To all those who think we're going insulting women and trying to put them back in the kitchen by force or I I don't know what, you're in the wrong place place. And likewise to all those who think we're going to show the slightest a sign of conciliation with feminism and the derived doctrines, you are also in the wrong place. You have Understood, today we're talking about feminism and deconstruction. these terms which are highly absurd and I'm going to spend the hour that I tried to demonstrate it and we will start immediately by specifying the title of the conference. We'll finish with feminism, that's it. deliberately brutal and I know very well although this title will trigger before even to start reactions either of excitement, that's why I have This warning was indeed placed at the beginning. either of sewer and of revolt deep. Oh my god, he wants us remove our hard-earned gains and so forth. And it's going to be the a peculiarity, in fact, of my company today since I puts you at a disadvantage with this new vision of masculinity masculinity that the media have abusively called masculinism. It is Absurd, actually. There is a reaction masculine, which I think was necessary in many respects since, given what The men are getting into it here for some time now, with the fact that we want to emasculate them at all costs and lessen the differences This reaction between men and women is... understandable even if it takes some rather absurd shapes. I didn't come to explain that the accomplished man is the one He who speaks loudest, wins more money, sleeps with women, transforms his inability to govern his own passions as an outward sign of virility. That's not what masculinity is about. traditional. In fact, this reaction uh, let's call it again the The term should be enclosed in quotation marks. masculinists is also pathetic and ridiculous that what we call the feminism. However, feminism, is not ridiculed and presented like something a teenager in crisis would do in his room. You see, it's presented as an extremely noble and all that, whereas it is extremely destructive. What I am to have come here to defend something, that's something which we don't hear much about, actually. I I came to defend something much older, much more and in my opinion much more profound. beautiful. And we are very far from man predator. The authentic man is not a predator whose goal to imprison women and crush the world. Quite the opposite. That's a lot Actually, it's more beautiful. the possibility that he There truly is a femininity and a virility, that both be good that it be neither identical nor hostile but highly complementary and that the sexual difference is not a humiliation inflicted on half of humanity is not a social construct pure but a constitutive dimension of human essence at the ontological level even. And above all, I would like to leave of something that seems to me to have become Extraordinarily difficult to say. THE feminism, as it is constituted Doctrinally, along with the entire foundation, right? it's a very, uh, heterogeneous block sometimes, has no property rights nor exclusivity on the defense of women. None. That's why I put it for To defend women authentically. Finally, I don't know which title I'm going to I'll put it into practice, I'll think about it. But you Go and see, it's probably one of his greatest cultural successes at feminism for having succeeded in installing this equivalence in people's minds. To love women, to respect them, to want Their good is to be feminist. Criticizing feminism, therefore, means necessarily have something against women. But why? Why did a family of doctrine emerge? at a specific moment in history, a precise moment, very doctrinally unsound Moreover, and I think I have demonstrated throughout the conferences, would she have received the moral monopoly of the Women's dignity? At what point? Why should we accept a whole anthropology of emancipation for to consider that a woman should not be humiliated, brutalized, abandoned or used? Why should we join? To de Beauvoirs, Milette, Delphie, Firestone or Butler to think that a A man who theorizes about his wife is one of coward? Even worse is someone who flees from their responsibility is beneath his Paternity? That a seducer who treats women as objects consumption is not manifest at all no masculine grandeur. I specifically want to reclaim this territory. to reclaim it for myself and yet another Sometimes, I do what I want. I'm saying at every conference and it doesn't matter if that embarrassed. The defense of women is too important to be abandoned. to feminist Christianity and defense of man is too important to be abandoned to once again guillet masculinist cheap, macho social media and internship seller reclaiming his masculinity. YOU You have the same feminist side, right? the girls start screaming in cushions where, I don't know what. Because that at the same time, I would like this conference, do something much more positive than distributing blows for 1 hour and we'll dishing out a lot of blows, huh? Don't worry. But if in the end a woman leaves this conference with just a list of errors doctrinal errors committed by feminism or feminists or doctrine As a feminist, I wouldn't have succeeded in my The same applies to men. I want that People go out, that's my goal. in any case, this conference with something rarer, an idea positive view of what the sexes are humans. not a list of functions mandatory, not a uniform sociological or anthropological, not a injunction to become a caricature of traditional woman or man. I I would like us all to be able to watch this that we actually are and learning to wear the responsibility of the sex that was given to us assigned. And you know that it's a Catholic channel, so I'll even to elaborate further on my sex sentence bestowed by God himself. And that's Not nothing. So our topic is not absolutely not who is better, man or the woman. The question itself is absurd, since humanity is divided divided into two groups: men and women. SO that's because there's a complementarity necessary to preserve the for that the species pardon may be preserved. He is not more who has more suffered throughout history humanity, because that comes back often. Look at the men, they were going to war. It was, it was Not easy either. Yeah, great. as if we could establish a ranking general sexual suffering with a spreadsheet. No, my question here, it is fundamental. How are we arrived at thinking about man and woman primarily through rivalry, the domination, emancipation and autonomy to the point that the difference Does she herself eventually become suspect? I won't elaborate too much on the aspects here. social issues, the fact of raising women and men against each other to numb the social struggle. Obviously, it's absurd to talk about the woman. There is no woman, there is several women, several classes social, several types of individuals. Obviously, at what point do we has moved from the question perfectly Understandable? Is this practice just? Is this normal? What's happening? Let us get beaten up, that no lawsuit can be filed, etc. A much more incorrect question ultimately, any difference received between is it man and woman potentially oppressive? To what at what point did we begin to think that a real difference was likely necessarily to produce a illegitimate hierarchy? That a hierarchy was necessarily at risk of to produce domination? and that for to prevent domination, it was necessary ultimately neutralize as much as The difference is possible. And I'm going to be precise about the word feminism because otherwise we wouldn't be, we wouldn't be rigorous. There is no such thing as feminism. as I told you. There is no a homogeneous feminist current that would have said exactly the same thing during centuries. The authors we are going to meet sometimes violently contradict each other in this conference. Some feminists who claim to be who they want legal equality. Others think in term of sexual class in the quasi Marxist in the sense of the term. Others still analyze the family as a structure economic. Some claim to on the contrary, a feminine difference positive and others end up deconstructing the very category of women. So I'm not going to make a Imaginary enemy, put everyone in the same bag. Just as we did Same with my '68s. There's no M '68. It There are people who think and who contradict each other. But the goal it's about bringing consistency doctrinal in all this for our categories of thought. And feminism That's not it. That would be far too much. easy and above all it would prevent me from to understand what is really interesting. How can the same logic emancipation can move, it radicalize, change object, meet resistances and produce its own structural contradictions. So we're going to take the authors at Serious as always. And then, it bad because I swear to you that reading Judith Butler, now that makes you want to go vomit in his toilet, if I can allow me. But it doesn't matter, when these authors will see something of That's right, we'll say it. When the authors in questions will raise good questions. We'll keep them. But then, at each This time, we will ask the question on which conception of man and woman Does this conclusion hold true? What concept of bodily freedom? What conception of nature? What conception of the relationship? And that's it. that I will announce very clearly the point of view from which I will to speak today. You know, I Go ahead and say it, it's not a chain which advances hidden. I put it in the chain description. I'm not going to try to produce a neutral compromise between feminism and Christianity. I'm not going to spend an hour and a half on explain that Jesus was secretly feminist. Look, he was talking to the women. But great. Jesus was a Jew highly traditional. that Saint Paul had misunderstood his era or that the Christian tradition deserves to be preserved on the condition of removing all of this which disturbs the 21st century. No, it's this which disturbs Catholic dogma Thrown in the bin as far as I'm concerned. You see, I will embrace Christian tradition as a profound anthropological criterion and as the foundation of our civilization. Man and woman were created. They receive a nature they do not have invented. Their body is not a foreign material than a consciousness The sovereign would come to live provisionally. Their sex belongs to their concrete way of being human. Their dignity is equal by definition. Their difference is as real as patent. And this difference is not ordered to a war but to a Communion. And it's not defined simply Because men, they have a thing who not between the legs. That's a lot deeper than that. It goes as far as the basic psychology and it even goes so far as to down to the soul. The soul of man and of the women are not the same from one point from a Christian point of view. That's the point of departure. So first of all, if all this... repels me, and for you, I just... to move beyond methodological rigor because that I subscribe to a Christian dogma, you can indeed leave the conference and go see more studies anthropological, materialistic and etc. Only then will we be able to discuss what that means concretely, inherent virtues, vocations, motherhood, the fatherhood, authority, of the chastity, family, giving. But at The less frankly the criterion is posed And you won't be able to do that for me. to reproach. And I believe that's precisely what is missing from a quantity enormous amount of contemporary debate. We don't never discuss without asking what is the thing we are talking about. We are discussing the women's liberation even before to define what woman is. We're discussing toxic masculinity or something before defining healthy masculinity. We discuss social roles without ask if there is something in the sexual difference that precedes the social roles. We are discussing freedom without asking whether freedom consists simply to remove constraints or if it has a positive purpose. I must refer you to the treaty on the freedom. It's exactly as if I As I was saying, the horse needs to be freed. OK, but what about? From the chain that It prevents him from walking, that's great. Of these four legs because she constitutes a limitation of its possible movements because it would like to avoid it, there you have a issue. A liberation makes no sense depending on the nature of what we released. You can remove one thing this which prevents her from being herself. YOU you can also in the name of liberation begin to remove what constitutes it. Do you see what I mean? And I thinks that's where the the real battle behind feminism. It is much deeper than the vote, salary, career or the division of household chores. These The questions are not absurd. but they are not the last level that is precisely what we need to achieve here. THE The last level is more dizzying. Does my freedom consist of to fulfill a received nature or does it consist of decreasing gradually the authority of all this which is given to me before I make my choice? And you make the connection with the conference out of my 68, with the conference on Nietzsche, with my lecture on the Marxism. Because if you choose the second answer, you will inevitably encounter the body. And the The body is a scandal for autonomy absolute. The body doesn't do what we wants to, huh. Try to stop your heart That way, it's a bit complicated. He You would have to drown in a pool. Finally, it's extremely complicated. Try to dilate your pupil while staring at a light source. So there, you will have to take some Psychotropic drugs and all that. You don't have a Total control over your body. Of the Sometimes you have spasms, you finally, It's complicated. We don't have the body selected. We don't even know why we It's this size, uh, why are we It looks like this. So here today, the modernism that frees the ability to achieve finally the level of transhumanism it begins with the fact that we can change sex, change appearance and etcera, you see. But the body, it has determinations. He makes me too vulnerable, it makes me dependent, it I belong to a generation. That is to say, right now, my head In practical terms, it's a male lineage which goes back to the very origins of humanity. So that's several million years. My body reminds me that I I come from someone, I come from my father and that I myself can transmit the life. I will be a father, God willing. on. And among all the realities bodily, sexual difference is particularly unbearable to a philosophy that dreams of a subject entirely self-made. Because that she told me before any decision, you You are not all of humanity by yourself, you humanity is defined according to a gendered modality. So if I am a woman, there are things I won't be able to do. I will have great difficulty being able to to join the