Mine Günbay has been active on issues related to the rights of migrants, human rights, and especially women’s rights for nearly 25 years.
She dedicated her feminist commitment to the city of Strasbourg for eight years as Deputy Mayor in charge of women’s rights, gender equality, and local democracy (2008–2016). Over a two-year period, she travelled across South America (Ecuador, Cuba, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, and Colombia) to meet feminist movements and study their institutional and grassroots organisational models.
Today, as Executive Director of the Fédération Nationale Solidarité Femmes, she continues her long-standing commitment to combating violence against women within this Federation, which created the first shelters for women victims of violence more than 50 years ago and, over 30 years ago, the national helpline for support, information, and referral: 3919.
On the occasion of 25 November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, what are the main challenges in supporting women victims of violence in France today?
With the #MeToo wave, the Grenelle on domestic violence, the announcement of the “great cause” of the five-year presidential term, and lessons learned from the pandemic, there were a few years when issues linked to violence against women were genuinely taken into account. Yet over the past one to two years, we have sensed a sudden halt—a loss of momentum and public commitment on this topic. The first challenge is therefore macro and political.
We must once again make the fight against violence towards women a central national priority. This is first and foremost a democratic imperative.
In a country where women are killed, survive attempted femicides, or are driven to suicide every day, this should be enough to alert public authorities and trigger a far more robust response. It is also about genuinely aligning our actions with our international and European commitments, including the Istanbul Convention.
The second challenge lies in the reality on the ground. Today, feminist organisations face serious difficulties: their resources are shrinking while more and more women seek their support. In practical terms, this means that women are being lost along the way in their journey to escape violence, because the complexity of their situations clashes with insufficient support structures.
Some end up abandoning their efforts to leave violent situations due to the lack of adequate responses. This also heavily impacts the professionals accompanying them. Social work is about finding solutions, and identifying appropriate services that meet women’s needs: listening, informing, referring, activating the right mechanisms. When social workers hit closed doors everywhere, they lose the sense of purpose in their work and feel useless—an extremely serious threat to the future of the social work sector.
Finally, there is an urgent and critical concern: the risk of an increase in femicides in the coming years if situations continue to be poorly addressed. And we must not focus solely on women who are killed—many remain trapped in violence because no concrete solutions are offered.
A recent study we published with IFOP and Crédit Mutuel shows that 48% of women would be unable to leave and afford housing on their own. This figure alone should be a major wake-up call. Moreover, 96% of women who are separating or in the process of separation report that access to housing is one of the primary levers enabling them to leave a violent partner.
Could you briefly remind us of the history and role of the Fédération Nationale Solidarité Femmes?
The Fédération Nationale Solidarité Femmes (FNSF) brings together 83 member organisations today. Historically, the Federation was built around the creation of shelters for women victims of violence in the late 1970s. The founding idea was simple and essential: if women are to leave their homes, they need a safe roof over their heads. The first major programme was therefore the creation of these shelters.
The second key initiative is the helpline 3919, created in 1992: a national line offering listening, information, and referral for women experiencing violence. Today, 3919 is accessible 24/7 in about 200 languages, with tailored services for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, and—since one month ago—a chat service aimed at reaching French women living abroad who cannot access 3919 from a local number.
During the roundtable on masculinism organised by Miprof on 20 November, you emphasised how system failures are exploited by masculinist groups to pursue indirect attacks. Could you tell us more?
A few years ago, masculinist groups—especially certain fathers’ rights movements—were staging demonstrations by climbing cranes. Today, they are in ministries, in meetings with parliamentarians: they have entirely shifted their scale and tactics.
They are also highly organised on social media, with a direct impact on younger audiences. These spaces bring together masculinist groups as well as individuals aligned with “incel” ideology (“involuntary celibates”), who cultivate a hatred of women, arguing that their single status and emotional or sexual frustration stem from women’s emancipation and refusal to submit.
