the dizziness of the anti-MeToo backlash

Published on November 4, 2024 at 8:00 a.m.updated on November 4, 2024 at 10:07 a.m.

While the jury must announce its choice on Tuesday, women at the heart of the cases cited by Caroline Fourest, including Judith Godrèche, Hélène Devynck, Mona Chollet, Anouk Grinberg, denounce a book riddled with errors and showing complete ignorance of the work on the sexual and gender-based violence.

Considering that the Femina Prize jury selected this year among the finalists the essay by Caroline Fourest entitled “Le Vertigo #MeToo”,

Considering the numerous breaches of accuracy and truth in the writings of Caroline Fourest revealed over the years, but also in this latest work,

Considering further that it is wrong that Caroline Fourest, p. 36, evokes “the violence of Mona Chollet’s papers against [elle] in “Le Monde Diplomatique””, “for having denounced the double discourse of Tariq Ramadan”while the latter, who never devoted a line to him in this newspaper, criticized Tariq Ramadan’s participation in the European Social Forum in 2003,

Considering that Caroline Fourest is wrong to write, p. 111, that Iris Brey, speaking of “French rape culture”do “as if France only sheltered accomplices and America only feminists”while on the contrary this concept, forged in the United States, has only really been applied to France since Valérie Rey-Robert’s essay in 2019,

Considering that it is wrong that Caroline Fourest, p. 131, disputes Anouk Grinberg’s statement “everyone who worked with Depardieu in the cinema knows that he attacks women”estimating that “reality is always more complicated”while it is not possible to reduce to “simple abuse of language” hands on the buttocks, on the breasts or genitals, sometimes in the panties, in full view of everyone,

Considering that it is wrongly written, p. 214-217, that Muriel Salmona would be “psychoanalyst”that she would have been there “therapist” of Nadège Beausson-Diagne, that her practice would fall under the “suggestive therapy”and that Caroline Fourest, at the cost of confusing the psychoanalysis of repression and the psychiatry of trauma, accuses him of resorting to a concept that is otherwise non-existent, the “repressed traumatic memory”,

Also read

Whereas, p. 228-234, it is wrong that Caroline Fourest qualifies the complaint for sexual assault against the vice-president of the Ciivise as a complaint for rape, wrongly that she writes that, during the gynecological examination, “according to the complainant”Louison, the expert pediatrician would have just “mimiced the gesture” of the aggressor, while she was accused of having reproduced it by asking this incest victim to relive the scene, wrongly because it is written that the accused would have been acquitted at the end of her trial when there was no trial but a simple investigation, wrongly claiming that the plaintiff’s lawyer would then have “joins the new Ciivise”which has never been the case,

Considering that it is wrongly written, p. 255-256, that Sandrine Rousseau, “attempted to covet the head of the party”would have used “confidences collected about Julien Bayou” to rule it out, while neither could claim it due to the statutes of their party, and she would know “wield this weapon of massive reputation destruction” what is the accusation of VSS when Julien Bayou himself had mentioned it in “le Figaro” two months before it,

Considering that it is wrongly written on p. 257 that, in the PPDA case, with the exception of a single case, all these “complaints concern prescribed facts, and have therefore been closed without further action”since four testimonies report facts that are not prescribed and have not been dismissed, that seven other women have contested the prescription, including that of Hélène Devynck, and that their complaints are now in the hands of investigating judges ,

Also read

Considering that it is wrong that Caroline Fourest, p. 254-256, seriously calls into question the probity and integrity of the Egaé group and its founder, Caroline De Haas, because it seems to ignore article 1153-5 of the Labor Code requiring any company to prevent acts of sexual violence, in particular through the establishment of reporting systems,

Considering that Caroline Fourest is wrong to write, p. 265-266, that Samuel Theis, following an accusation, would have been “put in solitary confinement by his team and the producer”Caroline Bonmarchand, while the protocol was defined with the entire team, including Samuel Theis, and it is false to say that the film “difficulty finding a distributor for the theatrical release”since the Ad-Vitam company has never dissociated itself from the film, which is scheduled for release on March 26, 2025,