special forces of a an army worthy of the name. Do you see? because I have an automatic inferiority complex to do pull-ups, to carry my own weight, to carry bags of 25 kg and so on, perhaps to have operational management or other. And Likewise, if I'm a man, well, listen, This might make some people laugh. but I'm sure there are some who They are frustrated, why not? But I I can't carry a child, that's because I I can't be pregnant. That's how it is. That will never change. I can do Everything I want. I saw that there is some rather strange couples who They wear fake breasts there to breastfeed babies because there are men who who dream of breastfeeding babies. Ben Listen, you can't breastfeed babies naturally since you you will never be able to produce milk In fact, by definition. And there you have it. why this conference will not be simply a history of feminism. On will just use this story rigorous so that people understand although the question has been studied and understood as Nietzsche conference on modern freedom. It is a conference on the step the given, the give. It will be a conference on the nature and on the matter of which the modernity has gradually learned to to suspect what precedes the choice. It's part of our themes and it's there authors like Génon or Girard will become very, very important for our question. Not because they would have written a general theory of feminism that would spare us from reading Feminists, no, but because he gives us tools to understand certain broader transformations. On one hand, the erasure of differences qualitative aspects of the design process increasingly uniform of the individual. Of the other, the rivalry that arises when one no longer knows how to think about the relationship except in in terms of comparison, imitation and competition. But I'm not going to spoil too much of what's going to happen to happen. We're going to start NOW. I just want you understand the promise of this conference, or at least my business. We're going to try to do two things simultaneously. That's what makes it a difficult subject. Destroy a doctrine is not enough. We must return visible what she was preventing us from see. So we're going to look at how the feminism has been able to become a grid general reading of the report between the sexes. How some of these large figures have gradually shifted the The question of justice towards that of The emancipation of the given? and how This logic can ultimately make the femininity itself is difficult to think about positively. But opposite, we're going to rebuild. You know that the goal of These conferences are not just about To clash is to propose something to the other side and not something that comes from my little invention, I wouldn't have this pretentious, but about reconnecting precisely France and our civilization has its deep roots in what a man is and what a woman is women. And we're going to get out of all the They're absurd caricatures, really. So perhaps the paradox I want really examine today. And if the feminism had ended in the name of the defending women by making them femininity is becoming increasingly difficult to to receive as a possession. That's it the real question we're going to ask is we're going back to the beginning to to answer all these questions. We're going First, start with reality. Even if I have issued my doctrinal warning In the introduction, we don't start with the Bible, we don't start with a theory politics, we don't start with a social demands, we begin with the most basic reality in the sense of periodic table. The human being is a sexually reproducing species. So, there you go, already point. Humans are a species sexual. We do not meet first neutral human individuals to whom a company would then come and distribute two costumes and assign organs genitals, first names and roles called men and women. We meet first of all men and women because that the human body itself is organized according to sexual difference. That's how we're made with a sexual polarity. This difference obviously passes through the organs breeding stock, but it is not limited to that not. It concerns development embryonic. It concerns the gonads, sex hormones, puberty, the secondary sexual characteristics certain morphological differences averages, body composition and all of this can be understood in relation to a extremely simple biological reality. Sexual reproduction automatically implies in this case two functions complementary. That's a fact. biological. One organized around the production of the small gamet, the other around the production of the big game. A sterile man obviously does not cease to be a man because of this function is not currently being accomplished. A a menopausal woman does not cease to be a woman because she can no longer design. Obviously, we don't let's not define an organism solely by what he manages to do at that moment where we look at it, but by the type of bodily organization to which it belongs. The demonstration will be rigorous, therefore I beg you to hook your brains. And yes, he developmental anomalies exist sexual. It is also a fact that we do not Cannot deny. There are variations hormonal, pathologies, cases atypical, as is the case everywhere in biology because we are still in a a world that is ultimately quite chaotic in the biological development at the level of the degenerations of the genetic code and All. But the existence of an anomaly does not does not destroy the structure of which it is precisely an anomaly. A child can to be born with six fingers. It doesn't make the number of fingers according to indeterminate which the human hand is organized. Do you see what I mean? Because that we hear this argument a lot. There's there are people who are born like that horse between two sexes but that doesn't does not define a biological standard. So why we need to start here before ask what the company does with the sexual difference. We must recognize that she did not invent it. But Be careful, and that's where we need to avoid a symmetrical error, precisely. There Biology tells us that there is a man and a woman. It is not enough for us to say what it means to be humanly a man or to be humanly a woman. On can measure testosterone levels. On will never get into the result analyzing the definition of courage. On can observe a uterus. You won't read it there the dignity of motherhood. We can describe average muscle power of one sex in relation to the other. That's us will never say why a physical force should serve to protect rather than to terrorize. A science can describe a function. She does not produce it on her own the moral purpose of this function. This is a crucial distinction. that I have to do here because we're going to refuse throughout the development two opposing reductionisms. The first which consists of saying everything is socially Therefore, the horn construction means nothing. And the second would consist of saying everything is biological, so a dose of Blood is enough to explain paternity, the Motherhood, love, fidelity and the vocation. Both are extremely poor. Human beings are corporeal but It is a human body. An inhabited body through intelligence, will, the relationship, freedom, transcendence and responsibility. Therefore, it is necessary moving from organic to the anthropological aspect, and only then, we will be able to talk about the revelation with a big R and what it tells us about this human reality that we do not have not invented. And that is precisely what Genesis states. She does not create the sexual difference by decree religious. She receives a reality from world and gives it meaning in order of creation. God created man in his picture. He created him in the image of God. He created man and woman. It's necessary to hear both statements at the same time time because our entire conference will hold on to that. First affirmation, the man and the woman belong fully to the same humanity, same origin, same nature, same ultimate calling, same dignity fundamental before God. The woman is not not a secondary humanity, an app reproductive, a creature between man and the animal. Secondly, this equality does not It doesn't eliminate the difference. The text does not God did not create a neutral human being which then manifests itself accidentally in two forms without meaning. He said man and woman. That's the first thing that thought Christian can hold together and that the modernity has a very hard time holding on together. Equality of dignity and A profound, real difference. And Ultimately, why do we have so much trouble? With this idea? Because we have gradually got used to thinking about equality in the form of similarity. If two people have the of the same value, they should be able to to be described in the same terms. If They have different functions, we immediately suspects that a function is superior to the other. If one receives something that the other person does not receive, We're already trying to figure out who's in charge. But that doesn't follow at all. One difference is not a hierarchy of dignity. And even when a hierarchy of function, it does not imply mechanically a hierarchy of value personal. In an orchestra, the conductor does not become ontologically more human, like the violinist. In a the body, the heart is not humiliated because he doesn't think and the brain is not oppressed because he does not pump Not blood. I take it voluntarily simple analogies because the difficulty has become almost pluserile. We forgot that one thing can to be different from another without being less good than her. And as soon as we many people rediscover this obvious fact. False problems will actually disappear of themselves. Man does not need to be a woman to recognize her dignity. The woman especially does not need to become a successful man to prove that she is fully human. THE the second account in Genesis goes on further because he is not satisfied to assert the difference. He shows this what it means. I'm just doing a little Important aside. Does that seem obvious to you? What am I saying here? But be aware that in the context in which the Bible was written, we talks about companies that are very few developed and where women were considered as property in the majority of humanity. And the text of youth comes and he registers the woman fully within humanity. Do you see? In short, in Genesis, man is alone. He is surrounded by the world. He names the animals. He already does something such as intelligence and mastery of creation. But the text tells us suddenly, it is not good for man be alone. Note well, the lack of man is not resolved by more possession, more territory, more animals, more power, or even by a friend like him. He is resolved by the appearance of someone who resembles him enough that he can to recognize in her but which differs enough of him so that she is not simply a double and that she can to pose a problem for him. In fact, here bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh. That's what the text says. It's a scream of recognition. Finally, someone who belongs to my nature but which is not not me. And that gives us a second fundamental idea. The first meaning of sexual difference in the biblical narrative is not the Rivalry is communion. It is extraordinarily important because that a considerable part of the thought modern part of the conflict to explain the relationship. Who holds the power, who Who does he work for, who imposes the standards? Who benefits from the institution? Who is dominant, who is dominated? These questions can be very relevant in certain situations. There are power relations and abuse envuttuus, here it is. But if you use domination as a category fundamental to understanding the relationship between man and woman, you have already lost something. You cannot seeing otherness more than as a potential threat. However, Genesis tells us proposes the opposite. Otherness makes a communion is possible for a being locked within his own identity cannot not produce alone. The other one is not First, the one who steals something from me. He is the one through whom I discover that humanity is greater than my a way of embodying it. The man discovers something of the human through woman that he cannot simply deduce from himself. The woman discovers something something of the human by man that it does not does not simply possess within it under a identical shape. And that is precisely because they are different from their union means something. And there Then comes the fall. And you saw that the angle from which I approach Genesis there it is not a religious issue Ultimately. This is how this text tells us teaches something about both sexes. And that's precisely where the downfall comes in. And then finally comes domination. And he We need to keep things in order. There shame, accusation, rupture, the disordered desire, fear, the will to possessing the other, that comes after the breaking the relationship with the divine. That is why, from a Christian perspective, male predation can never be presented as the normal expression and morality of masculinity. She is Exactly the opposite. She is the masculine power become disordered. And you really need to understand this distinction because our era makes often something Conceptually catastrophic. She observes a corruption of reality and concluded that reality itself is suspicious. A father becomes tyrannical. There fatherhood is a structure of domination. A husband is abusing his position his authority and beats his wife every In the evenings. Male authority is a oppression. Men use their physical force against children or weak beings. Male strength becomes toxic. No, the corruption of a power does not tell us not that this power was bad. She told us she needed to be ordered. If a doctor poisons his patients, you can't to conclude that medicine is bad. You say that a doctor betrayed the the purpose of his vocation. But it's the the same applies to masculinity in the Christian tradition. Christianity judges the man based on the purpose of its power. So, let's talk about this virility precisely because we have in front both of us caricatures too mediocre. The first one is that of the macho, the very popular machismo in Mexico. The person who believes that the Masculinity consists of occupying space, to impress other men, conquering women outside of marriage and etcera, displaying aggressiveness permanent, never show vulnerability and transform each competitive relationship. The second caricature is not in reaction. Since we have identified this stupidity in so-called masculinity toxic, we end up no longer knowing to define man positively. He must simply trying to be everything trembling, very thin, not dangerous not talking too much, not taking too much place because otherwise he would risk to offend women and especially to constantly