Like the army, the prison, industry, or other public services (1), the school constitutes an element of a society governed by the pursuit of profit (capitalism) and ensuring male domination (patriarchy). Rife with the social contradictions of these two systems, it contributes to reproducing them, but, as a battleground, it can also be a site of resistance. Before examining the possibilities and limitations of education in affective, relational, and sexual life (EVARS) , it is important to delve into the history of the school system in order to understand the terrain on which the feminist struggle takes place within schools.
From the highest levels of the Ministry of National Education to feminist demonstrations teeming with slogans advocating for "boys' education" or "sex education" in schools, and including the so-called "struggle" or "social transformation" unions (FSU, CGT, SUD), there seems to be a consensus today that schools, and therefore the State, play a central role in the feminist struggle. While the question of girls' education (or lack thereof), its content compared to that of boys, and sex education-in short, gender relations in schools-has always been a topic of public debate, the form these relations have taken in schools must be understood as resulting from a complex interplay between the objectives of maintaining the dominance of capital and patriarchy, the constraints of social and demographic changes, and the power dynamics among a large number of actors. Ultimately, the emancipation of women (and the proletariat) rarely materialized.
Mixed or single-sex spaces: the sexual division of labor and the necessities of capital
Before industrialization, educational institutions were mostly strictly male, "simply because girls were not educated,[...]they learned the skills their mothers had already passed down at home. From the 16th century onward, they entered the 'little schools' run by nuns. There, they could learn to read, rarely to write.[...]This single-sex education was initially the result of a deliberate and decreed segregation of the sexes by the Church (2)."
Then, from 1833 (Guizot Law), primary public education was initially reserved for boys, thus confining girls' education to the domestic sphere. In 1850, the Falloux Law opened it up to girls. In 1880, the Camille Sée Law opened the doors of secondary education to women (with different and less comprehensive curricula), but as the feminist Hubertine Auclert pointed out, not only did this education remain single-sex, but it was not "a means of financial gain for women," and therefore "parents will not consider making sacrifices to educate their daughters, but to provide them with dowries (3)." Yet, coeducation between the sexes existed at this time, at least partially (United States, Netherlands, Italy). Educators, divided, disagreed on the best course of action, some believing "that coeducation encourages a form of unbridled independence among young American girls, thus threatening traditional gender roles."
The beginning of co-educational schools
At that time, feminists demanded equal education for women, but not all of them did so from the same perspective. Bourgeois feminists (Georges Sand) and revolutionary feminists (Flora Tristan, Louise Michel, Elisabeth Dmitrieff, and André Léo) disagreed. While in the former case, education should enable bourgeois women to be equal to bourgeois men, the revolutionaries, on the contrary, "constantly linked, throughout the 19th century, the struggle of women and that of the workers' movement (4)." Indeed, the role of the modern school, since its origins in the era of industrialization, has been to be "the daughter and servant of capitalism" (Freinet). The fiercely anticlerical (but capitalist) Third Republic established a school system that provided a minimal education to the children of workers and peasants in the region, standardized the language at the expense of local dialects, and sang the praises of the Nation in case it became necessary to send young cannon fodder to their deaths for industrialists. These objectives were obviously reflected in differentiated curricula for girls and boys, thus reproducing the sexual division of labor and warfare. This system of differentiated education, explicitly preparing women for the domestic sphere and men for the factory, would persist for a long time, in accordance with the way in which capital reshaped the family during industrialization (5). In response, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, proletarian or anarchist education initiatives offered mixed or non-mixed spaces (depending on the objectives) more or less outside the State, the study of which is not the subject of this article, which is focused on the dominant school.
During the 20th century, several changes took place. A nascent and sporadic coeducation persisted and developed (6). High school curricula became identical for both sexes from 1924 onward, allowing women to prepare for the baccalaureate and providing a form of recognition of the intellectual equality of all secondary school students (therefore, exclusively members of the upper classes). "The gradual introduction of coeducation in France from the 1960s onward[it became compulsory in 1975]was more the consequence of strong demographic growth, economic imperatives, and the expansion of education than the result of genuine reflection on how to achieve gender equality. There was therefore no debate surrounding an educational project aimed at changing gender relations. (2)" But, from then on, with coeducation becoming the norm, "observations about the differences between girls and boys became the subject of study and inquiry," such as the underrepresentation of women in the sciences. Inequality in gender mixing thus becomes visible (and deplored by feminists), but persists because the school is part of capitalist and patriarchal society, both as a cause and as a consequence of its functioning.
The school as a reflection and matrix of patriarchy
Indeed, even within a co-educational framework, from the earliest age, daycare and then school contribute to reproducing not only class society but also patriarchy. A 2012 report by the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs noted, with regard to daycare centers, greater stimulation and encouragement of boys for group activities, verbal interaction, and physical abilities, while the "appearance[of girls]is more the object of adult attention (7)." Then, at school, sociologist Marie Duru-Bellat showed that teachers judge work differently, tending "to compliment boys' work for its intelligence or originality, and girls' work for its seriousness and neatness," and Nicole Mosconi, also a sociologist, emphasizes that "boys' indiscipline is tolerated, seen as unfortunate but inevitable behavior, whereas it is stigmatized and sometimes violently rejected in girls, from whom docility is expected." And, for teachers, girls "do all they can" academically while they imagine that boys "can do better (8)".
