Charles de Gaulle on natalist policy

From "C'était de Gaulle"

On his conduct in regards to women, children

At the café, he goes from one person to another. He approaches the ladies, who are talking about their kids' football exploits. He pretends to be interested in these conversations. “And you, Madame?” he asks Monique, who had been silent. “Oh, I don't ask myself those kinds of questions, I only have daughters, and a son who is three weeks old.”

“What?” he exclaims, “You had a baby three weeks ago, and you're still on your feet?”

He leads her with large strides towards Madame de Gaulle and makes her sit on the sofa: “Yvonne, this young woman just had a baby, take care of her!”

He has a tragedy on his hands, he has once again escaped death, and he is concerned about a young woman who has just given birth.

On the birth rate of immigrant populations

The General suddenly intervenes on a subject that has not been addressed:

“I would like to draw your attention to a problem that could become serious. There were 40,000 immigrants from Algeria in April. That is almost equal to the number of babies born in France during the same month. I would like to see more babies born in France and fewer immigrants coming in. Really, enough is enough! It is becoming urgent to address this issue! I ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, to study the solutions.”

On women and the pill

In this election year, there has been much talk about women's rights and “the pill.” Mitterrand, thanks to this small hormone tablet, will capture the votes of many women. However, the General has very firm ideas about women.

At the Council meeting on March 10, 1965, Foyer presents the reasons for his bill on the reform of marital regimes. He avoids flattery through humor: “Emperor Justinian, who first protected the rights of the wife in Roman law, was called imperator uxorius. The same epithet could be bestowed upon you, thanks to the bill aimed at the emancipation of women, which I have the honor to present to you.”

(Laughter.)

“It strives to ensure greater independence for women and, by restricting the powers of the husband, to embody the idea of equality between the two spouses. From now on, the woman will manage her own property. The husband's power to dispose of the community property is reduced.”

Pompidou: “The movement towards the emancipation of women will be extended to electoral law. Women will be given the ability to be eligible where they have their business, just like their husbands.”

After the Council meeting, the General tells me: “How could we have left the Napoleonic Code unchanged for over a century and a half? The marital regime has remained unchanged since 1804, as if the role of women had not changed during these one hundred and sixty years! The emancipation of women is a huge fact, favored in our country by the right to vote that I granted them. But we must not forget that the essential thing for a country is for women to be mothers. Primum omnium, salus patriae.”

Jean-Jacques de Bresson tells me that in December 1944, while he was secretary of the Commission of Pardons, a woman had been sentenced to death for crimes of collaboration. The General was in the Soviet Union; no one knew when he would return. With the deadline for the pardon approaching, it fell to Jules Jeanneney, who was acting for the General, to decide. He studied the case and concluded: “It's abominable. Justice must be done.”

He was reminded that the General systematically pardoned women. Jeanneney protested: “But why pardon a woman just because she is a woman? Women are equal to men, including in responsibility! I hold the right of pardon in the General's absence; he delegated it to me. In conscience, I cannot do otherwise.”

Bresson made the necessary arrangements with the prosecutor's office in Tours. The woman was to be executed the next day at dawn. That very evening, he learned that the General would be in Paris the day after next. In agreement with his superiors, he suspended the execution to leave the decision to the provisional head of government. Informed upon his arrival in Paris, the General reacted as expected: “You know very well that I never allow a woman to be executed!”

Without referring to this case, I question the General about this surprising principle.

CDG: “Great criminals are calculators. They weigh the pros and cons, the benefit to be gained from their crime compared to the risk of the punishment they face. Women are not calculators. They kill out of passion, on impulse. Deterrence does not work on this type of criminal, whereas it fully works on professional criminals, conspirators, or those who premeditate.”

AP: “Doesn't that call into question the equality of men and women?”

CDG: “Men and women are equal, but they will never be the same. There is something sacred about women. They can become mothers. A mother is much more than an individual. She is a lineage. One must respect in women the children they can have.”

AP: “And the father? Shouldn't one respect in him the children he can father?”

CDG: “It's not the same thing! The child does not commit the man as much as it commits the woman. One spasm, and it's over. The woman carries the child within her for nine months. Because she has carried it, she is the one who can best raise it. And then, there will always be enough men. A single ejaculation would be enough to fertilize thousands of women. It is on women that the destiny of the nation rests.”

