Why Thaïs d’Escufon Does Not Identify as a Feminist

Thaïs d’Escufon does not identify as a feminist. Her position is not to deny the existence of women, their autonomy, or their place in society, but to reject what she sees as the directions taken by contemporary feminism. She believes that another reading of relations between men and women is needed: one attentive to biological, psychological, and social differences, as well as to complementarity between the sexes.

She also rejects being described as a traditionalist or conservative. In her view, older models cannot simply be restored as a matter of principle, because material, economic, and family conditions have changed. Instead, she prefers the term “realism” to describe her approach.

A Critique of Feminism Viewed as Hostile to Masculinity

The first criticism concerns the place of masculinity. Thaïs d’Escufon believes that the feminism she criticizes treats men, masculinity, and the father figure as adversaries to be fought. She considers this logic counterproductive, since society can neither sustain itself nor function without men’s participation.

She attributes the roles of builders, protectors, and transgressors to men. From this perspective, the central issue is not to neutralize masculine characteristics, but to allow men and women to express their qualities without entering into a logic of permanent conflict.

She also links contemporary relations between the sexes to a deterioration in romantic and family relationships. She refers to fewer marriages, fewer children, and more people who would no longer wish to share their lives with someone. These observations are presented as the consequences of a relationship model she considers unhealthy.

Equality as a Source of Resentment, in Her View

Thaïs d’Escufon connects feminism to a broader critique of egalitarianism. She argues that the pursuit of complete equality between people leads to the erasure of each person’s differences, abilities, and functions. She sees this as a source of jealousy and resentment.

In her reasoning, this resentment would be expressed on several levels: between women, against women she considers admirable; against men, through the devaluation of masculinity; and against collective constraints or duties. She believes that a uniform model designed “for everyone” ultimately impoverishes individuals rather than enabling them to develop their distinctive qualities.

Her critique therefore rests on the idea that equality should not mean the absolute sameness of the sexes. For Thaïs d’Escufon, recognizing differences between men and women does not mean defending a hierarchy between them, but taking into account realities she considers observable.

Beauty and Femininity at the Heart of Her Disagreement

Aesthetic questions occupy an important place in her argument. She criticizes certain activist expressions for devaluing beauty, conventional femininity, and pageants or representations that celebrate female appearance. She associates this trend with a celebration of what she describes as ugliness, mediocrity, or provocation.

Her argument draws a direct link between aesthetics and morality: in her view, the deliberate destruction of what is beautiful has consequences for individuals, those around them, and future generations. This position rests on an explicit value judgment, according to which order, beauty, and excellence are interconnected.

She also believes that contemporary feminism paradoxically wages a struggle against femininity. She criticizes it for portraying attributes traditionally associated with women as necessarily degrading and for encouraging women to adopt masculine behavior, particularly in romantic relationships.

Biological and Psychological Differences: The Basis of Her “Realism”

For Thaïs d’Escufon, thinking about relations between men and women must begin with bodily and psychological differences. She cites differences in muscle mass, bone structure, and hormones in particular. She argues that these differences help shape certain behaviors, preferences, and areas of interest.

She also argues that men and women differ in personality and in their vulnerability to certain disorders. She points, on the one hand, to the substantial male presence among people recognized in certain prestigious fields and, on the other, to the overrepresentation of men among prisoners. She interprets these disparities as incompatible with the idea that all differences in outcomes are produced solely by a social determination to conceal women’s talents.

Her position is therefore to reject depictions in which the physical abilities of men and women are interchangeable. She particularly criticizes fictional scenarios in which a slight woman physically dominates, with her bare hands, men who are far heavier. At the same time, she recognizes qualities specific to women, including conscientiousness, which she considers useful to the stability of a couple, a family, a business, or a civilization.

Complementarity Rather Than Rivalry

The third principle of her approach is the reciprocal need for men and women. She notes that there can be no reproduction without peaceful coexistence and argues that the two sexes possess complementary qualities.

In this view, the physical security provided by men would moderate women, while women’s emotional richness would moderate men. Each would therefore have a role to play in preventing the other from falling into selfishness, obsession, or excess.

She draws on the example of Lysistrata, Aristophanes’ comedy written in 411 BC. She interprets the work not as a feminist plea, but as the story of women using their influence over men to turn them away from a fixation on war that threatens the social order.

Separate Spaces for Men and Women

Thaïs d’Escufon also supports the existence of places reserved, temporarily or permanently, for one sex only. She believes that men and women need to live together, but not necessarily in every space and at every moment.

She applies this idea to school, sport, work, education, religion, and culture. In her view, a degree of single-sex separation can provide useful points of reference, especially during childhood and adolescence. She mentions the value of separate schools for boys and girls at certain stages of education, in order to reduce flirtation and encourage companionship or concentration.

She distinguishes these separate spaces from a desire to divide the sexes. Their function, she argues, would instead be to allow each person to develop before being better able to relate to the other. She thus links women’s spaces to the need for sociability among women, and men’s spaces to fraternity among men.

Why She Does Not Advocate a Return to the Past

Although Thaïs d’Escufon challenges feminism, she does not present the 1950s housewife model as a solution that can be immediately transferred to the present. She emphasizes that this model was only possible under particular circumstances, especially when a single income could support an entire family.

She cites the example of her mother, a stay-at-home mother of nine children, whose situation depended on her father’s work. She also highlights the isolation that could result from living far away from family and lacking a close local support network. In an individualized and atomized society, she therefore considers it understandable that this model has been called into question.

Her stated aim is to seek a positive mode of coexistence for women, men, and society. She calls for moving away from ideologies and instead starting, in her words, from concrete realities, the life sciences, but also culture, myths, traditions, and collective narratives.

FAQ

Does Thaïs d’Escufon describe herself as a traditionalist?

No. She says that she does not identify any more with the traditionalist or conservative labels, which she considers too imprecise and unsuited to present-day social conditions.

What alternative to feminism does she propose?

She advocates a “realist” approach to relations between men and women, based on recognizing biological and psychological differences, complementarity, and the existence of spaces specific to each sex.

What place does she give to motherhood?

She considers motherhood an essential foundation of the continuity of civilizations and criticizes narratives that portray it, in her view, as an inherently backward or demeaning condition.