Our greatest economic asset is our under ‘exploited’ global female workforce. Achieving parity would grow GDP by trillions so why are we still sitting on our hands?
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
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.
Alex, I hear you. The long-term consequences might not have been fully foreseen, yet the underlying structures weren’t accidental. Industrialization, the nuclear family model, and the economic dependence of unpaid labor weren’t organic shifts—they were shaped by deliberate choices, policies, and power structures.
Not every step was a master plan, but the outcomes—who benefits, who remains invisible—are too consistent to be coincidence. The system adapts, reinforces itself, and ensures that certain labor stays undervalued, certain people stay dependent. That’s why surface-level reforms rarely touch the core of it.
This is very good. Thank you Mariella. I'd love to know what the crib sheet for HOW people can take action is. Everyone is so overwhelmed by information (not to mention disinformation) that the path to righteousness is often dimly lit. I think (after rather a long time) people are pretty aware of their environmental actions/ramifications. Less so on the important subject you write about. Amelia
A brilliant article - thankyou! I’ve been looking for these stats and I’m so pleased you’ve included them here in the one space so people can see for themselves what these cruel cuts made by DT himself are having instantly for vulnerable women and their families across the world. The ongoing impact and repercussions are unnecessary and dangerous in terms of future relations with the US.
Thanks for sharing. The most worrying thing aside from terrible policy decisions is the air of defeat amongst those who need to galvanise and fight back. The world keeps turning, change will come and we need to take heart and keep our eyes on the long view.
Just wanted to add - I thought this was a very rousing and persuasive article and I hope lots read it. The economic argument is exactly on point and I’ve written about this today a little too.
I will be restacking and recommending your publication too.
Excellent sentiment, and I couldn’t agree more about how reductions in international aid adversely affect women and girls. But, as Caroline Criado Perez points out in her writing, unless the methods for calculating GDP and deciding on public spending — which are mostly blind to women — are changed, nothing will truly improve.
McKinsey estimates that women’s unpaid care work contributes $10 trillion to annual GDP. Yet, trips made for paid work are still valued more than those made for unpaid care work. As a result, transport systems are often not designed to accommodate women juggling caregiving and paid employment — just one more knock-on effect.
Don’t even get me started on the unmeasured contributions women make to social cohesion and community. Tax systems built on non-sex-disaggregated data are fuelling gendered poverty. This won’t change unless we adopt an evidence-based economic analysis — but those making the decisions tend to dismiss it as ‘too complicated.’
This is coming from someone who, much to the surprise of both myself and my family, stood in GE2024 — having only become politically engaged in 2016, when I realised how few women’s voices were truly at the heart of policymaking.
Lou Brown Talks is my latest venture. Tune in if you're interested :)
The working world is not designed for equity and playing around the edges of it has gained us some gains but has not closed the gap. Fundamentally, we need to go back to basics in our design which is a huge undertaking and which is why nobody wants to do it and continues to tweak around the edges. This is compounded by replaying the same designs or variations built with their own invisible women in developing countries growing their economies. Until we tackle the societal design, we will continue to evolve in tiny increments instead of provoking a revolution.
It feels SO frustrating. I can only Imagine what it would be like if I was a lady.
It must be at LEAST 15 years since I read about one of the single most powerful tools to raise living standards in the third world - educated girls.
I seem to recall it being to do with Hugo Chavez, and John Pilger so perhaps it was an interview on the new social projects at the beginning of his presidency, but the point is as salient as ever. Educated girls tend to have children significantly later, reducing poverty directly, strain on housing and on and on. Also providing extra income and a degree of independence which again, reduces poverty and benefits the whole economy even for a cold, hard, "society does not exist," Thatcherite!
I find myself wondering WHY this seems to be SUCH an intransigent problem across so many societies.
I guess one answer stares me in the face every time I shave, (in the mirror, for those sniggering at the back.) Yet I have always been admiring of powerful women, however you choose to measure that.
I simply don't understand why a man would want the women in his life to be subdued. To my mind it shows glaring insecurity, a weakness, that contradicts the supposed goal of such behaviour. Perhaps it is as simple as that poverty/insecurity mindset, which may hint at some solutions too.
I think you’ve hit at part of the nail on it’s head. Good to have a male voice that sees with clarity the puzzle of why we’d ignore the very thing that could make a fundamental difference
These are transactional times and the greatest global untapped resource is a very human one; the under-supported, underfunded and under-utilised female population. Without empowering and elevating women’s ability to contribute to our global economy we are recklessly ignoring our greatest route to growth.
Would love to show you the DWP’s disappointing response to my letter (referenced in my last article). They mention you (and I was v pleased about the ambassador work you are doing) but do not tackle the economic arguments whatsoever
The figures need to be posted on bill boards don’t they?
My letter to the DWP focusses on the fact our economy is also suffering because the government is not creating financial incentives for employers to provide more PT jobs for women. It isn’t getting the tax it could.
Older women with children could be paying this more easily if this change was made. We can’t afford to ignore this especially given the likely war taxes to come. The DWP doesn’t seem to get my financial point - that they are missing out on tax from women which they need.
Please let me know if you’d like to see what they say. They mention you in the letter
I think there is a cross over with the work you do as a menopause ambassador
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
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.
I think you are right, although you tackle a much broader issue of social breakdown, a social contract that affects everyone.
I can't imagine it being intentionally by design though, more a failure for foresee the consequences.
You've definitely hit on a solid point though.
