Emmanuel Macron: "Your problem is that you believe that a father is necessarily a male" (m-à-j)
French President Macron before declared at the end of January 2020 (see ticket below): "I understand. Your problem is that you believe that a father is necessarily a male. All psychoanalysts will tell you otherwise. We had already questioned this assertion.
All psychoanalysts? It seemed to us very exaggerated. Now, a psychoanalyst is protesting against President Macron's out-of-the-way remarks. This is Christian Flavigny, child psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. It is interesting to note that according to Mr Flavigny, the idea expressed by Mr Macron is not so much that of all psychoanalysts, but of a single adult psychiatrist: Boris Cyrulnik.
Excerpts from his article in this Thursday's Current Values:
Yes, Mr. President, the father is "necessarily" a man.
Usurping the meaning of words to defend a law that violates the basic needs of the child is more than a fault, it is a forfeiture.
Current Values reported on its website that you dispute, Mr. President, that "the father is necessarily a male", relying on the reductive words of adult psychiatrist Boris Cyrulnik; let me explain your mistake, which relates to the meaning of words. The father is necessarily a man and, moreover, a man who was a boy in his childhood. This condition of"being a man" is not sufficient, but it is necessary; anyone who claims to be "the father" without meeting these criteria would be wrong, since the approach is consistent with the child's view of what "a father" is to him, which is essential.
The function of father, in the human sense of the term, is to pass on to his children the principle of fatherhood. This principle cannot be summed up in a social role, that of sharing one's life with the mother (so the stepfather, if he can play an educational role with the child, is not his father), nor the biological role (the father may be the sire, but the progenitor does not make the father; as evidenced by the adoption), nor to the fact of carrying on his identity card the identification to the male sex (a person born a daughter, but having obtained a change of sex cannot be a father in the psychic sense, even if he can play the role of a child as a child).
Being the father, in the child's eyes, has two conditions. The first is to have shared with the mother the procreative power, which results from the gift of incompleteness made from one sex to another, a gift that carries the coming of the child and which the child aspires to embody; in other words, to be the one who with the mother founded for the child its origin. The second: to pass on to his child to have been the son of his own father, delegating to his child the time of childhood, confrontation with personal finitude; this transmission is essential because it establishes the principle of regulating the parent-child bond, the so-called family prohibitions of incest and murder.
[...]
The current law is therefore misleading, for it is meaningless accessible to a child's psyche; for him, there is "his mother" only if there is "his father": symbolic placesare interdefined. Social considerations (frequent absence of fathers, women raising children alone, etc.) are certainly to be taken into account and accompanied; to do so by usurping the meaning of words is a badge of violence against childhood and its basic needs, it is a deception towards future generations. Deconstructing fundamentals, preparing a destabilized society, the law of bioethics is not progressive, but deeply deleterious.
Christian Flavigny is a child psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, member of the Thomas More Institute's "Family" Working Group and author of "The Confiscated Debate, LDC, GPA, Bioethics, "Gender: MeToo ...
" (Salvator).
All psychoanalysts? It seemed to us very exaggerated. Now, a psychoanalyst is protesting against President Macron's out-of-the-way remarks. This is Christian Flavigny, child psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. It is interesting to note that according to Mr Flavigny, the idea expressed by Mr Macron is not so much that of all psychoanalysts, but of a single adult psychiatrist: Boris Cyrulnik.
Excerpts from his article in this Thursday's Current Values:
Yes, Mr. President, the father is "necessarily" a man.
Usurping the meaning of words to defend a law that violates the basic needs of the child is more than a fault, it is a forfeiture.
Current Values reported on its website that you dispute, Mr. President, that "the father is necessarily a male", relying on the reductive words of adult psychiatrist Boris Cyrulnik; let me explain your mistake, which relates to the meaning of words. The father is necessarily a man and, moreover, a man who was a boy in his childhood. This condition of"being a man" is not sufficient, but it is necessary; anyone who claims to be "the father" without meeting these criteria would be wrong, since the approach is consistent with the child's view of what "a father" is to him, which is essential.
The function of father, in the human sense of the term, is to pass on to his children the principle of fatherhood. This principle cannot be summed up in a social role, that of sharing one's life with the mother (so the stepfather, if he can play an educational role with the child, is not his father), nor the biological role (the father may be the sire, but the progenitor does not make the father; as evidenced by the adoption), nor to the fact of carrying on his identity card the identification to the male sex (a person born a daughter, but having obtained a change of sex cannot be a father in the psychic sense, even if he can play the role of a child as a child).
Being the father, in the child's eyes, has two conditions. The first is to have shared with the mother the procreative power, which results from the gift of incompleteness made from one sex to another, a gift that carries the coming of the child and which the child aspires to embody; in other words, to be the one who with the mother founded for the child its origin. The second: to pass on to his child to have been the son of his own father, delegating to his child the time of childhood, confrontation with personal finitude; this transmission is essential because it establishes the principle of regulating the parent-child bond, the so-called family prohibitions of incest and murder.
[...]
The current law is therefore misleading, for it is meaningless accessible to a child's psyche; for him, there is "his mother" only if there is "his father": symbolic placesare interdefined. Social considerations (frequent absence of fathers, women raising children alone, etc.) are certainly to be taken into account and accompanied; to do so by usurping the meaning of words is a badge of violence against childhood and its basic needs, it is a deception towards future generations. Deconstructing fundamentals, preparing a destabilized society, the law of bioethics is not progressive, but deeply deleterious.
Christian Flavigny is a child psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, member of the Thomas More Institute's "Family" Working Group and author of "The Confiscated Debate, LDC, GPA, Bioethics, "Gender: MeToo ...
" (Salvator).
