Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Robin Stafford's avatar

One of the stark contradictions in Reeves as the first woman chancellor is her choice to cut benefits to the poor and protect the interests of the wealthy. Women are disproportionately affected by benefits cuts. Men disproportionately benefit from low taxes on wealth. Women need to call her out

Expand full comment
Wild Lion*esses Pride by Jay's avatar

Mariella, I hear you. The problem isn’t just labor being undervalued—it’s that the very structure of society was built to ensure it remains invisible. This isn’t a flaw. It’s by design.

Industrialization shattered the extended family, pulled people into cities, and turned care into a private responsibility instead of a shared one. The nuclear family wasn’t inevitable—it was engineered. With it, women’s work was redefined. Not as labor, not as something with economic value, but as an expectation. Something absorbed into the background. And as care shifted to institutions, aging lost its place in the household.

The post-war era locked this in. The suburban ideal didn’t just separate families—it erased entire generations from public life. Grandparents became dependents, not contributors. Women past their child-rearing years faded from view. And now, hyper-individualization has pushed it even further. If labor isn’t profitable, it isn’t seen. If people aren’t productive, they are discarded.

You lay it out—who benefits? Who profits? The economy runs on unpaid work, yet the ones doing it are kept dependent. The system doesn’t just survive on this—it is built on it. And because it functions so smoothly, so invisibly, even those challenging it fail to see the full depth of its design.

So what changes? Not just policy. Not just representation. The culture itself. The definitions of labor, of leadership, of value. Until those shift, nothing else will.

Expand full comment
15 more comments...

No posts