From a legal point of view – the paternal language of power – one of the reasons for this asymmetry is associated with the evolution of the right to land, which in different normative traditions has been folded to the precepts of the right to private property of the land. Therefore, most women who have been able to recover the land have had to do so through mechanisms that do not question the right to property of men, as well as resources that do not question the land and the rights of women.

Acquisition and sale of a transnational land economy in which marriage, inheritance, agricultural market reform or agribusiness prevail. Family, State and Market: institutions legitimized by the right to maintain male dominance over our bodies and territories. Moreover, in addition to the late recognition of the human right to land, it is linked not only to the right to property, understood as a guarantee, but also to the right to property, that is, to the right of access. In practice, this means naturalising and making good the unfair territorial division between men and women.

It is not a new phenomenon, nor an unexpected imperfection of the current democratic construction, the fact that Andreok does not have a piece of land unrelated to men and their organizations. Abya Yalan, the poor rural ownership of women, refers to colonization, which has been essential to ensure that land accumulation is left to invasive men.

At the beginning of colonization, access to land was used as a currency of exchange for the recognition of women ' s civil rights and the strategic extension of colonial borders. This strategy affected not only the land, but the bodies of women, impoverished and enslaved people, and the children and animals used in the model of extensive agriculture.

A civilizing project that ejects and exploits everything that is alive and everything that is outside the preponderance of men. In this way it has built many nations of Latin America, as well as many other peoples of the century that are in the vastness of the planet. As Nancy Fraser has taught, we must add to the original heteropatriarchal exoil and to the supremacist project for the laundering of the population everything that has been rounded off by the capitalist accumulation that lasts until today.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that women do not know almost any plot that guides and works. Our lands have been stolen from us. They've banished us and they know it. And to make sure of that captivity, we've been forced into the (hetero)sexual division of labor, and in addition, we've learned to call love to its consequences. It is a territorial looting legitimised by the principles of the rule of law, rooted in a social contract that is nothing more than the history of freedom and brotherhood between men.

After all, as Carole Pateman explains, the existence of the social contract is the result of the prior existence of another implicit contract, the sexual contract. This contract has allowed men to regulate and reach the bodies of women, while preventing women from full political and citizen participation in modern societies. Monique Wittig took another step and described it as "heterosexual contract", as the woman believed that they were "conscious" and "legible" beings, so she said that they had no contractual reciprocity.

At a time when the global violent, belligerent and far-right situation is rising, the effectiveness of women ' s human right to earth cannot continue to be a mere rhetoric to reinforce the monologue of Western male reason. Hindering access to land responds to a sexist and racist geopolitical organization of power. Our challenge is, therefore, to make this system of multiple domination of life visible and destabilized. Women’s movements (err) can be achieved by legitimising other models that already flourish in the praxis of feminist existence and that hardly reach the legal monopoly of territorial planning.