Why the Playboy cover by a French minister annoys me

Making other women seem joyless and reactionary for objecting to what she did cheapens the very idea of feminism, writes Marie Le Conte

It isn’t the first time Marlene Schiappa has divided opinion (AFP/Getty)

What does it mean to be a feminist? It feels like a straightforward question, but somehow it pops back up every few months; each time for a different reason, each time with many possible different answers.

This time, it has cropped up in France. According to social economy minister Marlene Schiappa, “defending women’s right to do what they want with their bodies [should happen] everywhere and all the time. In France, women are free, whether it annoys the reactionaries and hypocrites or not”. So far, so good.

The reason this came up in the first place, however, is a bit more controversial. Last week, Schiappa was unveiled as Playboy France’s latest – fully clothed – cover girl. The move has, perhaps predictably, received mixed reactions among media and political circles.

It isn’t the first time Schiappa has divided opinion. Though she became a government minister in 2017 – put in charge of gender equality by Emmanuel Macron – she refused to put an end to her literary career. She had been writing erotic novels under the pen name “Marie Minelli” since 2012, and has published more than one book of sex tips.

In this context, it probably shouldn’t be too much of a shock that she would decide to be pictured in the men’s magazines. Still, it rankles. Schiappa is of course right to defend herself by pointing out that women should be free to do as they wish, but decisions do not happen in a vacuum.

Women have had to fight long and hard to be seen as worthy of high political office, picked for their experience and competence and not their looks. The minister may not be naked in this month’s Playboy, but she will remain surrounded by pages and pages of smut and nudity.

It is also telling that the magazine picked her, a traditionally good-looking 40-year-old, over any of her colleagues. Élisabeth Borne is currently prime minister – only the second woman in history to serve in the role – so why didn’t they ask her instead? Is it perhaps because she is in her sixties, has short hair and wears minimal make-up?

Again, it is hard not to see this as Schiappa playing into the hands of a traditionally patriarchal institution. Her argument is probably that the interview she gave Playboy will reach readers who wouldn’t usually pay attention to what the government is doing, but I feel that is overly optimistic. There is a reason why people have long joked about “buying Playboy for the articles”.

There is also something of the Marie Antoinette in such a move, given how angry French people are at the government at the moment. With millions protesting in the streets and the cost of living crisis biting for most people, a glossy interview and glamorous photoshoot seems rather tone-deaf.

As a result, deciding to use feminism as a justification feels like adding insult to injury. There will never be complete agreement over what it means to be a feminist, but it is disingenuous at best to suggest that anything a woman does must be correct, since she had decided to do it. It would have been more intellectually honest for Schiappa to say that she decided to appear in Playboy simply because she wanted to.

Making other women seem joyless and reactionary for objecting to what she did cheapens the very idea of feminism. Oh, and on behalf of French women, it really doesn’t help our reputation on the world stage. It definitely is a minor concern, in the grand scheme of things, but it couldn’t go unmentioned. I mean come on, Marlene; you’re not making things easy for us, are you?