Feminism introduced the idea that women are free when they serve their employers but are slaves when they help their husbands.

(This is a letter to the editor in Sydöstran. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.)

Let us honor women for their epic resilience, writes Ahmed Mulai, author and political scientist.

With these words, G.K. Chesterton paints a satirical picture of an ideological paradox found in some feminist arguments, where freedom is defined by market standards rather than the principle of choice.

From this perspective, a woman achieves self-fulfillment only if she is integrated into the capitalist production cycle, while her role in the family, even if it is a personal choice, is reduced to chains that constrain her.

It seems that independence is only achieved with the approval of economic institutions, not with the approval of the individual.

But what kind of freedom is it that swaps the shackles of joy for the shackles of the market, replacing one form of limitation with another? True liberation is not measured by whether a woman is behind four walls or behind a glass desk, but by whether she has sovereignty over her own decisions—without invisible guardianship that reproduces slavery in a modern form.

Chesterton’s statement challenges conventional wisdom and raises doubts about the narratives that promote liberation.

One of the most glaring injustices in today’s society is the wage gap between men and women, especially during pregnancy. Of course, salaries can be influenced by factors such as experience, education, and labor market dynamics.

But it is clear that women are still treated unfairly when it comes to wages. This is not only a matter of economic justice but also of moral justice. It is inexcusable that women in certain sectors still receive lower salaries for the same work, despite having comparable performance and qualifications to men.

I do not belong to any movement and do not believe in any ideology that tries to impose its vision as absolute truth. I reject all extreme movements—whether religious or secular, traditional or progressive—because extremism, at its core, is merely the reproduction of dominance under different slogans.

Even movements that started with noble intentions have not escaped exploitation. Feminism itself was not always an innocent movement; it was exploited even before capitalism took advantage of it.

In its early stages, it was used by political and ideological elites as a weapon against traditional structures—not to achieve real equality, but to introduce a new model of hierarchy.

Later, capitalism captured feminism and transformed it into a tool to increase production and boost consumption. Instead of freeing women from dependency, it trapped them between a discourse demanding their independence and a market that exploits their needs.

Therefore, even the feminist movement needs renewal, to make it more practical and grounded in reality, avoiding the pitfalls of political and capitalist entanglements.

I do not take sides in these ideological conflicts because most people do not seek truth; they seek control. The only allegiance I believe in is to free, critical thinking—seeing beyond simplistic dualities and beyond slogans that serve as fuel for battles that ultimately only benefit the architects of division.

Since my mother is a woman, my sister is a woman, my aunt is a woman, my grandmother is a woman, my beloved is a woman, and perhaps my daughter will be a woman, I want to congratulate women on their national day and honor their epic resilience in the face of the waves of violence and extremism that afflict them worldwide.

• Ahmed Mulai, Author and political scientist