Through school punishment, exclusion from classes or the school itself, a rite of passage or a 'medal of manhood' is also at play within the boys' group. "During adolescence, masculine identity is shaped in relation to peer groups.[...]Displays of strength, frequent fights, and sexist and homophobic insults constitute the daily life of many boys (9)." These boys are caught between the school rules, which "demand discretion, respect, work, and obedience[values identified as 'feminine']," and integration into the boys' group, which pushes them to "break the rules, be insolent, act the fool, monopolize attention, and use their physical strength (10)." The more academically inclined behavior of girls is then perceived by some boys as a product of the institution that excludes them, as is the case with the behavior of good-achieving boys, whose devaluation can be achieved through stereotypes associating 'intellectual' with 'faggot'. Masculinist behaviors are thus a form of identity compensation for academic failure for young boys, which the institution validates through punishment, while claiming to combat them.
Furthermore, as historically denounced by feminists in the 1970s, textbooks convey "an invisibility and inferiorization of women; a persistence of stereotypes in the gendered division of labor, activities, and social spaces; a homogenization of the group of women; ordinary and banalized sexism; an absence of counter-stereotypes (dominance by women and feminism are rarely addressed) (2)."
At the national (and European) level, the DEPP (11) highlights a persistent gap between performance in French (where girls outperform boys) and mathematics (where boys outperform boys), whether at the beginning of sixth grade or in tenth grade. Furthermore, "in France, girls are more likely to choose general and technological tracks than boys, who are more numerous in vocational tracks, particularly apprenticeships," resulting, in effect, in the (almost) single-sex operation of many educational pathways.
Finally, the schoolyard sports field (often used for soccer), predominantly occupied by boys, forces girls who wish to cross it to take detours, not to mention the toilets, changing rooms, hallways, and cafeteria. In other words, this reflects the relegation of women to peripheral spaces to the detriment of men, who remain central and legitimate in the public sphere.
The playground as drawn by a student (G for spaces occupied by boys, F for girls)
If we add to this the gender stereotypes conveyed by social networks, which are widely consumed by younger people, as well as the overall lack of training for education workers on these issues, nothing currently allows us to really change the trend at the institutional level, which functions like a machine for reproducing gender relations.
Educating about sexuality and gender equality in schools?
At the beginning of the 20th century, school curricula were purged of all references to sexuality in order to preserve "childlike innocence," as knowledge was believed to inevitably lead to vice (especially for women, who were expected to remain ignorant until their wedding night). Neo-Malthusians, feminists (such as Nelly Roussel), and doctors, however, unsuccessfully petitioned the state for sex education in schools. This last group founded the French Society for Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis to prevent the spread of venereal diseases. Doctors then gave talks to girls from working-class backgrounds and (rarely) lectures exclusively for male high school students, outside of school hours, with the approval of the principals least concerned by the potential scandal. High school girls will therefore not have the opportunity to attend, for example, the lecture entitled "Venus and Her Dangers," given by the French National League Against Venereal Disease at the Lycée Condorcet in Paris in 1925, which asserted that "to seek pleasure in love and not a child is to confuse the means with the end," urging them to "remain chaste in order to be strong," stigmatizing the "selfish masturbator," associating the transmission of venereal diseases solely with women, and mentioning sterility as the only female symptom of these infections... The attempt by the Minister of National Education, Jean Zay (in conjunction with the Minister of Health), to introduce sex education in schools in 1937 met with opposition from the Federation of Parents' Associations, not to mention that of Catholic circles. The State, medicine, feminists, parents, and religious figures-the actors in a controversy that has continued ever since-are already identified.
A gem from 1925
"It was the economic, social, and cultural shifts of the Trente Glorieuses (Thirty Glorious Years) that fostered the initial institutionalization of sex education in schools.[...]Other contributing factors included the extension of compulsory schooling[...]and the gradual introduction of coeducation, which strengthened the support of those who believed that schools could not ignore issues related to sexuality. (12)" Young people's sexuality became more visible, and attitudes evolved in favor of sex education (high school action committees in 1968 demanded it). Gradually, it gained acceptance, but in a very conservative society, it remained tasked with protecting against "sexual deviations" such as homosexuality. However, in the 1960s, Planned Parenthood sought to develop "an ethic of fulfillment and responsibility" in sexuality and intervened in schools, also advocating for the right to abortion. The Fontanet circular of 1973 will frame the initiatives and arbitrate between the various pressures (unions and parents of students are divided): it distinguishes between compulsory "sexual information", purely scientific and biological (reproduction, hygiene) and "education in sexual responsibility" which is optional, so as not to go against the role of families, retaining a right of oversight on the participation of their offspring in these sessions.
