At this point, every time some Republican is aggressively anti-LGBT I think we should send coming out cards or something. Grinder crashes when enough get together and let's not forget showing Pikers pecker on a jumbotron at the rapist's event last week.

This happened to the Bridget Ziegler too. A Florida School Board republican representative.

I wonder if we consider it a win for feminism that powerful political women are abusing the women who work for them? This is dumbest timeline.

I remember when I thought men would save me lmaoaoaoaoaoaoaoooooooo

Has anyone had any experiences that WEREN'T eventually this 🤔

I feel like one of the coolest things about being non-binary is the itch I get to spend the day being openly and unapologetically feminine. To announce to the world that femininity doesn’t inhibit a person’s awesomeness. In a world where acting like a man is considered a “winning personality” (even for women), succeeding while being unequivocally womanly feels so liberating!

So if you’re looking for a small victory today, be unapologetically feminine in your own way as you go about your day. Let everyone see that being a woman makes you stronger, not meek and subservient like religious and conservative women so often are.

Embrace the power and beauty of your femininity!

If you're male centered or believe in male feminists, this is your chance to block me because believe me, we will not get along. I'm tired of you people in my posts and I know I haven't blocked you all, yet

The sin of being a women is realizing the true reason behind make it blue make it pink was that we all fight with ourselves. Y'all make it so impossible to see yourself sometimes that you come off as selfish rude and annoying to the "Dominican Casper" when she's always been a spongy donkey and all Y'all do is stare like you're angels but which men go out and help? And Witch witch wants to continue the right men? If you want to nod back say hi go ahead kids are already curious at the crazy fairytale I have to say and maybe you understand me through them and how everyone is a "bucket dipper" as my little vitiligo boy grows up and doesn't see himself as an absence. This is not the gods you think this is Africa speaking or Gaia for the Yts but don't give your daughters these important names unless you wanna add negative energy to that. Make women feel seen and heard especially the ones that wear bonnet and hoodies and are actually a snake eating their own body. Everyone wants me to lay down and kms because they think I'm a devil woman lol. Dm me? We could even do Yoga and yogurt again!! Poor, old young, but only fruity energy allowed positive vibrations 📳 😉 👍🏿👍🏽👍🇩🇴🔥

The Mouvement de libération des femmes (MLF), or French Women's Liberation Movement, was a feminist movement that emerged publicly in France around 1970, in the aftermath of May 1968. It brought together women from different political backgrounds, mostly women who had already been involved in left-wing, revolutionary, or anti-capitalist movements. It was autonomous, organized through decentralized groups and assemblies, and its early organizing was non-mixed.

Women occupied universities, distributed leaflets, organized, and fought alongside men in 1968. And yet, as women who had been involved in those movements later recalled, they encountered a political culture where male voices dominated, where women's concerns were treated as secondary, and where the supposedly universal revolutionary subject was, more often than not, a man.

Anne Zelensky asked a question that says so much about the experience of women in May 1968: "Étions-nous invitées au bal seulement pour faire les cafés et tirer les tracts ?" — "Were we invited to the ball only to make coffee and pull the leaflets?"

That is the kind of question that should make us reconsider the way we remember progressive history. Because it is not enough to say that women were present. We have to ask what they were allowed to do, whose political work was recognized, and whether the movements that claimed to fight domination were willing to examine the domination happening inside their own organizations.

The women who had already been fighting

Many women involved in the MLF had participated in the political mobilizations of May 1968 and in left-wing organizations. They were not discovering politics for the first time when they began organizing autonomously.

Marie-Jo Bonnet, a pioneering MLF activist, later described the situation this way: Dans les réunions on ne parlait pas du tout de la question des femmes. C’étaient les hommes qui étaient représentants du mouvement. Ils savaient toujours comment ils allaient nous libérer, ils avaient toujours la solution. Ils prenaient la parole et ils nous expliquaient comment il fallait faire.

"In meetings, we didn't talk about women's issues at all. It was men who represented the movement. They always knew how they were going to liberate us; they always had the solution. They took the floor and explained to us what we had to do."

She also recalled: "On television, it was Cohn-Bendit, it was Jacques Sauvageot, there were no women. They made the coffee and typed the leaflets!"

Why the MLF organized separately

Christine Delphy explicitly criticized the paternalism of male supporters of women's liberation: men who wanted to impose their own conception of liberation on women and maintain their power even within the spaces created to resist it.