General de Gaulle is truly an exceptional man. He advocates for the abolition of the death penalty for women but for its maintenance for men. Who has ever supported such an extravagant thesis? But who can deny that it has meaning?

At the Council meeting on November 24, 1965, Grandval presents a project on women's work, maternity leave, and women's retirement. This text was conceived at the personal request of the General, who was concerned with promoting large families. Mothers of more than two children would be able to retire younger than men and other women.

This project is torn apart in the discussion, especially by Pompidou, as Grandval had not taken the trouble to ensure the full agreement of Matignon.

The General comes to Grandval's rescue, who is in serious difficulty: “It is desirable to take into account the number of children to determine the retirement age for women.”

He takes the opportunity to observe that the “maternity allowance” requires that children be born within three-year intervals. He would like to lift this restriction: “Large and even very large families are not always formed in a single period. Starting from the third child, there is often a notable gap. It is not fair to deprive the mother of the maternity allowance then. One cannot impose a rhythm on childbirth in large families. This reform can be done by decree. It is desirable. Therefore, it must be done.”

After the Council meeting, I take the opportunity to address another topic that concerns women:

“Among Mitterrand's campaign arguments, there is one that is causing damage: the pill. You rejected it. The government has rejected it. And now Mitterrand is criticizing you for it and making it one of his major themes. I fear that all of this will cause havoc among women voters. Couldn't you hint that you would not be opposed to the Parliament debating it?”

The General roars: “The pill? Never! What does ‘debate’ mean? Does it mean that the parliament will vote on a law? Never will my government submit such a bill! One cannot reduce a woman to a machine for making love! You are going against what is most precious to a woman, her fertility. She is made to give birth! If we tolerate the pill, we will not hold anything back! Sex will invade everything!”

(The “prayer” of Anatole France to the Virgin suddenly crosses my mind: “You who conceived without sin, allow me to sin without conceiving.” But the moment is not for humor.)

AP: “It is not necessary to announce that your government will submit a bill; simply, that you will not oppose the submission of a proposal, and with the majority we have, we can stifle it.”

CDG (becoming increasingly harsh): “You want me to announce that I will not oppose it, while being determined to oppose it? That is an execrable attitude! Have you considered the stakes?”

“It means that I would accept that the French population, instead of growing, would decrease? That our race would disappear in a century or two? The births that ensure the maintenance of our population and even, since the war, a significant increase, are due to unwanted pregnancies. A woman does not belong only to herself, she belongs to her home and to her country! She has received the power to give life; she must give back what she has received.”

“It is very nice to promote the emancipation of women, but one must not push them towards dissipation. It is in their interest, they truly flourish only in motherhood. It is in the interest of France, whose demography would collapse if we adopted the pill. Introducing the pill is preferring some immediate satisfactions to long-term benefits! We are not going to sacrifice France to trivialities!”

On natalist policy

Council Meeting of May 24, 1967.

During the last legislative elections, as well as during the presidential election, the “pill” was one of the favorite topics of the left. Political pressure is strong, and everyone understands that the issue needs to be “resolved.” The time has come.

Jeanneney makes a presentation on birth control: “The government must take a position on the proposals of Lucien Neuwirth and the High Committee on Population. In what direction should the 1920 law be reformed? It is this law that doubled the traditional prohibition of abortion with a prohibition on the promotion and sale of contraceptive products. We can see why this law was adopted, but it did not achieve its goal, and the birth rate did not stop declining between the two wars. Regarding abortion, the High Committee is considering ways to slightly expand the scope of therapeutic abortion. The Neuwirth proposal only deals with contraceptive practices.”

“Why has the question become more acute recently? Because oral contraceptives and the IUD have greatly improved. Because the heightened concern for the standard of living is pushing households to limit the number of children. Because sociologists and doctors have highlighted the notions of a ‘happy family’ and ‘harmony of the couple.’ Even the position of the Church has changed; it recognizes the legitimacy of the desire to limit births, although it only accepts natural methods. Finally, because political parties have seized upon the issue and are exploiting it for electoral purposes.”

“Philosophical, moral, and religious considerations must be taken into account. But for France, General de Gaulle wants to prioritize demographic considerations.”

(Jeanneney apparently does too, since he has eight children.)

“Our demographers have shown that, for the past three years, the birth rate has only been maintained at a respectable level due to immigrants and unwanted children. We therefore have a legitimate concern.”

“What would be the effect of the development of contraceptives? Undoubtedly a decrease in the number of abortions, but overall a decrease in the birth rate, estimated at 5%.”