The context of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s led to a strengthening of sex education, which no longer focused solely on prevention but also addressed sexuality in a "positive approach" linking "romantic relationships, solidarity, and trust." In the 1990s, opposition from Catholic circles was finally overcome, and the mandatory nature of sex education was enshrined in law in 2001: "Information and education on sexuality are provided in primary, middle, and high schools with at least three sessions per year, in homogeneous age groups." External speakers may deliver these sessions, but "under the responsibility and supervision of National Education staff (nurses, student life coordinators, teachers, etc.)." "While reactionary opposition groups may have successfully thwarted the ABCD of Equality program during Hollande's presidency, the institutionalization of education in emotional, relational, and sexual life, with the promulgation of an official curriculum in 2025, is currently a victory. However, this victory is deceptive, as recent figures indicate that only 15 to 20% of secondary school students benefit from these mandatory sessions, due to insufficient resources and the fact that these initiatives rely primarily on the motivation of local teams. The state has nonetheless been condemned in court for this deficiency, a sign that the balance of power has profoundly shifted."
A map of the anti-EVARS movement by the Questions de classe collective
Conclusion: From sex education in schools to comprehensive self-education
By addressing three different aspects of the link between school and gender relations (coeducation, gendered reproduction, and sex education), this article seeks to demonstrate that school is not a neutral ground that could enable complete sexual emancipation through a few well-intentioned laws and programs. While the feminist power dynamic obviously plays a role in the adoption of certain measures, and while it is vital that sex education be provided (for the prevention of violence against minors, to provide reliable knowledge about the body and sexuality, and to counterbalance the influence of families), the role of school remains to reproduce the necessities of society, foremost among them the class division. This division, based on the separation between a predominantly male productive sphere (industry, construction, agriculture, engineering) and a predominantly female reproductive sphere (care, teaching, cleaning, domestic work), is perpetuated by the school through ideology and guidance. Radically challenging the patriarchal role of schools can therefore only be done on the condition of also questioning the class society that sets the framework for it.
Within this framework, what exactly does the recent EVARS program, clearly progressive in inspiration and largely supported by the left, represent? Several hypotheses can be put forward. First, after a continuous decline since the AIDS epidemic, sexually transmitted infections have been on the rise for several years, particularly among young people, and EVARS could constitute a state-led response. Second, a well-known reflex in France is to ask schools to solve the problem whenever there is a major social issue-an easy and inexpensive solution, allowing those in power to demonstrate that they are taking action. This is also the case with the prevention of sexist and sexual violence (against women or minors), harassment (sexual or not), 'radicalisation'... Finally, EVARS also testifies to an ideological evolution of liberal society, very attached to individual well-being and 'living together', in which 'affective, relational' life and sexuality are seen as central dimensions, which can be treated with the republican reading grid of the moment, stigmatizing for example the supposed 'separatists' and certain communities in the name of a secularism of social control (13).
State control of public policies related to sex education is all the more unsettling in these times of rumbling warfare. "Demographic rearmament" for the purposes of a war economy could well come at the cost of a decline in women's knowledge about reproductive control, which would involve, among other things, an attack on the EVARS (Education for All Sexual and Reproductive Health). From a purely immediate perspective, any reactionary backsliding on this issue must be fiercely defended (see the infographic "Education: The Anti-EVARS and Anti-Gender Crusaders"). But from a revolutionary perspective, as with abortion, we would also be wise not to place all our hopes on the state guaranteeing women the keys to their sexual emancipation. Didn't many women's groups in the 1970s value self-education?
zyg, September 2026
Notes
(1) "Should we destroy public services?", Courant Alternatif 358 March 2026
(2) French Institute of Education and ENS de Lyon, 2016. IFÉ Monitoring Report No. 112: The education of girls and boys: paradoxes and inequalities .
(3) Rebecca Rogers, Coeducation: Past and Present Issues , ENS de Lyon editions, 2004 and Coeducation in Europe , Encyclopedia of Digital History of Europe, 2020
(4) Education: A Means of Integration or Emancipation?, Courant Alternatif Special Issue on Schools, 2011
(5) See the website incendo.noblogs.org, on the links between gender and class
(6) Geneviève Pezeu. Girls among boys: the beginnings of coeducation in French secondary schools from the 1920s onwards . Bérangère Kolly. Sex and Education , 5, Transverse, 2014
(7) Cited in Balls on the Table , Victoire Tuaillon, 2019
(8) Nicole Mosconi, Gender and School Practices: How to Educate for Equality?, Eduscol, 2008
(9) Eric Debarbieux, Arnaud Alessandrin, Johanna Dagorn and Olivia Gaillard, report Gender Violence in Schools , European Observatory of Violence in Schools, 2018
(10) Sylvie Ayral, The Making of Boys , 2011
(11) DEPP (Directorate for Evaluation, Forecasting and Performance), 2024. Girls and Boys on the Path to Equality. From primary school to higher education
(12) Yves Verneuil (2025), Sexuality education in French schools from the beginning of the 20th century to the present day: a socially sensitive issue . New notebooks of educational research. This section is largely inspired by this article. For a summary, see Grégory Chambat, "Évars: a brief chronology", feminist and libertarian journal Casse-rôles no. 35, February-April 2026.
(13) Simon Massei, Disciplining the suburbs? Gender equality education gone astray , La Dispute, 2024.
https://www.oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4779
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten