marlene Schiappa, Minister for Equality between Women and Men, said she wanted to fight "the culture of rape". Is France, in your opinion, characterized by this culture, this "tacit social consensus"?
In the aftermath of the attacks of November 13, a slogan flourished spontaneously: "We are on the terrace". We: women and men peacefully mixed. As he wrote Saul Bellow in a splendid homage to the city of Paris, "few things are more agreeable, more civilized than a quiet terrace at dusk." We defended this symbol of a happy mix against jihadist anger, and two years later we are told that sex is a lure and that women live on the terrace like behind closed doors, in perpetual fear of ubiquitous pigs. . "The culture of rape permeates the collective unconscious of our societies," says Muriel Salmona, the psychiatrist on whom the Secretary of State for the Equality of Women and Men is based. What is convenient with the unconscious is that it is irrefutable. If in the name of your experience of streets and cafes you protest against this general pillory, Muriel Salmona smiles with an air of understanding: your denial of man at bay proves that it has touched right.
However, we can not consider all the testimonies that flock to social networks as null and void on the pretext that they do not respect the forms. Sexism is obviously not dead, too much Weinstein on the cheap misuses their position of power.
But when a third of prisoners in French prisons are for crimes and sexual offenses, it is absurd to say that justice remains passive and to solemnly appeal to the President of the Republic for it to fill the gaps in right as did, in ignorance of the facts, indignant petitioners in The Sunday Journal. France has the most repressive arsenal against macho behavior, it is not me who says it, it is the Union of the Judiciary, that one can not tax weakness for the strong.
The harassment at work is civilly and criminally sanctioned. Seven hundred and fifty delegates work with the Defender of Rights to investigate the facts reported to them. This is not enough, it seems. "The envy of the criminal", diagnosed a while ago by Philippe Muray, has become insatiable, and, to inflate the figures, all distinction is abolished between failed seduction and physical aggression. The rejected dredger becomes a stalker: "If we too, we gave the name of the predators who have (1) disrespected us verbally (2) tried the game," suggests in a second tweet Sandra Muller, the journalist to whom the we must #balancetonporc.
Edwy Plenel, who definitely does not miss one, gives the beautiful name of "revolution" to this insane extension of the field of harassment. No, Edwy, the feminist revolution has already taken place and it has borne great fruit. Fifty years ago, women did not belong. Few were those who dared to go it alone. As Alice Ferney writes in her magnificent book The Bourgeois, "Their lives were dedicated to making lives." We have, in a few decades, broken with this immemorial history.
Women now have the choice to develop in themselves something other than the capacity to procreate. They have acquired mastery of filiation, they have access to all trades, they sit in number in the National Assembly. They divorced as they wanted and when they wanted, and the entrepreneur who would consider wage discrimination is liable to the criminal court. Added to this is the fact that the surname is no longer obligatory, that the medically assisted procreation for all is in the process of institutionalizing filiation without a father. When the disappearance of the man becomes a right of the woman, is it still serious to speak of patriarchal order?
But triumphant modernity does not solve all the problems. She even creates new ones. The right to the child leads in many countries to the commodification of women's bodies that their poverty makes available. With surrogacy, the rent of bellies becomes commonplace. This enslavement is not attributable to male domination, but to the perhaps fatal convergence between advances in biotechnology and the inflation of subjective rights.
The "fight against patriarchy" and "male domination" have concomitantly concentrated on the French language by promoting inclusive writing. Some hearing the French Academy worry about a "Mortal danger" considered the formula excessive or unnecessarily alarmist. Is the midpoint and equality of agreements threatening our language?
Inclusive writing claims to go back to the origins of evil. The power of men begins in words, say his supporters. So, to root out the roots of rape, they mechanically say "those", "each and everyone", "all and all", they write "The Marseillais have swept away" or "your deputy" "On the move!" and they spoil a little more, by this ridiculous stuttering, a language that really did not need that. Inclusive writing is the inane caricature of original feminism.
Neofeminists, at the forefront of the #balancetonporc phenomenon, were further behind at the sexual assault of Cologne and considered that street harassment in the Pajol Chapel neighborhood was due to narrow sidewalks. Is there not also a culture of denial?
One of the objectives of the campaign #balancetonporc was to drown the fish of Islam: forgotten Cologne, forgotten the Pajol Chapel, forgotten coffees forbidden to women in Sevran or Rillieux-la-Pape, we tracked sexism where he was a hated survivance, and he covered the veil of the struggle against all discrimination with the places where he still fashioned manners. American stars were falling like flies, placards warning against sexism were plastered on the walls of the French Parliament, and then patatras, the scenario of Dare feminism! goes crazy: the fish killers catch, despite themselves, a very big Islamist fish that they can not throw back to the sea.
Because Tariq Ramadan not only accused of harassment but of rape and assault. If the facts are proven, he will be disqualified even in the eyes of Edgar Morin, his great progressive caution. That's good, but I personally would have preferred that Ramadan fall for his speech rather than his behavior. Because the succession is ready. Impeccable preachers are already pursuing his work of indoctrination. There lies the danger.
Charlie Hebdo has made its name, and since Mediapart and part of the sphere "Islamo-leftist" attacks the satirical newspaper. Riss responded in a scathing editorial to Edwy Plenel. What does this confrontation inspire you?
Edwy Plenel's thought rests entirely on an analogy between the fate of the Jews until the inclusive Shoah and the situation today in France for Muslims. To speak of a problem of Islam is therefore, in his opinion, to be in line with exterminating anti-Semitism. Forgetting that in the 1930s no terrorist was claiming the Talmud and denying with a constancy that commands admiration the glaring reality of Muslim anti-Semitism, he treats racist all those who say with Elisabeth Badinter that a second society tries to impose themselves insidiously in the public space and which refuse to explain this phenomenon by the ambient Islamophobia.
The opponents of Plenel are the enemies of the human race. The cover of Charlie who challenges him is "a new red poster", nothing less. And this is part, he adds, of a general campaign of war against Muslims. Thus Plenel, mad about himself and his compassionate zeal, comes to use the vocabulary of the lunatics of Allah. What did the Kouachi brothers do, indeed, if not answer by arms to the war that Charlie declared them by insulting the prophet? Riss is right. This sentence is unforgivable because, in designating Charlie once again as an aggressor, she adoubes in advance the killers who will want to finish the work started on January 7, 2015. The truth breaks out finally: Mediapart is not an information site, it is a fanatical sect and as much more wicked than nothing ever begins the good anti-racist conscience of its members.
In 2015, in Le Figaro, you draw a line between "the party of the start", that of Charlie, and "the party of the other", that of Mediapart. Are we witnessing the victory of the first over the second?
I will not speak of victory. But another left exists than the party of denial and national atonement. The controversy raging testifies: this left is now shot for blow. That's very good news.