Every year on 8 March the world commemorates International Women’s Day, a day meant to celebrate the achievements of women and reflect on the unfinished struggle for equality. In 2026 the United Nations has chosen the theme “Rights. Justice. Action. For All Women and Girls.” The theme arrives at a moment when the global political and economic environment is becoming increasingly unstable. Military tensions in the Middle East, particularly involving Iran, Israel and the United States, the continuing devastation in Gaza, and wider regional unrest are reshaping international politics. At the same time, inflation, rising food prices and energy crises are affecting households around the world. These developments remind us that gender equality cannot be separated from the political economy of war, global capitalism and social power.
Wars do not only destroy cities and infrastructure; they reorganise economies. When governments move toward militarisation, national budgets are increasingly directed toward defence spending while investment in social welfare declines. Education, healthcare and social protection programmes are often the first casualties of war economies. For women this shift has particularly severe consequences. Global data show that hundreds of millions of women and girls now live in conflict-affected regions where everyday life is marked by insecurity, displacement and economic uncertainty. Women frequently become refugees or internally displaced persons, responsible for sustaining families while facing shrinking opportunities and increased vulnerability.
War economies also reshape global markets. Military conflicts disrupt trade routes, energy supply chains and agricultural production. As a result, inflation spreads rapidly across national economies. Rising fuel prices increase transportation costs, which in turn push up the price of food and essential commodities. In many households it is women who manage daily consumption and family survival. When prices rise, women absorb the shock by reducing their own consumption, working longer hours or entering insecure informal labour markets. This dynamic contributes to what many observers describe as the feminisation of poverty.
To understand why women are disproportionately affected by crises, it is necessary to examine how economic systems organise labour and production. For centuries societies have divided work along gender lines. Men have largely been associated with paid labour in factories, markets and state institutions, while women have been assigned the responsibility of unpaid care work within households. This labour includes raising children, caring for elderly family members, cooking meals and maintaining social stability within communities. Although this work sustains society and prepares future generations of workers, it is rarely recognised within formal economic calculations.
Modern capitalism has historically depended on this invisible labour. Workers who participate in the labour market are supported by countless hours of domestic and care work performed within families. Much of this labour is carried out by women without wages or recognition. In this sense the economic system relies on a hidden subsidy provided by women’s unpaid labour. At the same time women are also incorporated into low-paid sectors of the economy such as garment production, agricultural labour, domestic work and service industries. These sectors rely on cheap and flexible labour to maximise profits.
Women therefore experience a double burden: unpaid labour inside the household and underpaid labour in the market.
Economic power, however, does not operate through material structures alone. It is also maintained through culture, education and everyday narratives that shape public consciousness. Social institutions often present gender roles as natural or inevitable.
Women are expected to prioritise caregiving and emotional labour, while men are associated with authority and economic provision. These narratives appear repeatedly in media, education systems and political discourse, gradually shaping social expectations and discouraging challenges to inequality.
Over the past four decades another important transformation has taken place. Education systems around the world have increasingly been reorganised according to market principles.
Schools and universities are encouraged to behave like competitive enterprises where knowledge is valued primarily for its economic utility. Students are trained to become efficient workers and consumers rather than critically engaged citizens. When education adopts this market logic, questions about power, inequality and justice are often marginalised. The result is a system that prepares individuals to adapt to existing economic structures rather than question them.
This transformation has significant implications for women’s struggles. The language of empowerment has become widely used in development programmes, corporate initiatives and international policies. Women are encouraged to become entrepreneurs, develop personal confidence and adapt to market opportunities. While such initiatives may provide individual advancement, they often leave the deeper structures of inequality untouched. Critical perspectives emerging from global educational debates have warned that empowerment within existing systems can sometimes reinforce the very structures that produce inequality.
Research discussed in educational studies supported by global institutions highlights an important distinction between empowerment and emancipation. Empowerment may help individuals gain confidence, skills and participation within the existing system, but it does not necessarily transform the structures of power that generate inequality. Emancipation, by contrast, requires collective awareness and social transformation that challenges oppressive systems themselves.
Educational scholars have argued that the contemporary global discourse on empowerment sometimes encourages people to adapt to existing economic arrangements rather than change them. When empowerment is reduced to individual self-improvement, it can become a subtle mechanism through which existing power structures remain intact.
In the context of women’s struggles this distinction becomes particularly important. Many programmes emphasise empowering women through entrepreneurship, microfinance or skill development. While these initiatives may provide short-term opportunities, they rarely challenge the broader economic structures that generate gender inequality. Women may gain small economic advantages but remain embedded in systems that depend on cheap labour, unpaid care work and political marginalisation.
A deeper vision of women’s emancipation requires collective transformation of social, political and economic relations. Education plays a crucial role in this process. Global discussions on lifelong learning emphasise that education should help people develop critical awareness of how power operates in society and enable them to participate actively in democratic life. When citizens understand the structures that shape their lives, they become capable of challenging injustice rather than merely adapting to it.
War and nationalism further complicate the position of women. During times of conflict political leaders often mobilise patriotic narratives that emphasise unity, sacrifice and loyalty to the nation. Women are frequently portrayed as symbolic guardians of cultural honour and moral values. Their roles as mothers and caregivers are highlighted as essential to national survival. Yet despite this symbolic importance, women remain largely excluded from peace negotiations and political decision-making processes.
The legacy of colonial domination also continues to shape many societies. Regions that experienced long histories of external control often carry deep psychological and social scars. Violence becomes embedded in institutions, economies and identities. In such contexts women face a double oppression: the ongoing impact of global power struggles and the persistence of patriarchal structures within their own societies. True liberation therefore requires both political independence and transformation of internal social relations.
The current global context reveals how these dynamics intersect. Military tensions in the Middle East are part of wider struggles over resources, power and geopolitical influence. As these conflicts intensify, ordinary citizens face rising living costs, shrinking public services and economic insecurity. Women must navigate these pressures while maintaining family survival and community stability. International Women’s Day therefore should not be reduced to symbolic celebration or corporate branding. Its deeper meaning lies in questioning the systems that continue to produce inequality. The theme of “Rights. Justice. Action. For All Women and Girls” demands more than recognition; it requires structural change.
Achieving genuine gender justice means recognising the economic value of care work that sustains societies yet remains invisible in national accounts. It means ensuring that women participate fully in peace negotiations, political institutions and economic planning. It also requires challenging the market-driven logic that transforms education and social life into instruments of profit while neglecting democratic values and social solidarity.
Most importantly, it requires moving beyond the narrow language of empowerment toward a broader vision of emancipation.
Women’s freedom cannot be achieved simply by helping individuals succeed within unequal systems. It requires collective action aimed at transforming the structures that generate exploitation, war and inequality. International Women’s Day should therefore serve as a reminder that the struggle for women’s rights is inseparable from the struggle for peace, economic justice and democratic transformation. Only when societies confront the deeper structures of power shaping our world can the promise of rights, justice and action become a lived reality for all women and girls.
