How to break the chain of misogyny, taught from mother to daughter?

But why do some women defend their attackers? Why do others teach us misogynistic reflexes? Why does female rivalry exist? These are the questions that activist Camille Lextray, behind the Instagram account @hystérique_mais_pas_que, is analyzing. After attending femicide collages and working in a feminist NGO, the activist offers us these thoughts to allow everyone, in turn, to break the chain.

From the introduction you talk about your experience in the collage collective against femicide and the violence of some women against the movement. Why is violence by women, against other women, particularly offensive when you are a feminist?

Camille Lextray: Before I got into feminism, I had this naive idea that patriarchal violence was a monopoly of cisgender men. I was completely unprepared when faced with women who were just as violent and misogynistic, and I didn’t know what to say to them.

How to argue with people who are both victims and executioners?

Camille Lextract

I needed to write this book to understand where this thought comes from, to fight it and not leave this field to the far right. It is a very current topic, with political figures like Marine Le Pen and Giorgia Meloni, or even the tradwife movement who defend the traditional place of women.

If patriarchy remains in force it is because women cooperate in this system. This is one of the central theses of your book, why do they do it?

Camille Lextray: The first reason is survival, with the fear of repercussions in case of rebellion. Women risk reprisals if they decide to step outside their assigned framework. In general, Amber Heard’s trial has been an international example of how women are punished if they dare to rebel against patriarchal oppression. Finally, some women have experienced violence that is too difficult to admit and which is sometimes easier to repress and deny being a victim.

A first example you give is the key figure that is mothers. Paradoxically they are forced to take responsibility for the education of their children, but forced by survival to teach the gender script, how is this paradox possible?

Camille Lextray: Believing in the distribution of the sexes gives a framework to existence, it reassures. To step outside this framework of woman and mother is a leap into the unknown, and calls into question one of the very foundations of society, namely the family. We see this very clearly with the far right that speaks of the “right” of women to stay at home. They say that it is a right that must be defended and that feminists are attacking a freedom, when it is the opposite. This example touches on a crucial point: the impossibility of projecting oneself into a society in which women are not mothers.

The second example is the “choose me” or “the girl like no other”. Can you explain this gender role and how it is built from scratch?

Camille Lextray: The “pick me” is the girl who doesn’t fit into the girl group and hangs out with the boys. It’s a logical defense reflex to tell yourself that girls are considered a stupid and uninteresting group and that you don’t want to identify with them. Instead of telling ourselves that the description is false and that we are wrong about women, we want to show that we are smarter, that we are better than what we expect from women. The problem is that this is the case for everyone, we are better than what society expects from us.

By denigrating other women, we join the dominant camp and delude ourselves into thinking we can circumvent violence. We feel like we are their equals, but in reality, we are not.

Camille Lextract

In your book you say: “When women represent women, men represent the world”, about the role of expertise. Why are women considered less competent in explaining a topic?

Camille Lextray: I think the idea behind this sentence is to confine women to very specific topics, and the topics of women’s expertise will not be seen as political topics, but as personal development. There is this rejection of the expertise of women who will have the status of witness, as if they could not have a critical perspective, as if they were necessarily in the sensorial realm, where men are perceived in reflection and rational reflection.

There are studies that explain that when we interact with someone in a store, we react differently, depending on the person’s gender. If it is a man who answers, we will believe him much more, we will respect his word and we will not try to talk to someone else. When it is a woman there will be the presumption of incompetence.

Finally, what are the small daily reflexes, very simple things, that can allow us individually and collectively to break the chain?

Camille Lextray: The goal of feminism is to conquer a place in society that we are not allowed to occupy. We must avoid entering into a logic of personal development and acting only individually for our own benefit. We must collectively rethink how we can build feminism, especially in intimate spaces. For example, how can I ensure that it is not always men who sit at the table and women who clear the table? We must also remain vigilant towards the women around us, the dynamics of boy clubs, exclusion and rivalry fantasies. We must collectively raise awareness.