Nous croyons que l'économie, le marché, le système financier et les prémisses sur lesquelles ils reposent sont des domaines critiques pour la lutte féministe.

Ainsi, notre vision pour une économie juste dépasse la promotion des droits et de l'autonomisation des femmes sur le marché. Elle propose d'évaluer le rôle des oppressions liées au genre lors de l'élaboration de mesures économiques, afin de les modifier pour favoriser l'égalité de genre et la justice économique.

Processus

Nous ne partons pas de zéro et nous ne sommes pas seules à tenter de mettre en avant des propositions féministes pour une économie juste. Beaucoup des propositions formulées dans ce document existaient déjà en théorie et aussi dans la pratique, au sein de diverses communautés qui défient et résistent face aux systèmes économiques fondés sur la croissance et le marché.
 
Il est également très important de noter qu'il y a une prise de conscience croissante du fait que les micros solutions n’apportent pas toujours de réponses aux problèmes macros, même si elles représentent des espaces importants pour la construction de la résistance et des mouvements. Certaines alternatives spécifiques peuvent ne pas être en mesure de remédier aux injustices du système capitaliste actuel à l'échelle mondiale.

Objectifs

Cela dit, les alternatives féministes pour une économie juste sont essentielles pour ouvrir des brèches dans le système et pouvoir en tirer des leçons, en faveur d’un changement systémique transformateur. Nous n’avons pas la prétention de proposer un compte-rendu complet et exhaustif sur la manière de créer un modèle économique qui soit juste d’un point de vue féministe, ou même des modèles.

À partir d’un dialogue inter-mouvements avec des syndicats, des mouvements ruraux et paysans et des mouvements environnementaux, nous pouvons néanmoins formuler une série de propositions pour cheminer vers cette vision.

Que voulons-nous changer?

Le modèle néolibéral qui domine l'économie mondiale a démontré à maintes reprises son incapacité à traiter les causes profondes de la pauvreté, des inégalités et de l'exclusion. En réalité, le néolibéralisme a même contribué à provoquer et à exacerber ces injustices.
 
Caractérisées par la mondialisation, la libéralisation, la privatisation, la financiarisation et l'aide conditionnelle, les politiques générales de développement de ces trois dernières décennies ont fait des ravages dans la vie et les moyens de subsistance de tous et toutes. Ces politiques ont également contribué sans faillir à creuser le fossé des inégalités, aux injustices de genre et à une destruction de l'environnement que le monde ne peut plus se permettre de supporter.
 
Il y a encore des personnes qui affirment qu’en donnant carte blanche aux sociétés et aux entreprises pour favoriser la croissance économique, le vent finira par atteindre les voiles de tous les navires.
 
Cependant, la notion du développement dominante au cours des dernières décennies,  qui repose en grande partie sur le principe d’une croissance économique illimitée, traverse actuellement une crise idéologique.
 
Le mythe de la croissance économique en tant que panacée capable de résoudre tous nos problèmes prend l’eau.

Voir également

Notre vision

5 menaces principales

Nos partenaires

Resisting Ecofascisms: A cross-movement dialogue at COP30

How movements are resisting fascist agendas in relation to climate change.

📅 Tuesday, November 11, 2025 
📍 Beira Rio Hotel, Belém, Pará

Definition

There are varied conceptualizations about the commons notes activist and scholar Soma Kishore Parthasarathy.

Conventionally, they are understood as natural resources intended for use by those who depend on their use. However, the concept of the commons has expanded to include the resources of knowledge, heritage, culture, virtual spaces, and even climate. It pre-dates the individual property regime and provided the basis for organization of society. Definitions given by government entities limit its scope to land and material resources.

The concept of the commons rests on the cultural practice of sharing livelihood spaces and resources as nature’s gift, for the common good, and for the sustainability of the common.

Context

Under increasing threat, nations and market forces continue to colonize, exploit and occupy humanity’s commons.

In some favourable contexts, the ‘commons’ have the potential to enable women, especially economically oppressed women, to have autonomy in how they are able to negotiate their multiple needs and aspirations.

Feminist perspective

Patriarchy is reinforced when women and other oppressed genders are denied access and control of the commons.

Therefore, a feminist economy seeks to restore the legitimate rights of communities to these common resources. This autonomy is enabling them to sustain themselves; while evolving more egalitarian systems of governance and use of such resources. A feminist economy acknowledges women’s roles and provides equal opportunities for decision-making, i.e. women as equal claimants to these resources.

Learn more about this proposition

• Reclaiming the Commons for Gender and Economic Justice: Struggles and Movements in India is an interview to scholar Soma Kishore Parthasarathy on how women in rural India are contesting this reality by proposing a shared management of common resources.
• Feminism And The Politics Of The Commons by Silvia Federici looks at the politics of the commons from a feminist standpoint shaped by the struggle against sexual discrimination and reproductive work, to clarify the conditions under which the principle of the common/s can become the foundation of an anti-capitalist program.

Día Mundial de Acción

Movimientos que marchan en todo el mundo por la justicia climática.

📅 Sábado, 15 de noviembre de 2025
📍 Varias ubicaciones

Más información aquí

Sextoter comme une féministe : humour et révolution féministe numérique

par Chinelo Onwualu

Despite their rigidity in matters of doctrine and worldview, anti-rights actors have demonstrated an openness to building new kinds of strategic alliances, to new organizing techniques, and to new forms of rhetoric. As a result, their power in international spaces has increased.

There has been a notable evolution in the strategies of ultra conservative actors operating at this level. They do not only attempt to tinker at the edges of agreements and block certain language, but to transform the framework conceptually and develop alternative standards and norms, and avenues for influence.