Invited to the Élysée Palace to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the President of the Catholic Family Associations (AFC) was able to discuss with Emmanuel Macron the 'LDC for all'. A surreal discussion.
The Élysée was full of children who came at the invitation of the presidential couple. At 5 p.m. last Sunday, many child protection actors gathered to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the ratification of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. No speeches, but long exchanges of Emmanuel Macron with these young people. Before the head of state invites the only presidents of associations to a smaller cocktail. Among them, Pascale Morinière, president of the Catholic Family Associations (AFC), who had decided to 'try his luck' by receiving the card, three days earlier. It is absurd to celebrate the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child while accepting the Fatherless LDC!
Try your luck? That is to say, talk to the head of state about his opposition to the bioethics bill currently being debated by the Senate, by supporting his comment on... convention on the rights of the child precisely! 'We have often brandished Article 7 of this convention which states that a child has the right, as far as possible, to know his parents and to be raised by them,' she said today. It is absurd to celebrate
the ratification of this convention while accepting the LDC without a father'.
In concrete terms, Pascale Morinière began by talking with Brigitte Macron who kicked in, probably being careful to stay out of the current political discussions. But then it was Emmanuel Macron himself who met the president of the AFC. It was good, she had brought a book for him, in which she had slipped a letter whose contents she was able to explain to the President of the Republic: her request to withdraw the bioethics bill,
in the name of the law of the child.
A book 'non-militant, simply exposing the beauty of fatherhood', she says. His references? Paternity, written by Fabrice Hadjadj, illustrated by François-Xavier de Boissoudy, and edited by De Corvelour. After flipping through it, Emmanuel Macron asked to be put on his desk. An astonishing conversation ensued, in the presence of the Secretary of State for Child Protection Aurélien Taquet and Senator LREM Martin Lévrier,
who recently voted against the LDC. Your problem is that you believe that a father is necessarily a male.
Pascale Morinière wanted to make it public. When the latter explains that it is inconsistent to celebrate the 30th anniversary of this convention while defending the 'Fatherless LDC', the President of the Republic replies that fatherhood is divided into two functions: one genetic and the other symbolic. For the genetic part, he continues, children will have the opportunity to know their sire. 'We will make sure it comes back to the Assembly,' the President said, referring to the Senate's restriction on access to origins for children born in LDCs.
What about the symbolic part? 'There's no problem,' he continued.
Pascale Morinière insists, and the President replies: 'I understand. Your problem is that you believe that a father is necessarily a male. All psychoanalysts will tell you otherwise.' [All?] Words that she swears are engraved in her memory. Present at the exchange in which he did not participate, Senator LREM Martin Lévrier, contacted by Current Values, did not wish to comment. Until now, Minister Agnes Buzyn had been the only one to state quite staggeringly that a father could be a grandmother. It now has the support of the head of state.
Within seconds, the AFC Chair addressed the financial issue, noting that all countries that had expanded access to LDC had been forced to purchase sperm or pay donors. Emmanuel Macron assured him that this issue would be secured in the text of the law. The President of the AFC insisted that the President would then agree to create frustration. Emmanuel Macron then cracked an ironic answer: 'laws are not there to meet all desires'. Exactly the argument that opponents of the bioethics bill make, therefore.
Try your luck? That is to say, talk to the head of state about his opposition to the bioethics bill currently being debated by the Senate, by supporting his comment on... convention on the rights of the child precisely! 'We have often brandished Article 7 of this convention which states that a child has the right, as far as possible, to know his parents and to be raised by them,' she said today. It is absurd to celebrate
the ratification of this convention while accepting the LDC without a father'.
In concrete terms, Pascale Morinière began by talking with Brigitte Macron who kicked in, probably being careful to stay out of the current political discussions. But then it was Emmanuel Macron himself who met the president of the AFC. It was good, she had brought a book for him, in which she had slipped a letter whose contents she was able to explain to the President of the Republic: her request to withdraw the bioethics bill,
in the name of the law of the child.
A book 'non-militant, simply exposing the beauty of fatherhood', she says. His references? Paternity, written by Fabrice Hadjadj, illustrated by François-Xavier de Boissoudy, and edited by De Corvelour. After flipping through it, Emmanuel Macron asked to be put on his desk. An astonishing conversation ensued, in the presence of the Secretary of State for Child Protection Aurélien Taquet and Senator LREM Martin Lévrier,
who recently voted against the LDC. Your problem is that you believe that a father is necessarily a male.
Pascale Morinière wanted to make it public. When the latter explains that it is inconsistent to celebrate the 30th anniversary of this convention while defending the 'Fatherless LDC', the President of the Republic replies that fatherhood is divided into two functions: one genetic and the other symbolic. For the genetic part, he continues, children will have the opportunity to know their sire. 'We will make sure it comes back to the Assembly,' the President said, referring to the Senate's restriction on access to origins for children born in LDCs.
What about the symbolic part? 'There's no problem,' he continued.
Pascale Morinière insists, and the President replies: 'I understand. Your problem is that you believe that a father is necessarily a male. All psychoanalysts will tell you otherwise.' [All?] Words that she swears are engraved in her memory. Present at the exchange in which he did not participate, Senator LREM Martin Lévrier, contacted by Current Values, did not wish to comment. Until now, Minister Agnes Buzyn had been the only one to state quite staggeringly that a father could be a grandmother. It now has the support of the head of state.
Within seconds, the AFC Chair addressed the financial issue, noting that all countries that had expanded access to LDC had been forced to purchase sperm or pay donors. Emmanuel Macron assured him that this issue would be secured in the text of the law. The President of the AFC insisted that the President would then agree to create frustration. Emmanuel Macron then cracked an ironic answer: 'laws are not there to meet all desires'. Exactly the argument that opponents of the bioethics bill make, therefore.