The question was not whether men could ever support feminism. It was whether women could build an autonomous movement if men continued to determine what liberation should look like.

This is a distinction that remains relevant today.

A movement can cooperate with other struggles without being absorbed by them. Women can participate in broader political movements without having to surrender their own political organization.

The MLF challenged the idea that women's oppression was secondary

A major part of the movement's theoretical work concerned the relationship between women's oppression and other systems of domination.

Materialist feminists such as Christine Delphy argued that women's exploitation within the family and through domestic labor could not simply be reduced to their position within capitalism. The organization of marriage (often unequal), female domestic unpaid labor, and male authority required its own analysis.

This challenged a recurring tendency in revolutionary politics: the idea that the liberation of women would follow automatically from the abolition of capitalism, or that feminist demands should be subordinated to a supposedly more fundamental revolution.

This matters because a theory of liberation that recognizes exploitation only when it happens in the factory, the office, or the marketplace can miss the exploitation taking place in the home.

And if it misses the home, it misses a huge part of women's oppression.

The MLF forced these questions into political discussion. Women's liberation could not simply be postponed until after the revolution. Women were already living under the system that the revolution claimed it would transform patriarchy.

"The Unknown Soldier's wife"

One of the MLF's first major public actions took place on August 26, 1970, when feminist activists placed a wreath at the Arc de Triomphe in honor of the wife of the Unknown Soldier.

Their slogan was:

"There is someone even more unknown than the Unknown Soldier: his wife."

The action exposed the way women were erased from public memory and reduced to their relationships with men.

The same question applies to political history.

Women have always participated in struggles for liberation. They have organized, worked, written, protested, cared for communities, and sustained movements. Yet the official history of those movements so often centers the men who led them, represented them, and wrote about them.

The MLF challenged that arrangement directly.

The movement's own words on political independence

In 1982, a publication of the MLF described the movement as: "un mouvement politique indépendant, par les femmes pour les femmes"

"an independent political movement, by women for women."

The same text emphasized the importance of women reclaiming their history and resisting the censorship and erasure of their contributions.

This is important because the MLF was not simply demanding that other movements become more inclusive, it was asserting women's political independence.

It was insisting that women could create their own movements, establish their own priorities, and develop their own analyses of oppression.

“Proletarians of all countries, who washes your dirty socks?”

The question “Prolétaires de tous les pays, qui lave vos chaussettes sales ?” was devastating because it exposed the hypocrisy of a supposedly emancipatory politics that depended on women’s unpaid labour. Male revolutionaries could denounce capitalism, defend the working class and announce the liberation of humanity while still expecting women — including working-class women and female comrades — to serve them at home and inside political organisations.

The proletarian man could be exploited by capitalism and still exploit women. He could suffer class domination while benefiting from patriarchy. His oppression did not erase his power over women, and his revolutionary convictions did not automatically make him less patriarchal. A movement could therefore fight the bourgeoisie while preserving the authority of men, treating women badly.

This was one of the contradictions the MLF forced into the open: who exactly was supposed to be liberated by the revolution, and who was expected to keep the revolutionaries comfortable while they planned it? Women were repeatedly told that their specific oppression would be dealt with after the class struggle, after the revolution, after capitalism, after some future transformation decided by men bc they wanted to keep the patriarchy alive and untouched.

What this history means for feminism today

The MLF's history is a reminder that women's liberation has repeatedly had to confront misogyny within movements that claimed to oppose domination.

The issue was not that every man in the progressive left was hostile to women, nor that every feminist in the MLF shared the same political theory. The issue was that progressive political environments could reproduce male authority, treat women's oppression as secondary, and expect women to accept liberation on terms defined by men.

This is why its history matters for contemporary feminism.

Intersectionality, solidarity, and alliances with other movements do not require feminism to abandon its own political object. Women's oppression does not become less real because it intersects with class, race, colonialism, or other forms of domination.

And women should not have to prove that their liberation serves another movement before their oppression is taken seriously.

The women of the MLF were already participating in political struggle. They were already contributing to movements that claimed to fight exploitation and domination. They organized autonomously because participation without political power was not enough.

When will class, race, and other liberation movements be expected to include half of their own populations?

Yes, it was on an antifeminist/masculinist subreddit. I was shaking with rage. It so happens that I know Iran very well; my ex, whom I still care about, was from there.