Alex, I hear you. The long-term consequences might not have been fully foreseen, yet the underlying structures weren’t accidental. Industrialization, the nuclear family model, and the economic dependence of unpaid labor weren’t organic shifts—they were shaped by deliberate choices, policies, and power structures.
Not every step was a master plan, but the outcomes—who benefits, who remains invisible—are too consistent to be coincidence. The system adapts, reinforces itself, and ensures that certain labor stays undervalued, certain people stay dependent. That’s why surface-level reforms rarely touch the core of it.
This is very good. Thank you Mariella. I'd love to know what the crib sheet for HOW people can take action is. Everyone is so overwhelmed by information (not to mention disinformation) that the path to righteousness is often dimly lit. I think (after rather a long time) people are pretty aware of their environmental actions/ramifications. Less so on the important subject you write about. Amelia
This is a great article. I wish it could be more widely read-published in a national newspaper.
A brilliant article - thankyou! I’ve been looking for these stats and I’m so pleased you’ve included them here in the one space so people can see for themselves what these cruel cuts made by DT himself are having instantly for vulnerable women and their families across the world. The ongoing impact and repercussions are unnecessary and dangerous in terms of future relations with the US.
Sharing far and wide.
Thanks again!
Love Kate x
Thanks for sharing. The most worrying thing aside from terrible policy decisions is the air of defeat amongst those who need to galvanise and fight back. The world keeps turning, change will come and we need to take heart and keep our eyes on the long view.
Tried to edit my comment and it isn’t letting me
Just wanted to add - I thought this was a very rousing and persuasive article and I hope lots read it. The economic argument is exactly on point and I’ve written about this today a little too.
I will be restacking and recommending your publication too.
Excellent sentiment, and I couldn’t agree more about how reductions in international aid adversely affect women and girls. But, as Caroline Criado Perez points out in her writing, unless the methods for calculating GDP and deciding on public spending — which are mostly blind to women — are changed, nothing will truly improve.
McKinsey estimates that women’s unpaid care work contributes $10 trillion to annual GDP. Yet, trips made for paid work are still valued more than those made for unpaid care work. As a result, transport systems are often not designed to accommodate women juggling caregiving and paid employment — just one more knock-on effect.
Don’t even get me started on the unmeasured contributions women make to social cohesion and community. Tax systems built on non-sex-disaggregated data are fuelling gendered poverty. This won’t change unless we adopt an evidence-based economic analysis — but those making the decisions tend to dismiss it as ‘too complicated.’
This is coming from someone who, much to the surprise of both myself and my family, stood in GE2024 — having only become politically engaged in 2016, when I realised how few women’s voices were truly at the heart of policymaking.
Lou Brown Talks is my latest venture. Tune in if you're interested :)
The working world is not designed for equity and playing around the edges of it has gained us some gains but has not closed the gap. Fundamentally, we need to go back to basics in our design which is a huge undertaking and which is why nobody wants to do it and continues to tweak around the edges. This is compounded by replaying the same designs or variations built with their own invisible women in developing countries growing their economies. Until we tackle the societal design, we will continue to evolve in tiny increments instead of provoking a revolution.
It feels SO frustrating. I can only Imagine what it would be like if I was a lady.
It must be at LEAST 15 years since I read about one of the single most powerful tools to raise living standards in the third world - educated girls.
I seem to recall it being to do with Hugo Chavez, and John Pilger so perhaps it was an interview on the new social projects at the beginning of his presidency, but the point is as salient as ever. Educated girls tend to have children significantly later, reducing poverty directly, strain on housing and on and on. Also providing extra income and a degree of independence which again, reduces poverty and benefits the whole economy even for a cold, hard, "society does not exist," Thatcherite!
I find myself wondering WHY this seems to be SUCH an intransigent problem across so many societies.
I guess one answer stares me in the face every time I shave, (in the mirror, for those sniggering at the back.) Yet I have always been admiring of powerful women, however you choose to measure that.
I simply don't understand why a man would want the women in his life to be subdued. To my mind it shows glaring insecurity, a weakness, that contradicts the supposed goal of such behaviour. Perhaps it is as simple as that poverty/insecurity mindset, which may hint at some solutions too.
I think you’ve hit at part of the nail on it’s head. Good to have a male voice that sees with clarity the puzzle of why we’d ignore the very thing that could make a fundamental difference
Thank you for those stats
Also agree with this especially :
These are transactional times and the greatest global untapped resource is a very human one; the under-supported, underfunded and under-utilised female population. Without empowering and elevating women’s ability to contribute to our global economy we are recklessly ignoring our greatest route to growth.
Would love to show you the DWP’s disappointing response to my letter (referenced in my last article). They mention you (and I was v pleased about the ambassador work you are doing) but do not tackle the economic arguments whatsoever
Those stats are ONLY from #SavetheChildren projects. The bigger picture is much worse!
Economist Emma Holte interviewed yesterday by Ava Evans for PoliticsJoe, seems right on this topic.
https://youtu.be/43P30rJ_rqs?si=HpeY26A-V5rbatO4
Moloch is a word I learned yesterday in an AI lecture, but seems also to have such wider relevance.
The figures need to be posted on bill boards don’t they?
My letter to the DWP focusses on the fact our economy is also suffering because the government is not creating financial incentives for employers to provide more PT jobs for women. It isn’t getting the tax it could.
Older women with children could be paying this more easily if this change was made. We can’t afford to ignore this especially given the likely war taxes to come. The DWP doesn’t seem to get my financial point - that they are missing out on tax from women which they need.
Please let me know if you’d like to see what they say. They mention you in the letter
I think there is a cross over with the work you do as a menopause ambassador