ensure that his Masculinity makes no difference significant. I call that a chick, a guy like that. I say what I think, that's nevermind. In one case, we have a primate territorial, in the other, a masculinity so erased that it means nothing anymore. The tradition Christian rejects both. Because the first virtue of the strong man is not not to defeat someone, it's first to govern himself. That, Aristotle Thomas Aquinas understood this. takes up a lot of anthropology larger. Virtue is not the destruction of a power, but its prescription. Courage is not the absence of fear. A man incapable of Perceiving danger is not courageous. He is an unconscious man. Doubt it well that fear is an evolutionary function when we see a T-Rex in front of us. So, I'm not saying that we experienced at the same time as the T-Rex, but you can imagine this a primal feeling of fear, that is something very healthy. Let's say more like a bear. Courage consists of rather than governing through fear in order to remain firm in the face of a good that deserves to be defended. Temperance is not the disappearance of desire. It is desire that is put back in order. Justice is not impotence. She assumes precisely so that I can take something and I choose yet to give each one what he is due. This is the immense thing that our the era should rediscover itself. Being in control of oneself is more manly. than to crush others. A man who doesn't doesn't know how to resist his anger or his sexual urges and strikes because he is frustrated is not an excess of masculinity. A man who rapes women driven by sexual urges, which has no self-control. And no just a monster that for me would deserve the death penalty remaining, but above all a human waste who betrayed the vocation of his power physical. You see what I mean? ? This man is ruled by his anger. driven by his impulses, like a 4-year-old child years with an even greater selfishness and in the context of rape, he can destroy someone's life because For me, rape is a form of... murder, in fact, by definition. It is That's why I'm talking about the death penalty. And without going so far as coercion Physicality and sexuality, a man who cannot control his sexual desire and considers women as opportunities consumption, even with their consent, as we see today, people who go to nightclubs night, who sleep with strangers, This man has nothing manly about him. It's a slave to his genitals. We can put three rooms of bodybuilding around, a beard lumberjack and a very nice Lamborghini. He remains a slave, therefore a man extremely low. Male strength does not truly become what it is and is virtuous only in relation to this that it can be useful. Why man Is he physically more powerful in average? The Christian question is not Never very good. How is he doing? enjoy? What is this? Force commands him? The answer traditional is almost exactly the opposite of predation. This is the protection. Being able to place one's own power between danger and the one who is less capable of confront him. That's why he is It's so absurd to oppose virility to the gentleness as if the gentleness consisted of not having strength. There Christian gentleness is a strength mastered. This is not a weakness. Weakness is a sin under certain circumstances. occasions. Be aware of this. The trained horse is gentle. Not because he has no power, but because its power does not It doesn't go off in all directions. And the truly virile man, therefore, who "Self-corrected" is exactly that. Someone whose presence restores strength reassuring instead of making her threatening. And it is also here that he We must talk about authority since the word He himself became almost suspect. There Christian tradition has nothing of an anarchist. She believes in authority, in the hierarchy. She believes in order, in fatherhood. She even spoke of a very explicit way of establishing a hierarchy and of a marital order where the man assumes a specific responsibility including the text of Saint Paul which says "Woman, be submissive to your husbands and to the husbands, Treat your wives like your own "body." So there's a subtlety. huge with the text. An authority is not the right to satisfy his personal will over someone else. That's called tyranny. The authority is responsible for leading a reality towards its good. Therefore, she possesses an end external to the whim of the one who practices it. And more this The greater the authority, the greater the duty. big. That's exactly why the Christian doctrine of authority masculine can never be used to justify the small domestic despot. And However, some people do use it. for that. Because the model given to Mary is not Caesar, she is Christ. And that's where Saint Paul becomes much more dangerous for humans than for the woman, in truth. If we read the text to the end, which few people make. Yes, there is the language of the head. Yes, there is an order. Yes, there are words that deeply offend our contemporary sensibility. Alright. But we don't care about sensitivity contemporary. It will pass like everything else. the rest. Let's also read the given measurement to Mary. Love your women like the Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. Strange, isn't it? Do really the top title, therefore the leader's title. Gorgeous. Look what the head. She kneels before her disciples. She washes their feet, she She receives blows, she carries the cross and She dies. Saint John Chrysostom has perfectly understood since antiquity Christian. You demand this from your wife that the text asks of him, then accept what the text asks you. Love your woman, even unto self-sacrifice. It's more of a problem for men, isn't it? He pushes the image to the extreme. Even if he You had to give your life, suffer a thousand times times for your wife, all while lasting for you wouldn't have reached her yet measure of Christ because he has Made for strangers. So it is not not exactly the husband's charter which wants us to bring him his shoes because he just came from Discover Ephesians 5 online, Isn't that right? Christian authority is cruciform where it becomes a imposture. That's why virility traditional can be summarized in a few words much more serious than domination. That's mastery. responsibility, stability, courage, protection loyalty, transmission, fatherhood and authority. That's powerful, isn't it? And I would like particularly emphasize the stability because it's rarely discussed. A man often becomes truly precious when it becomes a point of impui, someone whose word means something. That's what I'm developing throughout the entire treatise on ethics as well. I have a chapter on men and the women, and I'm basing this on women, actually. That's the basis for this development. Someone whose presence is not subject to all these moods. Someone which does not disappear as soon as the blow His actions become apparent. Someone who accepts that a promise made yesterday limits his freedom today. There is a African proverb that says and I I dedicate this conference to Burkina Faso Faso and to all my friends there. One man is master of his decision but a slave to his word. And I I find it's something very powerful to say that. A father in this sense is not not simply a man who has biologically generated. Any an animal can give birth. Any An idiot can get a woman pregnant. Fatherhood begins when the man agrees to provide a lasting response to the life that he helped to call into the world. And that's why Saint- Joseph is a much more significant figure virile than all of them yet another times use huge quotation marks influencers on masculinity or I don't know what to do with their internship. I I swear, it cracks me up. Go see the masculinity workshops. So they all are making military preparations rotten. Just going to the army Dude, it's easier, right? Joseph did not There's no need to explain that he is still Once you put the quotation marks, I am I apologize for using these terms, they are So pathetic. Alpha, he doesn't Don't put it in the center. He does not claim that his authority is admired. He receives a a situation that completely disrupts his projects clearly because it wasn't the goal he of having a pregnant woman someone else. and he remains, he protects, he goes into exile when he It is necessary, he works, he ensures the daily presence, he takes on he himself has a responsibility for which he It's not even, I told you biologically the origin. Look closely, his masculine greatness consists precisely not to do it himself the center of his masculinity. You have given the discretion of Saint-Joseph in The Gospel? But you know, it's Tarik Ramadan, who had said to Devilier Chirak or Jesus. And I ask you today Saint Joseph or Andrew Tate? It's been 5 years since I I'm telling you that this guy is a aberration. Well, he's in jail now. I Never speak ill of people But when we touch upon those sins, I'm becoming quite aggressive. The guy has used his money to degenerate there that he had to go into reality TV exploiting poor people in Europe The East, selling their bodies. That played pimp 2000s pimp. And honestly, how can you listen to a man who is like that and who's talking to you about tradition at the same time? It is pathetic. So I'll ask the question again, Saint Joseph or Andrew Tate? Saint- Joseph makes the safety of Mary and Jesus. That's a man. That's why when we are told that traditional masculinity would essentially predatory, I want to ask which tradition you Are you actually talking about it? Because in the Christian tradition which founded our civilization, the great paternal model silent, you know we define a fairly model society, he's a man who puts all his strength and life into death in the service of a woman and a children who were entrusted to him, of whom he didn't even really get to enjoy in whatever way. Let's move on now to femininity. And here, he you have to do exactly the same work cleaning because femininity has been buried under her caricatures. A feminine woman does not mean necessarily a shy woman decorative, silent, which makes the sewing and who likes little flowers and who has no political opinion or metaphysical. That doesn't mean more intelligence less rational. And why am I telling you this? ? And why am I telling myself that? Because often myself, you know, we are old-fashioned men, so we have remarks that were sometimes very inappropriate and I I apologize. But if that's your definition of femininity, you do What about Joan of Arc, Saint Teresa? d'Avila, Saint Catherine of Siena, Holy Garda Island of Bingen or a mother capable of holding a family together shooting while standing during a disaster. If that's your definition, she is bad. Christian tradition never needed to transform the woman in small, fragile things for to recognize a sexual difference. And above all, it is necessary to eliminate immediately this leap of faith which consists of identifying Femininity and weakness. Femininity has its own strength. She does not speak necessarily in the same forms than masculine power. That doesn't... makes it no less real. The word by which I would like to start here, this is the one of receptivity. And I know exactly what some they will say. passivity. That's it issue. Our civilization has become so fascinated by the action external, production, control and the autonomy she imagines that receiving would necessarily be less to send. He who acts gives, he who receives depends. So the first would be free and the second would be decreased. It's metaphysically absurd. Everything that exists as a creature begins by receiving. We received existence before being able to do anything. We receive a language before being able to speak freely. Intelligence receives reality before being able to judge. We receive love for others before being able answer. It's maternal love for those who are lucky enough to have a mother at birth. Not everyone can do it the world. Even the truth, we don't does not manufacture. We make ourselves capable of the receive. 2 + 2 doesn't wait for our Let his will choose it. To make four, I refer you to the treaty on the freedom. Therefore, receiving is not the same as being lower. Receiving correctly requires on the contrary a great power, a sufficiently stable opening welcoming something that is not itself, without destroying it or being destroyed by it him. And this is where the female body acquires meaning extraordinary anthropological. I will I don't need to draw you a picture. The man is made to send, the woman for receive. It's anthropological, it's also organic. I am not summarizing Human beings have that, obviously. And Again, not because all woman should be biologically mother to fulfill his being, but because the female body manifests itself in a way This logic is particularly clear. fruitful reception. And so even a A sterile woman is genuinely a woman by virtue of her very conception. So I am not reducing it at all. that's it. Do you understand? In the generation, the woman receives within her a a life separate from itself, but it does not It doesn't receive it like a box receives a object. His entire organism works at the growth of this life. It feeds, It transforms, protects, and adapts. There pregnancy is precisely the example perfect, which destroys the opposition simplistic between activity and reception. Go ask a pregnant woman if it's just being passive and sitting down on a table. The woman receives and in receiving, she becomes extraordinarily active in the service of that which is received. She does not manufacture the child as one makes an object. She welcomes a life, she has made grow. That's why the word central traditional femininity is not passivity. It is fertility, the capacity to receive something and give him more of life. And that applies to all of them. aspects of life, not just the pregnancy. This principle does not stop obviously to the bodily maternity as I told you. And tradition Christian proves it better than anyone what contemporary discourse, since one of these most feminine forms exalted, it is precisely the Holy Virgin Mary. If woman were only a reproductive device, the nun would be an anthropological absurdity. Monial, these are women who make vows like a nun's, for example. But it is not at all. She simply demonstrates that fertility female goes beyond the single generation biological. What are you doing with the existence of women who want to chastity, if Christianity sums it up A woman to become pregnant? Band of an ignorant person. A woman can make grow a family, certainly, but also a community, a work, an intelligence, one injured person, one life spiritual. It can provide a place where something becomes more himself. And this obviously applies in 1000 different forms concrete. It's not about transforming all the women being nursed universal. It is about recognizing a symbolic and bodily orientation