“I think we should not obstruct the Neuwirth bill, but it should be accompanied by a more pronounced natalist policy, with marked advantages for the third and fourth child. And of course, we must protect what exists: the family coefficient, which the Financial services are hostile to; and family allowances.”

CDG: “The subject is crucial. I suggest that we leave it at that for today and resume the discussion at greater length at the next Council meeting. The position the government takes on the Neuwirth proposal must be positive but surrounded by great precautions. In any case, a law implies a more pronounced natalist policy for a set of national and international reasons. Therefore, each of you should prepare conscientiously for this debate of high importance.”

Pompidou: “Under these conditions, I wish that the conclusions just outlined by General de Gaulle be kept under absolute discretion.”

Strange situation... The General has already revealed to his ministers the main conclusion: the response to the Neuwirth proposal will be “positive.” But to keep the debate going, it is important to act as if he had said nothing.

Council Meeting of June 7, 1967.

CDG: “I do not need to remind you of the content of Mr. Jeanneney's excellent presentation. The debate is open.”

(His gaze seeks an icebreaker minister.)

“Mister Minister of the Plan?”

Marcellin: “The real debate is about the pill, a question I studied thoroughly as Minister of Health. I recall that a commission of doctors took a very cautious stance. We are not assured of its safety. Therefore, I am absolutely opposed to its free sale and very reserved about its use by prescription.”

Missoffe: “I disagree with Mr. Marcellin. We must authorize the pill. But beware of the essential role of information! In Japan, due to a lack of information, the pill did not reduce the number of abortions. To boost demographics, we must focus on housing policy.”

Gorse: “Of course, yes to the pill. Besides, it is already much more widespread than you imagine. It comes in under the radar from neighboring countries that have already approved it.”

AP: “We cannot go against the woman's desire to be freed from the obsession of unwanted pregnancies. But since unwanted pregnancies ensure the progression of demographics, we must compensate contraception with a vigorous natalist policy. And then… the fear of pregnancy was the beginning of wisdom. We risk witnessing an explosive liberation of morals. The sale of contraceptive methods should be strictly placed under medical control.”

Joxe: “The Neuwirth text is solid. However, I have reservations about the reckless use of intrauterine devices, which can be a source of cancer.”

Messmer, Bettencourt, Bord, Chirac, and Chamant support the Neuwirth proposal, more or less strongly emphasizing the counterpart of a natalist policy.

Billotte: “I agree with Mr. Jeanneney's conclusions. However, the demographic situation in the overseas departments and territories is particular. Absolutely no natalist propaganda! On the contrary, we must emphasize the means to limit births. I wish to be closely involved in the drafting of the general law and the implementing decrees.”

Malraux: “Repression is ineffective. We need a large-scale natalist policy.”

Debré: “I observe that there is agreement on two realities: the necessity to replace the 1920 law, which is dead; and the necessity of a natalist policy. But combining a birth control policy with an effective natalist policy is a luxury we cannot afford. Birth control will accentuate the decline already evident in demographic curves. That is why I believe we need to be stricter: control the sale, no advertising, no reimbursement by Social Security. Information, yes, but on what? Not on the pill and birth control! On a conception of family life that shows it is normal to have four or five children. This must start at school. I believe less in family allowances: they have no effect when salaries are high.”

Frey: “Currently, contraceptive products exist, but they are reserved for the rich. This is antisocial. Reimbursement is therefore necessary.”

Fouchet: “I do not agree without much reluctance to the Jeanneney proposal. A lot of information is needed, but healthy information. There is an increasingly erotic, if not pornographic, climate that is shocking. The pill will end up in our schoolgirls' backpacks.”

Gorse (mezza voce): “It is already there!”

CDG: “I note that you all attach great importance to information.”

Guichard: “I approve of Mr. Jeanneney's conclusions. To support natality, family allowances remain very incentivizing, especially in rural areas.”

Guéna: “We must accept this law, which the public is waiting for. Regarding abortion, it is unfortunate to sidestep the issue, but I am less sure about the appropriateness of a law.”

Nungesser: “The impact of housing on natality deserves emphasis. Currently, housing is a hindrance.”

CDG: “We agree that housing policy must adapt to our natalist objectives.”

Boulin (relaying Debré): “We are currently favoring both an anti-natalist policy and a natalist policy. There is a contradiction here that could confuse the information, and both will cost a lot of money.”