Considering that Caroline Fourest is wrong to write, p. 276-284, about Judith Godrèche, that it would be “a very old world that its accusations tell us”, while it is still current, that she insinuates that her parents would have “accustomed to this sordid barter” before her meeting with Benoît Jacquot whom she believes she knows would have “deflowered”, that it is wrong to write that “even her closest friends did not suspect her suffering”, while, according to an investigation published in the press, Caroline Bonmarchand, “her best friend at the time”, remembers exchanges with her around these “rough sex”, and a confidence: “Benoît had slapped him,” which lead her today to testify to those who have the right to have been, when they were kids, the confidante of Judith Godrèche about the violence of which she was a victim,

Considering that the dialogues of the film “Icon of French Cinema” are quoted inaccurately, and that it is violent to accuse the director of “Me Too” of ” expose “ his daughter, according to “auto repeat”and to claim that she herself would today be a victim “other rights of way”manipulated by “puppeteers”and to oppose it to actresses like Catherine Deneuve and Fanny Ardant, critics of #MeToo, who, for their part, “have made a career thanks to their talents and temperaments”before discussing the “sexual transaction” of “young competitors ready to do anything to succeed”,

Also read

Considering that Caroline Fourest, having never contacted any of the signatories of this text to verify her information before calling it into question, did not carry out a journalistic investigation,

Considering that these breaches of accuracy and truth, which it has not been possible to identify exhaustively, betray an ideological bias contrary to the declared neutrality,

Considering that, for “hear the point of view of the accused”Caroline Fourest was content to relay that of “boys terrified of MeToo” and to console “wounded bulls”and that his essay therefore falls within the defense pleading,

Considering that, at the same time, Caroline Fourest too often discredits the point of view of victims, as evidenced by the way in which, on the very day of the release of her book, she treated a France Inter listener, Laurence, she -even a victim of sexual violence and rape, for whom sowing doubt in the name of nuance, “it’s totally harmful”and depending on who there is “not many people who don’t know the difference between rape, sexual assault or inappropriate language”more than “it always starts with an inappropriate proposition”to which the essayist replied “that we live in a polarized society where we no longer have the right to debate in nuance”to better contrast his “intellectual statement” with this “victim feeling”,

Considering that Caroline Fourest, for whom there is also a “beneficial influence”as well as a “co-responsibility of the executioner and the victim”knows nothing about feminist work against sexual and gender-based violence, and that she constantly talks about “inappropriate gestures” or even “lack of tact” for facts which could amount to aggression or rape, in defiance of the principle it emphasizes, “not all sexual violence is equal”,

Considering that Caroline Fourest, who condemns the media court, far from relying on justice, authorizes herself to decide on a case before the judgment or decides that a case would have been “badly judged”and, without having access to the file, incriminates or exonerates at will,

Considering that the claim of nuance is denied when Caroline Fourest titles a chapter “The guillotine” or repeats the word “pyre”, “media” or “celebrities”and goes so far as to draw a comparison with “Nazism and the Inquisition”,

The signatories conclude that participating in 2024 in the promotion of Caroline Fourest’s essay, after having rewarded “Triste Tigre”, by Neige Sinno, in 2023, would inevitably appear, in the fight against sexual and gender-based violence, as a step backwards. , Or backlash, and therefore invite the Femina Prize jury not to confuse feminine and feminist.

Signatories :

By Laurence Berekspecialized educator
Caroline Bonmarchandproducer
Iris Breyauthor and director
Mona Cholletauthor
Caroline De Haasfeminist activist
Hélène Devynckjournalist, writer,
Judith Godrecheactress, screenwriter and director
Anouk Grinbergactress
Louison Lume
Aïssa Maïgaactress and director
Florence Porcelauthor
Sandrine Rousseauenvironmentalist MP
Muriel Salmonapsychiatrist