Thaïs d’Escufon Challenges Marianne’s Portrayal of Her Views

Thaïs d’Escufon ranks 98th in a Marianne list of the 100 French figures who “shaped public opinion” in 2024. She views the mention as recognition of her influence in public debate, while strongly disputing the profile written by journalist Paul Conge.

At the heart of her response are several substantive disagreements: the use of the term “masculinist,” the interpretation of her views on feminism and sexuality, the association of her discourse with the tradwife model, and the description of her commercial activity aimed at men.

A place in the ranking seen as recognition

Thaïs d’Escufon says she was listed alongside figures such as Vincent Bolloré, Léna Situations, Jérôme Fourquet, Hugo Clément, and Éric Zemmour. She notes that her 98th place is modest within the ranking, but nevertheless sees it as confirmation that her public statements are contributing to discussions in France.

That appreciation does not mean she agrees with the content of the profile. On the contrary, she believes the article does not accurately reflect either her approach or the subjects she addresses. Her response therefore seeks to distinguish what she regards as her actual views from the terms used to characterize them.

The disagreement over the “masculinist” label

The journalist describes Thaïs d’Escufon as a “masculinist influencer.” She rejects that description. In her view, criticizing certain aspects of feminism or discussing what she calls “female domination in the West” does not amount to pitting men against women.

She describes her approach as an analysis of the psychology of the sexes, which she believes can concern people regardless of their gender, political views, or beliefs. She criticizes the profile for offering a binary reading of her discourse, based on a systematic opposition between the interests of men and women.

This divergence is central because it concerns both vocabulary and the very nature of the ideas being debated. On one side, the term “masculinist” is used to publicly position her views; on the other, Thaïs d’Escufon maintains that she does not belong to a camp opposed to women.

Her criticism of feminism and her view of sexual freedom

The profile refers to a “castrating neo-feminism” allegedly criticized by Thaïs d’Escufon. She clarifies that she does not distinguish “neo-feminism” from feminism: in her view, the phenomena she denounces stem from the evolution of the same ideology. She believes that this ideology tends to reverse the roles of men and women and present a form of domination through the language of equality.

However, she disputes the moral or religious framing associated with certain descriptions, especially the notion that sexual freedom would “corrupt” women. She says she does not base her argument on religion or dogma, but on what she presents as observations of behavior and facts.

In her discourse, she speaks particularly to men seeking to build a stable family. She encourages them to take into account the romantic and sexual past of potential partners, considering that a high number of partners may be a risk factor for relationship stability and long-term faithfulness. She presents these assessments as warnings rather than a ban or a universal moral rule.

Thaïs d’Escufon stresses individual responsibility: in her view, everyone remains free to make their own choices with an awareness of the consequences she associates with them. She also states that she has not set a specific numerical threshold for the number of sexual partners, while saying that more than 20 partners seems high to her.

A debate over what women’s freedom encompasses

The journalist describes her positions as criticism of women who are “too free.” Thaïs d’Escufon rejects that wording, which she considers reductive. She argues that freedom cannot be defined solely by having an increasing number of sexual partners.

She puts forward a different conception: for her, freedom can also mean not allowing oneself to be used by men she considers undesirable and being more selective in one’s relationships. This position reflects a reading of male-female relationships centered on the emotional, sexual, and family consequences of individual choices.

The disagreement is therefore not merely about the words used, but about two distinct views of sexual autonomy. The profile emphasizes the restrictive nature of her recommendations; Thaïs d’Escufon argues, by contrast, that she defends a freedom based on discernment and responsibility.

Tradwife: an affiliation she denies

Marianne also associates Thaïs d’Escufon with promoting a “tradwife” model—that is, a traditional wife devoted to the home and her husband. She denies advocating this model and says she has already explained why she does not define herself as a tradwife.

Her response draws a distinction between her interest in certain issues relating to relations between the sexes and support for an injunction that women should stay at home. She believes the profile attributes to her a position she does not claim.

Coaching for men: disagreement over the term “scam”

The profile mentions the coaching service offered to men who experience difficulties in their relationships with women. It presents it as an identity-based business and refers to a “lucrative modern scam.” Thaïs d’Escufon firmly disputes that expression.

She notes that the word “scam” refers, in her view, to fraud, theft, or deception. Yet she maintains that the advice and support on offer do genuinely exist and correspond to a skill that her audience recognizes in her. Disagreement with her ideas, she adds, would therefore not be enough to describe her activity as a scam.

She also defends the principle of monetizing her work, stating that her content is followed by several hundred thousand people across all platforms. For her, helping men work on their charisma or seduction skills is a response to real difficulties, not grounds for dismissing them.

A controversy illustrating polarized debate

Thaïs d’Escufon’s reaction reveals a clear divide between the journalistic framing of her positions and the way she intends to define them. The former emphasizes a discourse deemed masculinist, regressive, and commercial; the latter claims to offer an analysis of behavior, a critique of contemporary feminism, and a defense of individual responsibility.

Beyond this particular case, the controversy shows how debates over feminism, sexuality, male-female relationships, and influencer activities are shaped by disagreements over the facts invoked, political categories, and the words used to describe the positions involved.

Frequently asked questions

Why did Thaïs d’Escufon respond to Marianne’s profile?

She responded after being ranked 98th among the 100 French figures who shaped public opinion in 2024. While she says she appreciates the recognition, she disputes several descriptions of her ideas and activity.

Does Thaïs d’Escufon define herself as masculinist?

No. She rejects the label and says she analyzes the psychology of the sexes without advocating opposition between men and women.

Does she support the tradwife model?

She denies it. She says she does not support the idea that women should remain at home, be sexually pure, and be entirely devoted to their husbands.

How does she respond to the accusation that her coaching is a scam?

She considers the term unjustified because, in her view, the advice and support being sold are genuinely provided to clients. She believes her ideas can be challenged without equating her activity with deception.