This Saturday, Catherine Nay reflects on the controversy that raged this week between feminists and a group of 100 women who believe that their fight is victim and Puritan. Hello Catherine, Hello Wendy, hello everyone. You come back this morning on the controversy that raged this week between feminists and a collective of 100 women. Among them, Catherine Deneuve, who judge, in a tribune World, that their fight is victim and puritanical. Originally, there is the detestable case Weinstein, this American big predator, who harassed his actresses and raped them, while threatening to no longer offer them role. A dirty guy. Too much, it was too much. The word has freed itself. By dozens, actresses have denounced their executioner, that one or other. And on social networks, they were encouraged to do so. “Swing your pig”, “me too”. Hence public indictments of individuals without being given the opportunity to defend themselves. A kind of planetary unanimity to denounce intolerable practices. Was it fair or not? We have seen a sort of expeditious justice, men forced to resign. For example, this English minister who had to leave his post for having, in 2002, put his hand on the knee of a journalist. He deserved a slap. But from there to stop his career 16 years later. How not to see a form of personal revenge? Can we put on the same plane a hand on a knee and a rape? In this case, men and women should look at each other as hereditary enemies? Are we not going too far? This is precisely what the 100 women wanted to plead in the World. But, you say, with regretful clumsiness. “The rape is a crime but the insistent or clumsy drag is not a crime, nor the gallantry, a machismo aggression,” they write in the preamble and denounce this purifying wave. According to them, this fever has sent pigs to the slaughterhouse which, far from helping women to empower themselves, is actually serving the enemies of sexual freedom, religious extremists, the worst reactionaries. And to say: Puritanism is running, what they do not want it defends itself. But to give men the “freedom to annoy” because it is indispensable to sexual freedom. Importuner, definition in dictionary: it means harassing, bothering, boring, not to say pissed off. No, no woman wants to be bothered. Another thing: one should not feel traumatized by a smuggler in the subway, but consider it as an expression of great sexual misery. So in the name of compassion, then, everything would be allowed. On the contrary, a woman must be able to walk in the street, take the metro, have a coffee alone, without being “annoyed”! It is a right ! This is what men must understand. Another sentence makes you tick. Yes. Accidents that can affect a woman’s body do not necessarily reach her dignity or make her a perpetual victim. We are not reducible to our body. There, we know who is the author of this sentence: Catherine Millet who published in 2001 “The sexual life of Catherine M”. Big success: 700,000 copies where she told her intimate life for decades: orgies, on parking lots, in the Bois de Boulogne, in semi-trailer cabins Place Dauphine, or even in the back of a van in the city Paris, not giving us any detail: fellatio, sodomy. Philippe Solere, who is not at all stupid, wrote in The world, that Catherine Millet’s drifting life was a work of art and that she deserved beatification. Asked about France Culture on December 5, she theorized that a raped woman who considers herself to be defiled internalizes the speech of people around her. A residue of archaism. “I regret not having been raped, because I could testify that rape, we are doing.” But what is her word worth, since she felt that her orgies did not undermine her own dignity? I find it amazing that these 100 women rank under the banner of Catherine Millet and sign this plea for men to have the right to annoy. And what about Brigitte Lahaie, who swings on BFM TV to Caroline de Haas who was a victim of rape: “we can enjoy during a rape, I tell you”. She retracted. She regrets saying that. Brigitte Lahaie is a former porn actress. Let’s say it has a form of sensitivity and freedom that not all women have, and surely do not want to have. I would say that Catherine Millet and Brigitte Lahaie serve the original purpose of these 100 women who were trying to defend.