Labour MP Jess Phillips has made notable comments regarding the UK’s longstanding reliance on the unpaid labour of women, particularly in the context of providing services related to safeguarding and violence against women and girls. During a recent discussion, she emphasized that this dependence is rooted in a fundamentally sexist framework.
Critique of Current Services and Gender Dynamics
Phillips, who serves as the minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, expressed her frustration with the existing framework. She stated that the culture of relying on women to offer services for free—such as shelter and counselling—has persisted for decades. This practice, she argues, has allowed the government to shy away from taking full responsibility for these essential services.
Challenges in Government Departments
According to Phillips, there exists a misconception within government departments that issues related to gender-based violence fall solely under the purview of the Home Office. This narrow perspective undermines the importance of integrating gender safety measures across all government sectors.
Call for Mainstreaming Safety
Phillips pointed out that she has had to advocate strongly for the safety of women and girls to be treated as a priority across various departments. This advocacy has occasionally made her unpopular among her government colleagues, who often view these issues as external to their main responsibilities.
Historical Context of Women’s Work
Reflecting on historical contributions, Phillips highlighted that during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, women in the UK organized and established essential services to respond to gaps in care and support. These services were often provided voluntarily, without any financial compensation, allowing many women access to necessary resources and support systems. “We got fat on that expectation that that service will be provided for free,” she stated, emphasizing the need to recognize and appreciate this unpaid labour.
Comparative Perspectives on Essential Services
Phillips drew a parallel with other essential services to illustrate the disparity in how society views women’s contributions. She argued, “Nobody offered diabetes medicine for free. Pharmaceutical companies didn’t go, ‘Wow, this is really important. People will die without this. We’ll just give it away for free.’” This comparison aims to highlight the absurdity of expecting women to provide vital services at no cost.
Future Directions
Despite the significant challenges, Phillips remains committed to advocating for systemic change. She recognizes that altering public perception and policy regarding women’s roles in care and safety will take time and persistent effort. “Undoing that is really hard and it’s going to take a long time,” she remarked, underlining the work still needed to establish these issues as fundamental to the nation’s security.
