Business Case for Women: Bla Bla Bla
How the business case for women harms them
One of the things I hear a lot is the business case of investing in women.
“Women invest back into their families and communities,” folks in the financial inclusion community say. While men/their husbands waste away earnings getting drunk or gambling, the women run households on bootstrapped earnings often financed by their side businesses, to buy the year’s schoolbooks, and pay a visit to the doctor. Thus we must invest in women: exhibit A of the business case.
Women have better returns! Women lead better businesses! Thus we should invest in women: Exhibit B of the business case.
Women leaders outperform men. Companies with women leaders do better. Countries with women leaders do better. Especially during a crisis. Thus we must invest in women: Exhibit C of the business case.
Give the woman a sewing machine and she will lead her community out of poverty! Give the girls an education and they will lead the country into long term economic growth!
But what if women drank or gambled away the earnings?
Or what if their businesses fail?
Or what if she sews for joy and pleasure?Should we then not invest in her?
The business case can fall to pieces so quickly. I appreciate the buy-in the business case brought for many movements including DEI, climate change, and even women. But the business case is fragile at best. It’s built upon the transactional rather than the relational or reciprocal. It capitalises on gender inequalities and continues to burden women to lead change.
The business case also keeps us in the “why” conversation. We don’t need to ask why we need to design for women anymore — we just do. I’m ready to go from why to how—are you?
This post is an excerpt from Unconforming: a newsletter about Design for Women. Unconforming goes out every two weeks and also shares learnings from experts, job and other opportunities, examples and articles — all to make an impact in the women’s space. Sign up here to get it in your inbox!