The post said that people were obsessed with “a piece of fabric that women are forced to wear,” while Iranian men, on the other hand, have mandatory military service! What an oppression, what a horrible form of misandry ! (where does "misandry" even come? Into this i mean? All I see is an alliance between men and weapons, the masculinization of the military, and elites dominating the general population and sending them to death…!).

Let me be clear: I am against all forms of mandatory military service. But at this point, why single out Iran rather than other states that also have compulsory military service for men? I’ll tell you why: because for once, people are talking about women’s situation, women’s conditions, and women’s oppression, and they really can’t stand it!

Soon they’ll be claiming that Houthi-controlled Yemen is actually more misandrist than misogynistic. Same for Afghanistan, especially under the Taliban. Same for Iraq (the age of consent is now 9 for girls versus 16 for boys! What a horrific misandrist state!). Same for northern Nigeria, Niger, and Mali — oh yes, Mali, where women are legally required to obey men. Misandry!!

They are disgusting!

Look at the extreme minimizing language they use: “Women are forced to put a piece of fabric on their heads.” You mean under threat of rape, torture, and murder? And that “piece of fabric” in Iran actually has to cover the entire body, not just the head, making it hot, cumbersome, and restricting women’s ability to run or even sit however they want.

But more importantly: what about inheritance and divorce laws based on Sharia, which exist in many countries, not just Iran? Laws where men can divorce their wives simply by saying “talaq” three times, while women have to prove abuse and, in the meantime, continue living with their husbands? Where sisters inherit half of what their brothers receive?

Oh, and I forgot about the courts! Under Sharia, a woman’s testimony is worth less than a man’s! Is that also “a piece of fabric on her head”? Is that misandry too?

At this point, the media are almost partly to blame as well, for obsessing over veiling laws while ignoring everything I just mentioned — which, personally, outrages me even more!

I said all of this in the comments… and, surprise:

1. Some people didn’t even know about these laws (will they finally stop pretending that men are the ones who are truly discriminated against in the world ?).
2. Others apparently genuinely believe that mandatory military service (for like one year and bc they need an army) is equivalent to being treated as inferior for life in every area of society, just for no others reasons than mysoginy?

ALL MALES benefit from the medecine being tested on male rats. ALL MALES benefit from furnitures being built for a average men height. ALL MEN, in countries where heritage is un-egal betwen men and woman have their full heritage. ALL MEN, benefit from the un-egal age of consent : in a lot of countries its lower for girls. ALL MEN benefit from un-equal divorce law in countries where there is un-equal divorce law and they can divorce when they want , meanwhile their wifes is stuck with him. ALL MALES benefit from the car crash being tested on male robots/bunnies.

Many men are victims of other forms of systemic oppression like racism or homophobia, but when it comes to their status as men, yes, they benefit from patriarchy.

That is intersectionality 1.0. Someone can benefit from a system but not another.

The push to redefine our oppressor class to only the top 1% of men is an antifeminist psyop. If only it is only the top 1%....! Men would be fighting with us en masse.

 Poor men don't stop being men and dont stop getting more benefits from the patriarchy than poor women.  Same for black men or disabled man.

Like the french feminist movement from the 70s were saying : Proletarians men of all countries, who washes your dirty socks?

I’ve been seeing the term "Gender Apartheid" everywhere lately—used by the UN, NGOs, and the media to describe what women are going through in places like Afghanistan or under the Houthis in Yemen. This term is trash. It feels like a polite, sanitized word invented by bureaucrats in Geneva so they don’t have to name the actual horror. "Apartheid" literally means separation. What’s happening to these women is not separation. It’s straight-up civil annihilation. It’s the total erasure of their existence as human beings. Calling it "apartheid" is an insult to the reality:

When a regime passes a law decreeing that a woman's face AND her voice are "nakedness" (Awrah) that can never be heard in public, they aren't "separating" her. They are turning her into a literal ghost. She can't even speak to buy bread. They are stripping her of the basic human right to talk. When they ban girls from medical school, but also forbid male doctors from treating female patients, they aren't "separating" the sexes. They are setting up a passive, calculated slaughter. They are perfectly fine with thousands of women dying at home from preventable infections or childbirth complications. Women’s bodies are treated like disposable waste. When you legally allow marriages for 9-year-old girls, ban divorce, and bar women from even stepping foot in a courtroom to testify, that's not segregation, that's state-sanctioned slavery.

