In a powerful statement, prominent figure Jess Phillips has sharply criticized the United Kingdom, asserting that the nation has grown “fat” on the extensive and often unacknowledged free labor provided by women. Her remarks illuminate a deeply rooted societal issue concerning the historical reliance on voluntary efforts to establish crucial social support systems, particularly those aiding women and girls.
Phillips highlighted how a significant portion of vital services, which were initially conceived and delivered by women without remuneration, have become an assumed cornerstone of the country’s social infrastructure. This reliance, she argues, has created a detrimental expectation that such essential support should continue to be provided without adequate governmental funding or recognition for the immense effort involved.
Addressing her efforts to elevate the safety of women and girls to a “mainstream concern” within political discourse, Phillips recounted the considerable resistance she faced. This pushback, she suggested, often stemmed from a dismissive attitude, with some ministers categorizing violence against women as exclusively the responsibility of the Home Office, thereby isolating it from broader governmental priorities.
She attributed this narrow perspective to a “fundamentally sexist place,” rooted in a historical context where services for women were largely absent. Consequently, women nationwide organically organized themselves, pooling resources and expertise to create necessary support structures, filling a void that the state either could not or would not address.
These grassroots initiatives saw women establishing refuges by simply “putting down a mattress” and setting up counselling services staffed by trained therapists who volunteered their time. These acts of profound community support were born out of necessity and a collective will to protect and empower vulnerable women and girls.
Phillips emphasized that there is a widespread failure to comprehend the sheer extent to which the UK has depended on these pro bono contributions. This lack of recognition, she contended, has inadvertently fostered an environment where the government’s willingness to officially fund and sustain these critical services has been significantly diminished, leading to a de facto exploitation of goodwill.
The pattern, as Phillips described it, originates from the activism of women in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, who laid the groundwork for many contemporary social provisions. The nation, she implied, became accustomed to and even thrived on the expectation that these vital services would perpetually be supplied on a free basis.
This long-standing reliance on free labor has thus not only perpetuated a cycle of undervaluation but also created a systemic barrier to comprehensive and properly resourced government intervention in crucial areas of social welfare. Phillips’s analysis calls for a profound re-evaluation of how society values and compensates the contributions of women.
Ultimately, her critique underscores the urgent need to acknowledge the historical burden carried by women in establishing foundational support systems and to transition towards a model where essential services are fully recognized, funded, and integrated as a core responsibility of the state, ensuring true gender equality and robust social safety nets.