Strategy 1: Training of UN delegates

Ultra conservative actors work to create and sustain their relationships with State delegates through regular training opportunities - such as the yearly Global Family Policy Forum - and targeted training materials.

These regular trainings and resources systematically brief delegates on talking points and negotiating techniques to further collaboration towards anti-rights objectives in the human rights system. Delegates also receive curated compilations of ‘consensus language’ and references to pseudo-scientific or statistical information to bolster their arguments.

The consolidated transmission of these messages explains in part why State delegates who take ultra-conservative positions in international human rights debates frequently do so in contradiction with their own domestic legislation and policies.

Strategy 2: Holding international convenings

Anti-rights actors’ regional and international web of meetings help create closer links between ultra conservative Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), States and State blocs, and powerful intergovernmental bodies. The yearly international World Congress of Families is one key example.

These convenings reinforce personal connections and strategic alliances, a key element for building and sustaining movements. They facilitate transnational, trans-religious and dynamic relationship-building around shared issues and interests, which leads to a more proactive approach and more holistic sets of asks at the international policy level on the part of anti-rights actors.

Strategy 3: Placing reservations on human rights agreements

States and State blocs have historically sought to undermine international consensus or national accountability under international human rights norms through reservations to human rights agreements, threatening the universal applicability of human rights.  

The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has received by far the most reservations, most of which are based on alleged conflict with religious law. It is well-established international human rights law that evocations of tradition, culture or religion cannot justify violations of human rights, and many reservations to CEDAW are invalid as they are “incompatible with the object and purpose” of CEDAW. Nevertheless, reference to these reservations is continually used by States to dodge their human rights responsibilities.

‘Reservations’ to UN documents and agreements that are not formal treaties - such as Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions - are also on the rise.

Strategy 4: Creating a parallel human rights framework

In an alarming development, regressive actors at the UN have begun to co-opt existing rights standards and campaign to develop agreed language that is deeply anti-rights.

The aim is to create and then propagate language in international human rights spaces that validates patriarchal, hierarchical, discriminatory, and culturally relativist norms.

One step towards this end is the drafting of declarative texts, such as the World Family Declaration and the San Jose Articles, that pose as soft human rights law. Sign-ons are gathered from multiple civil society, state, and institutional actors; and they are then used a basis for advocacy and lobbying.

Strategy 5: Developing  alternative ‘scientific’ sources

As part of a strategic shift towards the use of non-religious discourses, anti-rights actors have significantly invested in their own ‘social science’ think tanks. Given oxygen by the growing conservative media, materials from these think tanks are then widely disseminated by conservative civil society groups. The same materials are used as the basis for advocacy at the international human rights level.  

While the goals and motivation of conservative actors derive from their extreme interpretations of religion, culture, and tradition, such regressive arguments are often reinforced through studies that claim intellectual authority. A counter-discourse is thus produced through a heady mix of traditionalist doctrine and social science.

Strategy 6: Mobilizing Youth

This is one of the most effective strategies employed by the religious right and represents a major investment in the future of anti-rights organizing.

Youth recruitment and leadership development, starting at the local level with churches and campuses, are a priority for many conservative actors engaged at the international policy level.  

This strategy has allowed for infiltration of youth-specific spaces at the United Nations, including at the Commission on the Status of Women, and creates a strong counterpoint to progressive youth networks and organizations.

Strategy 7: Defunding and delegitimizing human rights mechanisms

When it comes to authoritative expert mechanisms like the UN Special Procedures and Treaty Monitoring Bodies and operative bodies like the UN agencies, regressive groups realize their potential for influence is much lower than with political mechanisms^[1].

In response, anti-rights groups spread the idea that UN agencies are ‘overstepping their mandate,’ that the CEDAW Committee and other Treaty Bodies have no authority to interpret their treaties, or that Special Procedures are partisan experts working outside of their mandate. Anti-rights groups have also successfully lobbied for the defunding of agencies such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

This invalidation of UN mechanisms gives fuel to state impunity. Governments, when under international scrutiny, can defend their action on the basis that the reviewing mechanism is itself faulty or overreaching.

Strategy 8: Organizing online

Conservative non-state actors increasingly invest in social media and other online platforms to promote their activities, campaign, and widely share information from international human rights spaces.

The Spanish organization CitizenGo, for example, markets itself as the conservative version of Change.org, spearheading petitions and letter-writing campaigns. One recent petition, opposing the establishment of a UN international day on safe abortion, gathered over 172,000 signatures.

Overarching Trends:

• Learning from the organizing strategies of feminists and other progressives.
• Replicating and adapting successful national-level tactics for the international sphere.
• Moving from an emphasis on ‘symbolic protest’ to becoming subversive system ‘insiders.’

By understanding the strategies employed by anti-rights actors, we can be more effective in countering them.

[1] The fora that are state-led, like the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and UN conferences like the Commission on the Status of Women and the Commission on Population and Development

Other Chapters

• Key impacts on the international human rights system
• Key opposition actors
• Key opposition discourses

Read the full report

Other Chapters

• Key impacts on the international human rights system
• Key opposition actors
• Key opposition discourses

Read the full report

What We Demand:

• Climate finance as reparations: grants, not loans
• Direct funding to frontline communities
• Phasing out fossil fuels NOW
• Defunding military and prison complexes
• Corporate accountability mechanisms
• Enabling environments for feminist alternatives to thrive
• The liberation of Palestine, Congo and Sudan
• Debt cancellation and an end to austerity
• Rapid, direct and flexible funding to frontline communities
• Decolonial feminist just transitions