Duvillard: “Among the disadvantages, we should not underestimate a certain emotional reaction in public opinion, due to both medical reservations and the Church's concerns.”

Ortoli: “The decision is inevitable, but I regret it. Let us not forget that the economic recovery after the war was linked to the improvement of our demographics.”

Couve: “I agree with Mr. Jeanneney's balanced view, but let us not delude ourselves; countering the decline in birth rates will be easier said than done.”

Schumann: “I thank Mr. Jeanneney for so strongly linking the reform of the 1920 law with the affirmation of a natalist policy. I personally believe in the effectiveness of incentives through family allowances. I would like us to develop a demographic recovery plan similar to the one that Deputy Debré presented to the Assembly.”

Michelet: “Our responsibility is at stake, and I would prefer a government bill rather than a parliamentary proposal. In any case, it is a regressive law. The woman is a person; she will become a thing. That is why I wish for measures against the development of eroticism. Public opinion is sensitive to this issue. The benefits we have obtained from the Debré law may be nullified by the Neuwirth law.”

Pompidou: “The current situation is based on hypocrisy. The pills are on sale. The goal is to prevent them from remaining a privilege and to better control their sale. We cannot ignore the evolution of morals. We cannot go against it.”

“Bill or legislative proposal? Parliamentarians have the right to initiative. Should we contest it? No, on the contrary.”

“You have touched on many related subjects, but we cannot address everything in the same text: birth control, eroticism, natality. Let us also keep a broad space open for regulation.”

“As for abortion, it poses a different problem, which the government will have to address. The guiding principle is that abortion must retain a strictly therapeutic character.”

“Regarding the overall policy that the government will have to define, let us not confuse family policy with natalist policy. What we have in mind is indeed a natalist policy.”

CDG: “Mores are changing; this evolution has been underway for a long time; we can do almost nothing about it. However, we must intensify our natalist policy. By what means? This will be particularly in the area of housing, without diminishing the value of family allowances.”

“Like Mr. Michelet, I would lean towards the procedure of a government bill, because the government cannot and must not shirk its responsibilities.”

“As for the religious aspect, believe me, I am sensitive to it. I asked the Pope about it, and he told me that he would soon speak out on this subject, which is complex and difficult.”

“As the Prime Minister reminded us, we must leave the government the ability to act broadly by decree.”

“We should not have the pills paid for by Social Security. They are not medicines! The French want greater freedom in their morals. We are not going to reimburse them for their frivolities! Why not reimburse them for their cars as well?”

(He made people laugh to lighten the atmosphere, but it remained heavy. He sighs.)

“Finally, since it must be done, let us adopt this project, accompanied by measures that support French natality.”

Has he ever made a decision more reluctantly? But precisely because it is painful, it must be accepted.

On changing mores

Orly, Wednesday, September 6, 1967.

Following the General and Couve, I enter the cabin of the Caravelle that will take us to Poland. Madame de Gaulle, as usual, is already discreetly seated. As soon as she sees me, she stands up and addresses me with a sort of jubilation: “So, is it true that you are going to ban miniskirts?”

Last night, responding to listeners' questions on Europe 1, I had told a mother who demanded it: “Indeed, I am not sure that, in mixed high schools and colleges, miniskirts encourage boys to work well! But to ban them... That requires reflection.” The headline writer of Paris-Jour this morning did not bother with nuances. He announced across the front page: “Peyrefitte to Ban Miniskirts.”

I gently explain to Madame de Gaulle that I fear I do not have the power to do so: “In Napoleon's time, or even Jules Ferry's, such a ban might have been conceivable. I doubt it is today. There are no more uniforms in high schools. How can one fight against fashion?” I see a deep disappointment on Madame de Gaulle's face. I must have fallen greatly in her esteem.

I turn around. The General is there, silent. He has heard everything. I imagine — or rather, I sense — that he agrees with her, whom the French affectionately call Aunt Yvonne. She has understood that the miniskirt will become the distinctive sign of “liberated girls,” just as, in the Antilles, a madras tied to the left means “heart available,” while tied to the right, it discourages advances: “heart taken.” The amorous games between high school boys and girls will surely be encouraged by this.

Yet, the General knows that it would be as futile to try to ban this evolution as to attempt to stop the tide by spreading one's arms. This is surely what he must have thought when, after the efforts of Pompidou, Jeanneney, and Neuwirth, he yielded to their arguments.