without reducing it to a mechanical function and organic. Marie becomes here absolutely central because it brings together almost everything that modernity has separated. Receptivity and freedom, humility and power, motherhood and intelligence, obedience and willpower. We're caricaturing. sometimes his fiat. When you say fiat, That's when she says he's thirsty for it. according to your word. Like the large model of the woman who submits, does not pose questions. But the Gospel tells Exactly two things. Marie is listening, She asks questions and then she agrees. And his consent only makes sense if because he is completely free. A Pierre does not consent, an automaton does not I do not consent. One person says yes. THE Fiat Marian is therefore a reception sovereignly active. It does not produce Not God. She doesn't give herself his vocation. If you think you can to give you your own vocation, you You haven't understood what a vocation is. or a sincere request for information. She receives something that surpasses her fully and with his consent, she becomes the one through whom this gift enters history. And that's where Christian thought between fundamentally in conflict with a a certain modern idea of ​​freedom. And I always come back to it, but the repetition is very good for teaching. We have I've gotten used to thinking that I am all the more free, because I depend less, that I receive less, that I owe less and that I am more the author of myself. That's what a successful life is. The more you love, the more dependent you become. of reality that we cannot control, more You have children, we don't anymore You have more time. You By getting married, you voluntarily renounce an infinite number of sexual possibilities and future emotional ones. You give your Word, you allow your month yesterday will limit your month of tomorrow. You are embarking on a vocation, you agree that a particular property gives shape to your existence. And However, no serious person will say that the faithful man is less free than he who is incapable of promising anything. Freedom does not reach not its peak when it retains All possibilities are open. She it is reached when she becomes capable of to dedicate oneself to good. That's why the addiction itself must be rehabilitated. It's a manifesto for the dependency, what I'm saying here, on the condition to distinguish it from servitude. I You depend on others too. YOU Don't fill your supermarkets. You do not Don't generate your own money. You are not You're not even sitting down in a chair You probably made it yourself. We We were born absolutely dependent. We We will probably grow old dependent. We depend on people who cultivate our food, make our drugs, maintain the networks teach us, care for us and especially any true love relationship creates a voluntary addiction. If your disappearance can't do anything to me, it's that I don't like you very much. And if You say "I am dependent on person" and that your husband or your A woman can disappear and that makes you... Nothing, ask yourself questions. THE The problem is therefore never the dependency in itself. The problem is which ordered dependence on what good Reciprocal according to what justice? THE feminism will often identify Dependence and domination. The tradition Christian Christians distinguish between them. A woman financially captive to an abusive husband is in a situation that is not just. A woman who chooses freely to organize part of one's life around of his family and financially dependent of a husband who himself depends on his domestic, emotional and educational work is not automatically oppressed because that we can describe an interdependence. Otherwise, every family becomes a system exploitation simply because No one there is self-sufficient, and therefore society itself becomes a exploitation. And here, we arrive at something The very important thing is that these are masculine and feminine virtues which They are not waterproof boxes. He would be It's foolish to say that courage belongs gentleness to the man and gentleness to the woman. Marie possesses tremendous courage and Joseph is immensely gentle. He would be It's silly to say that the man thinks that the women feel women have been doctors of the church and quantity men had the intelligence emotional from a kitchen chair. No, great virtues are human. Caution, justice, strength, temperance. charity, but they can receive in a sexual existence of accentuations and shapes of different incarnations. The strength Maternal strength is not paternal strength in a diminished form. Tenderness paternal is not a failed imitation maternal tenderness. The same property Humans can go through two styles bodily, relational, and symbolic distinct. If I wanted to, despite everything summarize two orientations in two phrases, knowing immediately that they do not constitute exhaustive definitions, don't make me Don't say what I didn't say. I would say This: "Authentic masculinity teaches to carry what weighs you down. Femininity authentic learning to grow this who is received. The man must obviously also to grow, and the woman too scope, let's not transform a polarity in the condominium regulations. But look at what these two directions produce when they are ordered. Strength becomes protection, the reception becomes fecundity, authority becomes a service, dependence becomes Communion. Sexuality becomes Donation possible. And look also their corruption. Strength without Order becomes domination. The reception Without freedom, it becomes servility. Authority without purpose becomes a tyranny. Fertility turns against the other can become a possession emotional. And desire, without any form of commitment to purity and Chastity becomes a consumption of The other is like eating a pizza. Finally, that's precisely why Christianity can never simply put the man on the side of the well and the woman on the side of the submission. Nor the other way around. Both sexes need conversion. And I said sex, I didn't say gender. I am not Anglo-Saxon. And the fact of using the The word "genre" already carries a absurd doctrine. Man must be saved from predation, from pride, from the power, of the flight from the responsibility and lust. Because we are men, if there is men who listen to me very Probably, you know what that is. Male lust? The woman must to be saved from her own corruptions possible. Manipulation, vanity, possessiveness, instrumentalization emotional, refusal to give. We are all fell. And that's very important for our topic because reading radical feminism tends precisely to distribute the blame differently. There the structure of the problem will be located in the power dynamic between two classes sexual. Christianity rejects this simplification. He is not just a man could abusively dominate a woman. He affirms something much more more universal and much more terrible. The desire for domination penetrates the entire human heart. He changes shaped according to the possible forces but it is not the biological monopoly of person. And without a doubt that if the women had had just as much power physical attributes that men have, the same abuses have reportedly emerged. And that's here also lies the complementarity takes on its true meaning. This word is sometimes pronounced in such a soft way that he no longer wants to say anything. Men The women of Venus come from Mars, Each one brings their own little color. It is Great, who cares. Complementarity Christian faith rests on something much deeper. No single sex exhausts all the symbolic possibilities of human beings. And the difference is reminiscent of each one that it is not self-sufficient. That does not mean that a single person would a half-being. The person of Jesus Christ himself would suffice to make this absurd image and all of life Western monasticism. That means that Even the single person exists in a world sexually mature human. receives his life from a man and a woman. We can't go out Besides. Discover humanity in a difference that he did not produce. There Sexuation teaches us something about metaphysical. I am not everything. I don't I can't be both at the same time poles of generation. I receive from the other something I can't to be exactly the same. And Perhaps we are touching on the real thing here scandal. Sexual difference is a limit. Yes. So what? Since when a Is it almost an injustice? To be a To be human already means not being a angel, not to be a horse, not to be an oyster and not even being God. It's terrible. Being French does not does not mean to be simultaneously, to be born in all civilizations. To have a body signifies that we are somewhere and not elsewhere at the same time. Any form, Every body shape is a limitation. And have you noticed how modernity wants to destroy its limits but of artificially, through delusion perpetual, which only leads to depression and unease. If there is no limit, there is more shape. A musical note is beautiful because it has a height determined. If she wanted to all the notes simultaneously to avoid any Discrimination would result in noise. Press all the notes of your piano. To exist is to be determined. There The question is therefore not how to abolish all the determinations that I previous. The question authentically Human is rather how to accomplish Freely what I received? And that's it. that we have finally posed the problem which will allow us to understand the feminism. I didn't bypass my In terms of reasoning, I haven't gotten ahead of myself. on my reasoning, but what I I'm going to tell you now what it should have been recontextualized first in a a clear definition of what the Christian tradition. You see what I mean? Because if freedom means to accomplish a good thing from of a received nature, the difference sexuality can become a vocation. But if freedom means progressively to become independent of all determination not chosen, then the Sexual difference will inevitably become suspicious. And actually, why am I telling you Did I place this stone? Because of this stone that founded our civilization, which has had its excesses, attention, Then came what followed. SO you cannot understand what there is what happened after that without understanding what this After that, he didn't understand. YOU Do you understand what I mean? That's where That's where we are. You know what we're going to defend and what we are going to attack. A The same dignity without identity. A sexual difference which begins in the body but does not exhaust itself in the biology. A virility in which the Strength becomes mastery, responsibility. protection and sacrifice. A femininity in which reception becomes a freedom, fertility, growth and a donation. And above all, this conviction immense, incomprehensible to the modernity. I can receive something something that I did not choose without this that is, a violation of my freedom. And Now we're ready to talk about feminism. As I told you, if I took So much time to define all of this and to remind everyone what our tradition is, It's so that we have a criterion. We know what we mean by man, by woman, by sexual difference, by virility, through femininity. And we refused the equation that poisons almost everything the contemporary debate. Equal difference hierarchy, hierarchy equals domination. Domination equals oppression. NOW However, we can look at feminism face-to-face. And I would like to start by granting him something that will perhaps surprise those who expect me to release a flamethrower. Defending a woman against An injustice is a noble cause. But this sentence does not mean absolutely not that women would constitute throughout history a class oppressed by men constituted as ruling class. That's absurd. historically. These are two entirely different proposals and one of the intellectual achievements of Feminism has precisely consisted of them slide one into the other. That a A woman might be disadvantaged because she is a woman, that a custom can be bad, that a husband could be unfair that an institution can It definitely needs to be reformed. certainly. But from there to build everything human history according to the opposition fundamental policy between the two There's a world of difference between the sexes, ladies and gentlemen. A duchess and her maid do not do not become members of the same class social simply because they are both women. No more than a Domestic evil does not become the companion of the duke's domination whom he commands simply because he possesses all the two, one Greek chromosome. The story Reality is traversed by birth. wealth, class, profession, the family, religion, war, the nation, age, political power. Feminism will gradually propose to reread an increasing portion of this complexity based on a category additional which will sometimes end up claiming to organize all the others, the power dynamic between the sexes. And it is precisely to understand this a journey that must begin with a woman I have no desire to caricature. This is Mary Winstoncraft. When she publishes vication of the rights of woman, its central argument is not There is no such thing as human nature. Each person must invent their own identity. Her language is that of reason. We were not yet in the throes of absolute delusion that we can see today, from the virtue, education, of the moral responsibility. She criticizes particularly to a certain education feminine to make women designed to please rather than rational creatures capable of virtue. She demands that women cultivate their intelligence, that they may become true companions of their husbands, whom they educate properly their children and she demands even chastity and morality cease to be feminine obligations one way. If there is a rule morally, it also applies to the man. But obviously, she writes in a universe where freedom must specifically to allow us to understand the duty and true good, not to sovereignly invent what is GOOD. And here, we are forced to ask a question. An awkward question for what follows. West What's the problem with that? A woman must developing one's intelligence, yes indeed. Of course. A woman must receive a education, of course. A man must be chaste as he demands chastity from his women. Absolutely. A wife must to become an interlocutor rational from her husband rather than a decorative child that we maintain willfully in ignorance. But obviously and even notice something fascinating. Wston Craft still a lot female dignity through concepts of virtue, wife, mother, education, children, homework and of reason. which will make her criticized by Modern feminism. Of course, You probably guessed that. His ideal feminine does not consist of making the insignificant motherhood, nor to neutralize sexual difference. She thinks that a better educated woman will be able to specifically to become a better wife and better mother. If men