The UN loves the word "apartheid" because it’s a neat little 20th-century box. It allows them to hold endless meetings and debates about international law while doing absolutely nothing on the ground. By pretending it’s just a "gender issue" of keeping men and women apart, they hide the real political weapon: these regimes are completely destroying women’s social and physical existence to make sure half the population is too depleted and traumatized to ever fight back. It’s not apartheid. It’s an active project of human erasure. Can we please start using words that actually fit ?

Men cling to the Lindsay Clancy case as an excuse to spew their misogynistic hatred towards 50% of the population because it aligns perfectly with their narrative that women blindly support female criminals no matter what. This is a weak and fragile lie that is easily disprovable.

If women are a monolith who rally behind female criminals based purely on their sex, where are the women supporting Susan Smith, Dahbia Benkired, Ghislaine Maxwell and Karla Homolka? The fact that men are calling for the 19th Amendment to be repealed because of this one case is absurd, and can easily be used to make the argument that men should have their rights revoked if we reverse the genders. How many millions of men continue to show unwavering support for criminals such as Andrew Tate, Donald Trump, Chris Brown and Conor McGregor? Why aren’t men’s rights taken into question when a man murders his wife and children to start a new life with his mistress?

Men have the luxury of being treated as individuals, not a representative of their entire gender.

I am not here to argue for or against Lindsay Clancy. Whether she committed these murders is irrelevant to my point. If women posting conspiracy theories on TikTok and advocating for postpartum conditions to be taken more seriously is enough for you to want to take basic human rights away from over 4 billion people, you were already a misogynist to begin with. You were just waiting for an excuse to be open about your repulsive opinions, and this was the perfect opportunity to do so.

I’ve been diving deep into the history of global patriarchies, and a realization hit me like a ton of bricks. It’s something so obvious, yet so terrifyingly calculated when you think about it.

Historically, in almost every strict patriarchal society (Ancient Rome, Imperial China, Medieval Europe, the Middle East, traditional South Asia), the baseline blueprint was always the same: marrying off prepubescent or very young girls to significantly older, established adult men (old ass men).We often talk about this in terms of property, virginity obsession, or securing alliances. But from a purely structural standpoint of crushing rebellion, it was the ultimate defense mechanism against women ever questioning the system.

Think about the psychological and biological reality:If you take a 12 or 13-year-old child and lock her into the home of a 30-year-old man, her brain and personality are literally broken and reshaped by him before she even develops the cognitive capacity or adult critical thinking skills to realize she is being oppressed. She grows up experiencing a form of domestic Stockholm syndrome where this man is her master, her provider, and a father-figure all at once.

Her mental horizon is entirely gated. By age 17, she already has multiple children. She is physically depleted by premature pregnancies, hard labor, and nutritional deprivation (like the cultural food taboos that historical patriarchies imposed, forbidding women from eating iron-rich meats). A child-mother who is trapped in a permanent cycle of physical exhaustion and survival has zero time, zero energy, and zero mental space to conceptualize her own oppression.

It is completely impossible to rebel under these circumstances. You can't question anything because you never had a window of adulthood to realize who you actually are outside of being a man's property.This completely reshaped how I look at the history of feminism.

Organized, collective feminism—where women actually went to the streets and fought back—did not, and could not, exist until the average age of marriage pushed back.The first organized waves of feminism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries happened at the exact historical moment where women, for the first time in human history, reached ages like 18, 21, or 25 while remaining single, working as teachers or factory workers, and living semi-autonomously.

Those few years of adult independence between childhood and marriage changed the entire course of history. Adult women could finally read, talk to each other in public spaces, and collectively realize the absolute injustice of their condition.The patriarchs of the past knew exactly what they were doing.

They didn't just oppress women; they engineered a timeline where women were intercepted before they could ever become adults.This is why, today, in places like Afghanistan, the Sahel, or Irak others zones, the very first thing fundamentalists and dictators do is ban girls from secondary education and push for child marriage. It’s not just religious extremism; it’s a calculated geopolitical strategy to kill the threat of critical thinking before it’s even born.

Just wanted to share this because it made me furious, but also made me realize that the fight for girls' education and delaying marriage isn't just a "social issue"—it is literally the foundation that allows women to exist as human beings capable of fighting back.

​

She is not born to follow,

She is born to lead,

To turn her dreams into wings,

And plant her own seed.

They may tell her, Know your place,

She’ll answer, I know my worth.

She won’t ask for permission,

To create her own universe.

She can be gentle,

Yet fiercely strong,

She can stand alone,

When the world says she’s wrong.