This ideology produces a structured discourse of misogyny, spreading widely online. It particularly targets young people, for instance through “life coaches” who explain how to rape a woman, trivialising coercion despite refusal. This is outright advocacy of sexual assault, at a moment when non-consent has been clearly defined in law. It is extremely serious, and these spaces must be monitored and sanctioned. They often operate at the edges of legality, making prosecution complex, yet their impact on youth is considerable.
There is also another layer of these movements, older and structured as lobbying groups. They have been very active at the European level in campaigns against abortion rights or gender studies, and are now targeting women’s rights, with a preferred entry point: children.
They instrumentalise children’s rights to undermine women’s rights, recycling stereotypes about “protective mothers” or “parental alienation,” suggesting that mothers seek to deprive fathers of their children after separation. Yet data shows that the vast majority of men do not request shared custody, and when they do, they obtain it in 75% of cases. In other words, when a father requests shared custody in a “typical” separation scenario, he generally gets it.
These groups manipulate figures and rely on tactics of societal “trumpisation”: spreading misinformation, using pseudo-scientific “studies” to appear credible, despite their lack of reliability or verification.
Presidents have already won elections based on fake news—so there is no reason for these groups to refrain. They are now both highly active on social media and increasingly present in parliamentary settings: they are “white-collar” actors, polished, and sometimes hold high-level positions. They must therefore be taken very seriously.
For reference, France thwarted three planned masculinist terrorist attacks in 2024. This means other, less visible threats go undetected, and that police, justice, and society more broadly are not yet fully prepared.
We must collectively strengthen our understanding and expertise on these matters.
The FNSF has been very active in opposing the proposed bill establishing shared custody by default. Could you explain why you reject such legislation?
Today, when there is no violence involved and the separation follows a “standard” pattern, it is enough for a father to request shared custody for it to be granted in the majority of cases.
The numbers are clear: more than 75% of fathers do not request it, and among the 25% who do, 75% obtain it. A law establishing shared custody as the default is therefore unnecessary. It takes the issue from the wrong angle: it would force fathers into shared custody even when they do not want it.
While the intention to promote equality is understandable, this is not the way to achieve it. Such a law would place women in the position of having to prove in court that their partner does not care for—or does not wish to care for—the children, adding further emotional, mental, and financial burdens.
It fully reverses responsibilities: it assumes that simply telling fathers “you will now take care of the children” will make it happen, which is disconnected from the reality of structural inequalities. One need only look at the percentage of men taking parental leave.
Strengthening co-parenting is a major feminist issue, but default shared custody is not the solution.
In the current context of funding cuts and normalised sexist discourse, how can organisations defending women’s rights be better supported?
First, we need significantly more financial resources. Efforts were made during the Grenelle on domestic violence and through the “great cause,” but the starting point was so low that the additional funding was already insufficient when implemented. Progress has been made, but it is far from enough.
Political messaging also carries enormous weight. Women were told “we believe you” during #MeToo, and “we have solutions” during the Grenelle. Women heard this, spoke out, filed complaints—sometimes five or six times—yet too often nothing happens afterward. The disappointment is huge.
Today, France is far off target when it comes to supporting women who experience violence. Domestic violence is far from the only issue—other forms of violence remain largely overlooked. Sustainable, long-term resources are essential.
The second key factor is strong, unambiguous political communication—without false equivalences.
We must stop responding, “yes, but men too” every time violence against women is discussed. No one denies the existence of male victims, but what we are dealing with here is a systemic phenomenon, rooted in patriarchal structures of domination, documented by extensive research and institutional data.
All scientific evidence—national surveys, the Istanbul Convention—now objectively demonstrates this reality. Thirty years ago, we could say data was lacking; this is no longer the case. Political leaders must speak clearly and refuse any compromise on violence against women. France ratified the Istanbul Convention in 2014, and it strongly compels us to act.
Concretely, there is a shortage of shelter spaces, childcare placements, specialised services, and staff in associations. And one glaring blind spot remains: children exposed to domestic violence—almost absent from public policy. This is one of the key priorities of the FNSF’s ongoing advocacy.
Interview by Sabrina FOYEN – Communications Officer, Fondation RAJA-Danièle Marcovici.