become themselves better husbands and better Father, it's QFD. In other words, even if I would challenge certain assumptions. already present at her home, we are still very far from this idea that the emancipation of women would require the emancipation of the feminine itself. That's what bothers the feminists. that is to say, there is a feminine form which would be predetermined and it would be necessary to... bend. But it's the same for us, my Good ladies, you know, we are on They are men, you have to accept it. It is Not easy either, eh? And precisely many feminists who have seen what she brought they say "Yes, but it's because society was not ready. finally for to welcome true feminism and everything and In short, all of this is extremely important. for our demonstration because it allows us to distinguish between two things that we constantly mixing. Defending dignity A woman's rationality and building the feminism as a metaphysics of emancipation is not the same operation. I'm specifying this because I forgot to do it, madam Winstoncraft lived in the 18th century. So we is on proto protoinism for information. She is interesting precisely because it prevents us from to tell a children's story where there would have on one side those who want that Women suffer, and on the other hand, those who want to free them. No, the real one The battle will move elsewhere. What is freedom? What Should she release it? And towards what? Does she have to drive? And that's where we arrives at our good old well of In our country, Simone de Beauvoir, therefore the wife of Jean-Paul Sartre. Does that sound good to you? The pedigree already? I want him deliver justice before demolishing it. That makes me costs because his argument is more smart as the slogan version that we usually hear. When she said "We are not women", we becomes. She doesn't naively say that a A newborn baby has a neutral body that there are people who decide about him to put in a uterus. Obviously, she On the contrary, it devotes an entire chapter biological given as we did at The conference has begun. She recognizes the differences reproductive results are real, that she constitute an essential element of the The situation of women. What she will refuse is that these biological facts are sufficient to produce a human, moral and social destiny determined. That makes sense in principle. That stands. In her own text, she therefore distinguishes the biological fact from the historical significance and existential that society has given. And when she returns from Decades later on the formula, she further explains that the woman in the sense social and historical is not simply a natural HV datum, but the result of a story. So you You have the prototype Judith Butler here and Judith Butler too, we're not going to... to exaggerate excessively, but here we are For me, we're practically in the Psychiatry, but we'll get to that. Brief, Simone de Beauvoir, let's stay, let's stay at We. That is precisely why it is necessary to go much deeper than the quote precisely because the The real problem of seeing something beautiful is not not that she would have forgotten the existence the Greens. No, she didn't. THE The problem is metaphysics by means of from which she interprets the body. And I told you, my 68 and all that clique of new philosophers do not have metaphysical rigor than their ancestors that they criticize. Beauvoir is existentialist. She considers the human subject through the freedom, the project, the overcoming of herself, what she calls transcendence which is absolutely not one. And his introduction to the second century is Extraordinarily clear. Existence is achieved through projects that open the future. When transcendence falls back into immanence, into the stagnation and submission to data, There is a degradation of existence. And when this situation is imposed, It's oppression. The woman, according it is precisely located in this contradiction. She is a free subject. therefore called like any subject to the transcendence that is not transcendence. I insist once again. But the A masculine society tends to fix it as other, as an object, as a being of immanence. I'll remind you of the difference for those who don't know. Transcendence is what lies beyond. Immanence is what is in its own principle. And here, I would like that we stop everything for 30 seconds if You'll allow me because it's there that the whole machine is actually hidden and that it's not going well. We can discuss it for 3 hours of pay, education and that women must be able to be female engineers if they wish and etc. Great. The principle lies elsewhere. Why does transcendence possess This privilege? Why the project towards the outside world, the transformation of the world, Would exceeding the data be the higher measure of achievement human? Why the immensity, the fact to remain, to maintain, to preserve, to receive, to carry, to ensure the continuity of life, must they appear as a stagnation? That's weird, isn't it? Please take my question. I'm not asking if a woman must be locked up at home against her will. That would be a diversion. I asks why a philosophy of the liberty has already dealt the cards in such a way that what looks more about conquest, about the project external, to the transformation and to independence spontaneously receives the name of transcendence while a large part of the realities traditionally associated with the feminine finds himself exposed to suspicions of immanence. Once again, with the terms transcendence and immanence used by Simone de Beauvoir, for For me, it doesn't fly at all. But In short, we're going back to his category terminological and de Beauvoir goes very far far in that direction when she analyzes reproduction. His chapter biological does not deny the data bodily, I told you, he them sometimes described in vocabulary extremely revealing of alienation. There The woman appears there more readily available to the species through pregnancy, through the constraints of reproduction, while that man recovers his individuality after the generative act. Well, for us it takes 10 minutes, you see. Sure, 10 seconds for Some, but uh, for a woman it's 9 months of pregnancy. After that, it gets complicated. Yes, man is useless during All of that, obviously. Further still, Beauvoir explains that humanity breaks free from the mere repetition of the life through projects and activities. In his historical reconstruction, man wins a prestige precisely because it transforms the world while the motherhood attaches more closely the woman to her body and to the species. It is strict materialism, ladies and gentlemen. It's a strict form of materialism, in fact. Simone de Beauvoir defends the activity external as superior to the activity interior. It's anti-traditional. And Frankly, the suspicion needs to change. of camp. We are told that the tradition would have despised women because that she measured it against man. But aren't we precisely measuring the emancipation of the woman according to an anthropological ideal strangely masculinized? What is What does the human being accomplish? The one who plans, produces, transforms, conquers the outside world, is going to fight? Mike Tyson escapes biological servitude will be independent. And what becomes embarrassing? within this architecture? Ben, you have understood the problem. Exactly what the female body most clearly manifests visibly. Pregnancy, the vulnerability, interiority, the mutual dependence, the continuity of the generation, the fact that a human life can be achieved not only by producing something outside, but by carrying someone inside and in achieving inner fulfillment. I am so not blaming anyone Booir of wanting to make the woman similar to an ordinary man, this would be rude. I'm saying something about more precise. Its design existentialist of fulfillment human is in fact a definition of unconstrained male achievement by the things that weigh on the body female. What do you want that to happen? What does that produce in people's minds? its design already favors a certain a figure of autonomy and transcendence of the given and this figure between necessarily in tension with a anthropology of reception and of fertility. And that's where his famous "We are not" comes in. no woman takes on her full power because As I told you, we're taking this out In its context, we say "But if Look, you have a uterus, you are a woman." Yes, but she's not stupid either. This time, she has one, she knows what that it is. What interests him, it's the passage of the body feminine to this thing called femininity and she will destroy all femininity traditional. And for me, the The trick, and the trap, is that in fact For her, an accomplished woman is a woman who denies this reality biological that she describes. Since this Biological reality brings constraints enormous impact on a woman's life. If you were pregnant and you listen This video, you know what it is than being pregnant. We men, we Don't live like that. She refuses that an essence feminine dictates immediately coquetry, passivity, motherhood, such psychology or such a role. Another one times, on several of these caricatures, That's not a bad idea. A woman is not programmed by its X chromosome to to love pink, to speak softly, to know to make an apple pie and so on. But the crucial question then becomes, If we're serious, between biology raw and social construction It's arbitrary; there's really nothing there. There is not a sexual human nature capable of cultural achievement multiple but not arbitrary. Isn't there not an anthropological significance of the body that is neither an automatism biological nor an invention of the Company? And that's exactly the space that the Aristotelian tradition allows us to think and that Existentialism tends to make a lot more difficult. Nature is not a pre-written scenario in which each determined gesture. It is a collection of power directed towards certain goods that freedom must accomplish in a way concrete. Let's take a completely simple analogy simple. The fact that human beings possesses a natural ability to language does not mean that a baby born reciting root. We need a culture, an education, a specific language and interlocutors to practice. French is Chinese is cultural; it is cultural. THE Rules of politeness are cultural. Does this mean that the language he himself is a pure invention arbitrary imposed on a creature that naturally would have no relation particular to speech? Of course No. Culture updates and configures a natural ability. Well, all the the question of masculine and feminine is there. That certain expressions of the femininity, whether cultural or not, does not demonstrate absolutely not that femininity is purely cultural. And that's exactly it the shift that madam will allow Beauvoir rightly points out that the A woman is not defined solely by her functions. biological. Then open a space intellectual in which what transcends biology is becoming increasingly easily attributable to history, to education, social relations and power. Notice, moreover, something That's very interesting. At the end of the Second Sex, Beauvoir Doesn't Dream simply a disappearance of everything male-female relationship. She imagines again a reciprocity where each remains different for the other and where their differentiation nature persists. She even writes that emancipation does not consist in denying the the relationship of the woman to the man but to refuse to lock him up there. It's essential because it will allow us to see subsequent radicalization. Beauvoir opens one door, others will go to go much further and that is that's precisely why he would be intellectually lazy of the to take responsibility for everything that comes After. But she read an opposition extremely fruitful for feminism. The free subject against that which fixes it, the transcendence versus immanence, existence versus roles substantialized, autonomy against the dependence. And once you have placed the battle here, the question becomes almost inevitable. How many things considered feminine are in reality of the instruments that maintain woman in immanence in the sense of Simone de Beauvois? I insist on the 40th time, but this term means nothing say here. And now, we're going to take off. SO, Hold on to your seats because we happens to Kate Millette and with her, a An absolutely decisive change occurs. The man-woman couple becomes explicitly conceivable as a relation policy. Milette explains that it is necessary broaden the word politics beyond elections, parliaments and governments. Politics is disastrous for she structured relationships of power by which a group dominates or governs another group. And she proposes to apply this category to same sex. The relationship between men and women can thus be understood as a sexual politics, that is to say as a power dynamic between two groups consistent. Once again, we agree what needs to be agreed upon. There is some power in human relations because there is a polarity. A husband can manipulate his wife, a wife can manipulating her husband, a relative can crushing a child, a superior can exploit an employee. The family does not does not possess a mysterious immunity to sin simply because she is a family. Alright. But notice this which happens when one exercises power the fundamental political category of relationship between the sexes. Taking a married couple, they love each other, they have children, they divide up the... tasks, I don't know, the guy works, the woman she cooks, they make decisions. Very quickly, we can ask who earns more, who decides who does the cleaning, who has interrupted his career, which he possesses Legally this, which depends materially whose. All these questions are legitimate if you look for a specific injustice. But if your grid already starts with to assume that the sexes are groups policies and that their relations structured by domination and subordination, every difference becomes a self-revealing indicator. The protection can conceal control, the gift can to conceal exploitation. Authority becomes privilege. There Dependence becomes subjugation. There The difference itself becomes suspect. because she constantly risks to produce a power imbalance. That makes me reminds you of an episode of The Simpsons, doesn't it? you know, where Marge becomes a student and Homer pays for his studies and so he work at the power plant. And she has a teacher A feminist who told her, "What a shame!" ! Don't you see that your husband is exploiting you? paying for your studies, actually, because You owe him something. That's it. She takes it badly. And that's how we begins to transform intimacy into permanent tribunal. Not because he One should never judge an injustice intimate, but because love possesses a logic irreducible to power. Irreducible. If I love someone, I can deliberately give him more than what strict commutative justice would require. I can do something without asking for anything in return equivalent. I can take care of my child for 10 years without establishing a a bill for 200,000 bucks or something nothing that corresponds to nighttime hours. I can interrupt my sleep because that my wife is ill. She can reorganizing part of one's life because that I am going through a catastrophe. If each asymmetry must be immediately translated into the language of the domination, then the gift becomes conceptually and intrinsically suspicious because the donation is almost always asymmetrical at the moment it is given. The mantis does not eliminate the justice, obviously, but he goes beyond it. An anthropology incapable of thinking this exceeding the limit inevitably ends up understanding the family as a A very poorly regulated company. And That's what we'll see at Madame's house. Christine Delphi, who is much more systematic. Delphie theorizes that she calls it the domestic mode of production and analyzes patriarchy in the contemporary industrial societies as a system of subordination and in particular an economic base of the family. Again, let me clarify. Just one thing. patriarchy perhaps in "Your heads" sounds like an insult. For me, it's a human ideal. patriarchy because it comes from patriarchs. Do you know who the patriarchs? Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It's a society that is built on male authority. I think that extremely healthy, but we'll get there perhaps in one way or another. Women's domestic work not being not paid like salaried work she may consider it appropriate in an operating report. She insists even on the fact that free does not does not stem from the nature of the task since the same activity, keeping a child, cleaned, prepare a meal, can to be paid when it is carried out outside of the family relationship. So the woman would be a kind of slave for She. You see the hatred of these people. things that destroyed everything there. And then, his initial observation is intelligent. Cleaning is It's really a job. It's true. Raising a child is work. But obviously, cooking for everyone working for five people a day is a job Crazy. And our economic civilization he also commits a rather absurd act. remarkable when she considers spontaneously as productive what passes through the market and much less which is what actually sustains life. If a woman keeps her own children, She doesn't have a payslip and you have some people will say she doesn't work. Ah good? Have you ever babysat at Full-time? If she keeps the children of a stranger in a nursery, there she work. It's a job. Attention, there is something profound absurd in this economic vocabulary. but precisely what a job family has value, he continues that they must take the form of a salary report so as not to become a exploitation? That's where Delphie gradually confines the family gift in an economic category that does not cannot contain it. Imagine a mother who gets up four times during the night because her baby is sick. Work free. Alright. Who exploits whom? baby? Imagine a man who takes a difficult job for 30 years because that he wants to allow his wife and his children to live properly. Do you know any men like that? His salary goes into a joint account and finances the housing of four people who have not completed the hours of work with him. Is it exploited by his family? Obviously, You can answer that both contributions are different and reciprocal. Exactly. And as soon as we say that, we've left the market logic to enter the traditional domestic logic. Each person gives in a certain way particular to a good that is common. The family is not a business in which each individual must receive the exact market value of what he product. How stupid! Anyway, it is precisely a community in which a considerable part of goods circulate without price because it circulates in the form of a donation. And Careful, let's not jump! reverse. The word family does not sanctify automatically any situation. A husband can treat his wife like a servant. A wife can treat her husband like a ATM. A father can abandon all arduous tasks others. A mother can use the children to put pressure on his husband. These are genuine injustices. But you see the difference between Christian analysis and analysis Materialistic? The first question is whether Each person fulfills their duties correctly. of his condition and orders his action to communal property. The second summer of ask who is taking credit for the work of Who. These are not answers different, these are two ways of a different paradigm for viewing the family. And here, something needs to be done. something that conservatives do too much rarely. So, to be clear, I don't I am not conservative because I value that the current state of society is not preserved. So, the word conservative It no longer makes sense. I am someone who wants to rebuild. what do the Conservatives, let's say, then, defend domestic work with much more violence than the feminists themselves. Because if you accept the modern idea according to which true fulfillment measured first by career, by income and economic independence, you You've already lost. You are simply in train to negotiate a better seat for women in the built world through the market. So this is the transition from a form of slavery, in your opinion, towards a another form of slavery. But why raise Would four children be worth less than produce PowerPoint presentations For a bank? Why accompany Would a dying parent be a withdrawal? of the world while selling insurance would be a participation in the social life? Why create a home stable? Transmitting a language, habits, a faith, a memory, cook, educated, well-groomed, organized would console be described as not work simply because no The customer is not receiving an invoice. If you Do you really want to defend women? Perhaps start by stopping to despise the activities to which Entire generations of women have given their lives. And here a paradox arises. Magnificent. Materialist feminism wants to promote domestic work by calling it work, but he risks... at the same time as accepting the market as A hidden measure of his dignity. For what Is it really necessary to demonstrate this so much? Is that also work? Because in our modern imagination, the work economic remuneration has become the form paradigmatic contribution social. So, we translate the home into factory language, time, production, appropriation, exploitation. But perhaps the problem stems from precisely because we are trying to measure the house with the instrument of walk. Perhaps a mother is not an employee who hasn't been paid for her children. Perhaps a father is not the contractual financier of a group of domestic consumers. Perhaps the family is precisely the place where the human economy regains its meaning first. administer assets for to allow people to live together and to exercise their existence terrestrial and not to transform all relationship based on equivalent exchange. And here we come to Mrs. Schulamit Firestone because with it the reasoning will stop going around of the problem. He's going to head straight for center. Firestone is making a strong comeback explicitly a Marxist structure. This is typical of many feminists. Moreover, since ultimately the Feminism is a form of materialism. It's necessary to say it in many ways aspects. If the class struggle economics assumes that the class dominated to take possession of the means of production, then the release of women assume for themselves that the class sexually dominated takes control of means of reproduction. She considers the biological basis of reproduction as one of the fundamental roots of system of sexual classes and considers that technology will allow finally to detach the reproduction of female pregnancy. His horizon revolutionary therefore does not only to improve conditions in which women become mothers. He aims for the very abolition of the sexual class system and considers a world where genital difference would lose its cultural significance and where artificial reproduction would free women from need biological means of carrying children. What a bright future. And now, I almost want Thank you Firestone, really, because Radical thinkers have a quality extraordinary, and that must be admitted. they take the principles to their logical conclusion. Moderates prefer to leave half hidden. I have infinitely more Respect for someone who goes all the way. thing. You saw de Beauvoir, they said. "Yeah, but we're not just..." uterus, you still have to do other things things, you still have to look like a "Not to men." No, Firestone, she said "No, no, we don't care about the uterus, we're going to make machines to make kids." See, that's all over now. At Less is clear, it's not hypocritical. With Firestone, there's no need to do seeming. What is the scandal? It is More simply, it's a bad law. no longer a salary, it's no longer a Insufficient education since the Women have it. He's not even the husband anymore. It is the biological fact that man and the women are not placed in a way symmetrical in front of the generation. There The woman carries the child, the man does not. It doesn't work. So he has more time to life to do lots of crazy things. And this asymmetry in a philosophy where Freedom is conceived as independence with regard to the determinations received becomes a political problem. But Finally, who committed this injustice? And That's where the question becomes, Excuse me, almost funny. Who has decreed that women would wear a child? This is the parliament of Louis X, the patriarchy. They held a meeting of patriarch. These are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They said, "Come on, let's go." No, we returned exactly to the the point I mentioned to you at the beginning. When emancipation becomes the abolition of all non-asymmetry once chosen, nature itself ends up on the dock. And Firestone has the honesty to say it. If the pregnancy creates a structural difference between the sexes and whether this difference produces necessarily a sexual class so it is no longer enough to reform the Company. The technique must modifies the very conditions of the reproduction. That's the whole movement. And look at the distance we've covered at Wolstoncraft. We still have a woman whose reason must be cultivated in order for it to become a moral agent, a worthy wife, a A capable mother, a virtuous creature placed with dignity before the man under a objective moral standard. At Beauvoir's, The problem is shifting. The woman is Open topic, but a combination of biological and historical situations threat of fixing it in immanence. Again, in the sense of beautiful voice, I insist, I cannot stand that What did she do with those terms? She must conquer her transcendence in quotation marks without being confined within a destiny. At Milette's, the report sexual becomes explicitly political because the relationship between men and women can to be analyzed as a structured relationship power between groups. At Delphie's, the family can be described as a site of a mode of production in which the Domestic work is appropriate and exploited. And with Firestone, it's the fireworks, dialectics reached Finally, biology. If the difference reproductive materially grounds the sexual classes, emancipation complete request that we can one day to break free from this difference herself. Does that make sense? We can't to deny that it holds up. At least that's consistent. And now, I believe that we can understand why I refuse talking about feminism as a movement who defends women. It would be like to define Marxism by he does not like the Poverty, okay? But that's not it. that is where philosophy is found. Person He doesn't like poverty. Philosophy begins when you Explain what man is, what is freedom, what a class is, this what is power, what is the work, what the purpose of life is, this what is family, what is nature and what exactly we need to be released. And that's where feminism comes in. becomes much more interesting and much more debatable. So already at from now on, from now, anyone who claims that the feminism is a monopoly of the The defense of women is committing an absurdity. doctrinal and I demonstrated it because that a movement can start from a perfectly understandable indignation that we all share and give to him then a false explanation. I see a woman unhappy in her marriage. I can conclude that a particular man is unfair. I can conclude that a This particular custom is bad. I I can also conclude that marriage is structurally an institution of appropriation. These are not at all the same proposals and the emotion that the first one never constitutes the proof of the third. And that's perhaps the methodological point most important part of this section. A A real victim does not prove a theory general victimization. A man violence exists. This does not prove that masculinity is organized around violence. And you make the connection with the conference on M 68 since it is the Same procedure. It's taking specific injustices and the transform into systemic injustice. A The exploited wife exists. That doesn't prove not that marriage is by its very nature exploitation. A woman prevented unjustly accomplishing something exists. That doesn't prove that all specifically female determination or an oppressive limitation. Otherwise, we are in the process of transforming concrete suffering in fuel rhetoric for a metaphysics that no one has yet demonstrated that No one will prove it. And that's That's precisely where we need to reclaim it. the defense of women. A woman suffers. Alright. Tell me what happened to him has arrived. Tell me who did what. Tell me which duty has been violated. What virtue has been betrayed? what Injustice must be rectified. But don't me Don't ask for acceptance before the investigation that his misfortune is an episode in a ontological war between two classes sexual. And above all, don't ask me not to believe that the solution consists necessarily to make the woman less dependent on what constitutes it as woman because that's where the The reversal becomes tragic humanly. A doctrine claims to defend women, then she learns to to view motherhood with suspicion because it creates an asymmetry. She wants to protect the woman, then she interprets marital interdependence in through the exploitation model. She wants to recognize the woman as subject, then she becomes suspicious towards any objective content of the femininity because this content risks to limit the subject's self-determination. And Gradually, the question is no longer only how to prevent a man from To harm a woman? The question It becomes a question of how many female realities Should we liberate women so that they to finally be free? Dare to contradict me the feminists. Contradict what I just said. Go ahead, I'll wait. And that's where we begins to feel something dizzying because if motherhood is suspect, if the complementarity is suspicious, if the interdependence is suspicious, if a sexual division of Responsibility is suspect, if the bodily difference itself cannot receive no meaning before the individual choice, so at some point a This question will inevitably come up again. Question very simple and perhaps the most embarrassing for all of us for this click. What is a woman? What is a woman? YOU Remember to do it, Caroline, when she said that only women who had their periods and that she Is this a boycott or something? What is a woman? The statement is quite simple. Feminism ultimately destroys women. On had started from a movement that claimed to be freeing her, and note well the distance traveled. What happens when suspicion reached the category itself in the name of Which one had it all started with? There is a difficulty that I would call comical at the heart of this whole machine. For To say that women are oppressed is wrong. minimum power to designate something which is called women. It is, it is It's silly what I'm saying, but actually It's not done yet. If I tell you that The bakers are being exploited and you tell me ask what a baker is and that I reply that the baker's category it is an unstable construction produced through discursive practices that do not refer to no prior reality sufficiently determined, our social conversation will become complicated. A baker is a guy who makes bread in bulk professionally. And that is precisely one of the difficulties of this order that will confront the contemporary feminism because by force By denying everything, there are more women. For a very long time, he could assuming its political subject, the women. He could dispute what we said of them what was asked of them, the place that was assigned to them. But he Something had to come before it. the demand to be able to do the object of this claim. And from there, we'll take off even more. So, hold on tight because it's going to be... to chat. Judith Butler. I'll put a photo in the montage. so that you feel comfortable at home. Go start Gender Trouble by putting This obvious fact is in crisis. Feminism can it simply presuppose a stable category called woman while this category is itself produced and regulated by power structures that feminism claims to challenge? Routledge summarizes very simply the shift. Butler begins in questioning the category of woman, rejects the traditional feminist call for a natural or essential notion of feminine, then made famous the idea of gender as a repeated social performance rather than as an expression of prior inner reality. And I will once again avoid the caricature because it would make us losing exactly what is philosophically interesting here and which must be rigorously criticized. Butler doesn't say "This morning, I am a Man, tomorrow I will be a woman because I decided to wear a dress. This is where we've ended up with all of them LGBTQ stuff, XW, y, and so on. I believe Whether it's called Gender Fluid or something, I don't know Not what. Performativity is not a small theatrical performance voluntary action performed by a subject already constituted who would choose his character in a cupboard. It's almost The opposite. In Butler's work, the gendered subject He himself constituted... You saw that I said "kind of," right, since we're talking about it here. of that sort of thing, I use his vocabulary. The gendered subject he himself is constituted through the repetition of acts, norms and practices that produce the impression that a stable identity already existed behind them. The Stanford Encyclopedia summarizes this idea by saying that the gendered subjects are constituted by iterative acts that become sedimented and that the Jord is therefore not a property ontologically prior to the subject. But something that happens continuously and can at least in the principle of being subverted. Great. Great. Now, look at what just happened pass. Beauvoir could still say "In Big, the body exists but that's not enough to determine me." We had a sex biological and we were discussing what History was building upon it. With Butler, the separation becomes itself suspicious. Why imagine on one side a natural, prediscursive, material sex and then on the other hand, a cultural genre established about him? In Gender Trouble, Butler asks if what we call sex is not already produced in the same cultural field of what produces the gender. Philosophical literature dedicated to his work summarizes precisely his position as a challenge to the simple distinction between natural sex and social genre. Look at the jump, it's powerful! eh. We are no longer just in saying a woman is not condemned by its biology to such profession or of such a nature. Reasonable proposal. We begin to ask to what extent the way even whose body we identify as sexual is already caught in normative and discursive categories. And That's where I'd like to go back to. Our first part. Why did I Did you do all that in the first part? And we will do it a little violently because that we are men. We had precisely began by separating three levels. First, there is a sexual biological reality. OK? Secondly, this reality is received by Humanity has meaning anthropological which cannot be reduced to a hormonal dosage. OK. Thirdly, the crops produce a multitude of forms of clothing customs, of Sometimes a clever convention, sometimes silly talk about this difference. OK. Butler's reasoning has a actual critical power at the 3rd level. Yeah. A company can take a convention and naturalize her. The fact that a woman wore such a haircut hair in 1840 does not mean that the The female hair follicle possesses a theological essence oriented towards the bun. Yes, a company can call natural, which is simply usual. Yes, a repeated standard can will eventually seem obvious to us then that it is contingent. It's true, All of this is intellectually useful. Wow! We waited for Judith Butler to Knowing that, for sure. But of this critical, he follows that the distinction natural itself is produced by the process that produces the cultural representations of this distinction? That's where we can't follow. Judith, I'm sorry, my dear. Judith, we can't follow you because that it's the same slippage. That our Access to reality is achieved through language. does not mean that language manufactures the real to which he has access. A child learns the word mountain within a culture. It wasn't the word that raised the issue. The Alps. Companies are cutting up describe the class, name the body, but the body does not begin to exist at the moment when the speech names him. And I I know immediately what the response will be serious philosopher. Butler does not deny the bodily matter. She questions the discursive regimes through which the materiality becomes intelligible as sex. Great guy, great. But it's that's precisely where the question Metaphysics must return. Is it that the social intelligibility of a reality constitutes this reality or is it that she can also receive some what precedes it? If the obstetrician He said it's a girl, it's a girl. He Some people would be offended. Well, that's a girl. There is no You see this What do I mean? There's no trick strange man. Well, is that all? an act that inserts the newborn into a is it primarily a normative regime or a true judgment about an organization bodily already present before he Open your mouth! Our answer is the second, obviously. My answer is the second. The language can then add 1000 absurd or legitimate expectations. He did not create the sex he recognized. And we arrive at the historical paradox that I find it almost admirable in its Logical purity. Feminism is beginning, as I told you. with one subject: women. He fights for He speaks on behalf of the woman. feminism. Then he criticizes the definitions traditional women because that it would be too narrow. Alright. Then he criticizes the idea that there is a feminine psychological essence. Father great. Then he criticizes the idea that a feminine nature may be the foundation normative roles. OK. Then some branches dispute the stable distinction between sex and gender and finally the women's category disappears. She becomes philosophically problematic because what claims to define it risk to exclude certain identities or to reproduce standards that have constituted. Butler doesn't hide this difficulty in Gender Trouble. The book opens with the problem of the subject political woman, feminism and on the danger that a supposed shared identity either itself produced by the legal and discursive structures that she seeks to fight. SO, Allow me to ask a question stupid, dear audience. How can one conduct a policy of the emancipation of a subject whose entire substantial definition becomes Suspicious? Isn't it a Absolute theoretical contradiction This is a problem that, moreover, traversed feminism itself. If woman has sufficiently objective content stable, so which one should we say? Ah, That's problematic. And to accept that a A certain reality precedes the discourse policy. Oh dear, how do we do it? ? If the category has no sufficiently stable content outside of always a reconfigurable practice, then I am asking what exactly means the assertion that women as women have a common history of oppression? on what reality distributes this oppression. We cannot not simultaneously use a category as a massive political unit when it it's about accounting for domination historical and make it almost ungraspable when it comes to defining his referent. At one point, the subject of emancipation must be something something before being emancipated. YOU Stop me if I'm wrong. And see now the price paid by the woman concrete. At the beginning of our conference, they told him something Quite simple. Your femininity possesses positive content. It begins in your body without being reduced to it. She is not neither your hairstyle, nor your profession, nor a mandatory temperament, nor the biological motherhood as a unique destination. But it means something thing. Your female body is not a material noise to which only culture would then make sense. However, the more the the thought of emancipation becomes unable to accept content received from femininity, the more she finds herself condemned to do something quite odd. She defends herself better and better. the freedom to be a woman while saying less and less clearly what there is has something positively feminine about it. of being a woman. It's super, it's super Your feminism is actually negative. I would be very unwell in my own skin as a woman if I I subscribed to your doctrines. We can to defend one's identity, one's expression, its recognition, its construction. Very GOOD. But the question remains. What exactly is loved? when we say that we love the femininity? And here, we're going to call the boss, if you like. We're going to call René Guénon with a precaution important. Obviously, Genon didn't produces a theory of feminism contemporary. I'm not going to make him say things he didn't write, but I take a much more powerful tool from him general. In the realm of quantity, he devotes a chapter to what he calls Uniformity versus unity. Her The argument is that the real true forgiveness and unity are not achieved by removing the determinations qualitative. On the contrary, the more one civilization reduces beings to comparable abstract units and interchangeable, that's the whole idea statistics, moreover, more It produces uniformity quantitative, which is not the unit true. Génon thus opposes the qualitative differentiation to a standardization in which the individuals are becoming more and more comparable as simple units digital. And now we're going to apply it to our problem. What is a certain kind of modernity? What does equality mean? Very often the possibility of applying to individuals the same criteria, the same trajectories, the same measurements. It has obviously a magnificent sense in front of the law. Two people equal in dignity do not should not receive two weights measure. But who's going to oppose that? But if you carry this principle outside the legal order to do a metaphysics of the egalitarian human being, you get something very different. The qualitative difference She herself becomes a nuisance. If man and Women are equal, we ask why Their function differs. Why do I have to If I have a child, I am everything Is it metaphysically equal? And Why don't I have children? If I want to carry a child, after all, I Do what I want. If their functions differ, the question is who is privileged. If the body their body exposes them to different career paths, we will try to neutralize the symmetry through technological progress. And Gradually, equality will cease to to signify equal dignity. She will to begin to signify a quest of functional equivalence. But ultimately, it's not the same thing. And we can now say something which would have seemed almost commonplace during centuries. The man and the woman are They are equal, but not equivalent. Equality answers the question of dignity. Equivalence meets the question of interchangeability. You can have the first one without the second. And Genon helps us understand why a civilization dominated by the quantity does not tolerate this type of thing well distinction. The quality withstands the common measure. If two different beings Yet they have the same dignity, you have need for a metaphysics capable of thinking about unity above uniformity. Why I opened my Part 1 on Genesis? Because it is a metaphysics. If you no longer have this metaphysics, the simplest method is to gradually eliminate everything which prevents individual units to be comparable according to the same criteria. Check out our success vocabulary. Did a woman and a man have exactly the same educational path professional, the same income, the the same number of years devoted to labor market, the same access to command positions. Here are some things that can be counted. It's true. Now, try to measure the quality of a maternal presence for 15 years. Try to calculate in GDP, the fact that a father returns every Evenings at home, he remains faithful to his wife. bed to his children of the learena. or spinosa, I don't know, transmits a language, a memory, a religion, a way of standing. Try to assign a productive coefficient at a grandmother who maintains a whole a united family and as soon as she dies, everything The world is falling apart. We are very bad at counting, which is not not quantitative. And from then on, the ideal of emancipation risk of taking as a measure precisely what our civilization It's about counting. income, career, power institutional, economic autonomy, statistical representation. But the Women, you're being taken advantage of if you You believe that this is success, but Men too. And then you get This extraordinary scene. A woman announces that she is leaving temporarily a profession extremely prestigious to raise his children. And immediately, everyone must Add 15 precautions to check that she has not just betrayed the century of emancipation. But go and get yourself see. Why would it automatically be more worthy of organizing a merger the acquisition of educating four beings humans? Why produce a product? would a financier objectively be a social contribution higher than the fact to pass on to a child the ability to speak, to work, to pray, to respect others and not to become a savage? I'm not saying a woman shouldn't to work or that a man should never to stay with her children. I ask Where does the prestige hierarchy come from? which we take for granted today and which is rotten to the core. And that's where feminism meets strangely a great modern force which he often claims to fight. THE walk. You are a pure product of the walk. Because the market, it He really likes the abstract individual. The footless individual is a better consumer that the man solid on his spine and its supports. Let's be clear. I'm not going to tell you explain that a secret council of multinational invented feminism to sell nativity scenes. That would be silly. I'm talking about a convergence anthropological and this same feminism which produced this company with women supposedly free people have objectified them more than ever. In fact, now you you must always be beautiful, be... women and being mothers, but in addition you have to do a career because otherwise you will to waste your life. That's right. What is the ideal worker of an economy Extraordinarily mobile? Someone whose private obligations do not withstand not too long to meet the demands of its career, which can change cities, of pace, schedule, delaying charges family, outsourcing part of the Care, adjust your fertility to the calendar professional. And what is the ideal individual of a a certain conception of emancipation? Someone whose received dependencies do not do not determine its trajectory, which possesses an economic autonomy which can resume by choice the constraints that his body or his family it used to be imposed on him. Both logics do not have the same origin, but They produce the same individual. YOU Did you see? Mobile, autonomous, available comparable. That's why I always find It's fun to see some multinationals celebrate with enthusiasm the most advances in individual emancipation, Respect for LGBT people XW 48, I don't know What. Perhaps the revolution and the human resources have finally discovered they had an intern in common. Well, well. And the result is not necessarily a more feminine. Perhaps it's exactly the opposite. On he told the woman, "You were locked up in a world built by men. Free yourself! Great! What shape has Taken the liberation? Enter fully in the production model, of competition, career that had was precisely built according to a historically easier availability for the man as well as for the mother. And then, when the female body brutally reminds us that there is a asymmetry, pregnancy, birth breastfeeding, constraint, menstruation, we are not necessarily questioning the structure of success. We Let's ask medicine, let's ask technology, to the rights and institutions of allow as much as possible the woman to remain competitive according to the same measure. But at what point did we asked if the measure itself was Good? Perhaps a company A true friend of women should not not just allow women to occupy the world perfectly masculinized professional. Maybe that she should also relearn to publicly honor the assets to which the female body makes our civilization particularly sensitive. Generation, care, dependence, transmission, duration. And now I return to René Girard. I never noticed René Girard His name is the same as René Guénon's. I do not attribute to Girard a critique of the feminism that he did not formulate. I use his analysis of mimetic desire and rivalry. For Girard, desire Humans easily become triangular. We desire an object because another we designate it as desirable. When model and disciple become close enough to continue the Even with the same object, the model becomes an obstacle and imitation can turn into rivalry. The research association mimetic precisely summarizes this passage from proximity and imitation to the rivalry until the moment when the opponents become doubles who increasingly resemble each other as that they fight each other. Now, we're going to apply that to sex. It was applied to The video war on Close 8. We applies it to sex. For a very For a long time, men and women could obviously to be jealous of each other, to dominate each other, to hurt. Sin did not wait for the 20th century. century. Remember Adam's reaction when he learns of the fall. But he did not pursue necessarily the same social objects according to the same measure. Therefore, Emancipation asserts that women must demonstrate its equality by accessing the even though man, of the same in the same way and according to the same criteria, Something is changing. Same career, same prestige, same independence, supposedly, even sexual freedom, even in relation to fertility, same position family, even the ability to not depend of a person or to hit on walls. The other sex gradually ceases to be another with whom I build something. He becomes the model of what I lack and the rival who possesses what I claim. And that's that is where Girard produces an intuition almost perfect for our topic. More rivals become similar, more Their rivalry will become intense. On spontaneously imagines that removing the Differences will eliminate the conflict. It is fake. Girin forces us to consider exactly the opposite in these magnificent demonstrations. I you invites you to read all of his works. Big anthropologist, great philosopher, great French metaphysician. The difference can sometimes maintain a distance that prevents total mimetic rivalry. When everyone wants exactly the same object in the same place and according to the same As a measure, the potential conflict becomes inevitable because both They look more alike. Two teams of footballers don't fight because that they play different sports. They fight because they want to the same ball in the same match for the same goal. You can't put a boxer versus footballer because The footballer is after a ball. the boxer he is after the jaw of the dude. It's not the same sport. Apply that to the so-called, huh? obviously keep sex contemporary. The man becomes jealous of the advantages attributed to women. Look, she has I got a job because, because it's a woman. Yes. Well, listen, if we gives me a job because I am a Man, I'll take it. Finally, if it's a the position I want. The woman becomes jealous. Benefits attributed to men. Each person keeps the accounts of sacrifices of the other. Who suffers more? I'm the one who's suffering. Who who works the most? I work more than you. Who earns more? Uh, I earns more than you. I'm the one who decides at home. who has more power sexual. Ah, I am a man, I want this that I want. Who initiates divorces? It is the women who do all the divorces. They're all really... prostitutes. Oh my goodness, did you see the What do they call it? The incense. Who gets the children after the Divorces? Those are the women who more people die at work, but that's men. We really die at work. Who does more tasks domestic. But we women, we does everything at home. In addition, we must work. who takes more risks and each side miraculously discovers statistics confirming that it is the true victim. Speak to the men there I'm an anti-emite, so I'm the victim. Speak to feminist women, that's me the victim. This is mimetic rivalry in all its splendor. But me, I I don't want to be a victim, guys, okay? I am not a victim. The man and the women no longer look at each other ask what they can give together. They look at each other to check who receives the most. And notice how It's exactly the opposite of love. In love, I can rejoice that the other owns a property that I own not. You know, I earn a lot of money. Um, spoiling my wife is a It's an immense pleasure. I don't care. I'm buying myself some watches worth 10,000 bucks of time in That's enough time for me. In the rivalry, the other's good becomes proof of my deprivation. In complementarity, His difference enriches me. In the Rivalry, his difference insults me. In Love, I wonder what I Can I give? What is this What difference can it bring me? You know that the difference is either a bridge that we make, be it a wall. The difference, They are stones. You can make a a bridge to connect and grow, or a wall to separate. In the politics of resentment, I ask what it is something that I don't have? That's how we can end up transforming the couple himself in negotiations between two trade unions. You've done three loads of dishes. I made four of them. I won 60% of income. You've done 70% of the laundry. Alright. Maybe we can do a Excel spreadsheet and determine which of two is the conjugal proletarian. But a family cannot survive leaving of this logic. She assumes precisely so that everyone can give further without transforming a back into debt. A pregnant woman will give something that her husband won't give Never. This account will never be balanced. Do you know what pregnancy is? The destruction of a woman's body And that's very good, not the destruction of women's bodies, huh? but the fact that he has this imbalance. He will carry other things besides a woman will never be able to wear. It's not a Injustice is an interdependence. sexual. I'll go further. It's a divine interdependence. Justice does not necessarily require that each perform the same operation. She requires that each person organize their abilities to the common good with a reciprocity of Don. And that's where the battle of the sexes begins. becomes destructive. She interprets any asymmetry, like a debtor's ground potential. Go to hell with your logic. We don't want it. We don't He doesn't want to. It destroys the whole of society. So this is what we can now blaming modernity feminist much more profoundly than such and such claim particular. She wanted to cure the domination by similarity, but it has In fact, it produced a rivalry. She has wanted to preserve equality by making the differences increasingly politically insignificant and she made it increasingly It is difficult to say this that there is good in these differences. She wanted to prevent a definition the woman locks him up and some of its branches eventually gave almost any definition of a suspicious woman. She wanted to free the woman from the masculine measure, then she invited him to to measure its success with the criteria of a productivist civilization historically developed around the male availability. She wanted the woman to cease being considered an inferior man and she sometimes ended up offering him as supreme freedom the possibility of to become as undifferentiated as him in front of the market, in front of sexuality and the body. And that's for me, gentlemen. Ladies, you know what I call that? A complete failure. You missed it. Not that a woman can to become a minister, surgeon or university professor. That's great. I had some great teachers in many female executives at the university, very intelligent women. I reminds me of my law professor competition law extremely brilliant. Not that a father changes the diapers for his child, it's great if he wants to do that. The problem is not the circulation of activities. The problem is the loss of the principle which allows us to distinguish between activity and identity, equality, equivalence, freedom and indeterminacy. A woman can to perform surgery without his the body ceases to be feminine. It's for That's what I oppose, and I don't mean to offend. person. I don't want to hurt anyone Really. I know that there are people who do transsexualism, which makes sex reassignment surgeries, that is terrible suffering. But I say And I have the right to say so. Change of Sex through surgery is not changing of sex. You can't change your sex. That's not possible. There's a biological fatalism at play, you know? Whatever we do, I think an individual has more merit, strength, and will have more peace is the key, achieved by working towards to accept oneself only by changing oneself. It's about even for cosmetic surgery. A A man can spend 6 months taking care of of a newborn without becoming a mother. Tasks do not create genders. The modified physical expression does not change not the physical foundation. And precisely because the sexes Previously, we could have a immense variety of concrete situations without having to conclude that the difference It no longer makes sense. And that's it. that we have achieved with this conference. What did feminism promise? to render the woman to herself. Some very present expressions of feminism contemporary worlds have brought a world intellectual where woman becomes a category that must constantly deconstructing, where the difference bodily fluids must be neutralized politically as much as possible, where The sexes are invited to continue the same goods according to the same measurements and where their relationship is increasingly easily interpreted by the categories of power and rivalry. And that gives rise to all the cinema and the game fake video featuring 50-year-old women kg who fight against guys from 90 kg, all muscle, trained for combat and the Women smoke 50 guys with their bare hands. YOU See? Because you need everything at all price proven by propaganda ridiculous. Look, women can to do what men do. Women cannot do what the men. They can do a lot of things that men do. They do not can't do everything that the men. Just as men do not can't do everything that the women. A man will never be pregnant in Arnold Schwarzenegger's films. for those who have the reference. SO Perhaps it's time to do Exactly the opposite of all that. No, not ask how to make the woman more like a man. No, not ask how to make man less masculine so that he can no longer dominate. But asking how to restore the man and the woman in such a way that their difference becomes a gift again to place of a grievance. That masculine strength ceases to be predation because it regains its purpose. Femininity ceases to be suspected of passivity because it regains its power own. and that equality finally ceases to demand undifferentiation. Because at this stage, there is nothing left to do to defend a theory. It's necessary rebuilding a civilization of the difference. And I end like this and I say what I want, based on order The divine nature of things. Thank you infinitely. God bless you.