Gender Empowerment Issues

Are we about to roll back progress for women at work? This year, only 50% of companies prioritize women’s career advancement - and 2 in 10 place low or no priority at all. For women of colour, that number rises to 3 in 10. At the same time, we’re seeing an ‘ambition gap’ emerge - not because women lack drive, but because they lack equal sponsorship, advocacy, and career support. When women receive the same career support that men do, this gap to advance falls away. Yet women at both ends of the pipeline are still held back by less sponsorship and manager advocacy. The report finds: 🔹Only 31% of women at entry level have sponsors, vs. 45% of men - leaving women at a disadvantage from the start. Women get less of the sponsorship that opens doors - despite the fact that employees with sponsors are promoted at nearly twice the rate of those without. 🔹50% of mid-career Asian women report that no one in leadership has advocated for them, including connecting them to helpful contacts, putting them forward for promotion, or recommending them for stretch assignments - far higher than for other women at this level. 🔹Only 26% of women say their manager has advocated for them or their work. Women in leadership receive less consistent manager support across key advancement actions, and since managers play a critical role in progression, these gaps may limit women’s opportunities at the top. 🔹Young women are particularly ambitious: at entry level, women under 30 are more interested in being promoted than young men. However, among employees over 40 who are still at entry level, ambition drops sharply - 52% of women want to advance, compared to 71% of men - a decline linked to significantly less career support. This is a solvable problem, but it requires a greater investment in women’s careers at a time when a number of companies may be deprioritizing them. Some have already scaled back programs beneficial to women like remote work, formal sponsorship, and targeted career development, and HR leaders worry about the long-term impact of changes like these for women. Yet many companies are scaling back what works - remote work, formal sponsorship, and targeted career development - putting years of progress at risk. Companies that prioritize gender diversity see bigger gains. For companies that lost focus this year, 2026 should be the year of recommitting to women in the workplace - not as a DEI checkbox, but as a leadership and performance priority. Based on insights from 124 organizations, representing ~3 million employees, including surveys of 9,500 employees and interviews with 62 HR leaders across Corporate America.

What happens to humanitarian response when women-led organisations disappear? A new report by UN Women, Beyond the Breaking Point: The Continuing Impact of Funding Cuts on Women’s Organizations in Humanitarian Settings (published 10 July 2026), paints a stark picture of the consequences of humanitarian funding cuts. Based on responses from 855 women-led and women's rights organisations across 52 crisis-affected contexts, the report finds that 84% have seen demand for their services increase, almost 90% can no longer meet current needs, 47% have been forced to lay off staff, 51% have suspended programmes, and 40% believe they may have to close within six months if current funding trends continue. At least one million women and girls have already lost access to essential support and protection services. Beyond documenting the scale of the funding crisis, the report raises a broader concern. In many humanitarian settings, women-led and women's rights organisations provide protection services, support survivors of gender-based violence, maintain community networks and reach populations that are often difficult for others to access. If these organisations continue to disappear, the consequences extend well beyond the organisations themselves: they affect the overall capacity of humanitarian response. During my recent visit to Gao, northern Mali, just two weeks ago, discussions with the UNFPA regional team revealed a similar trend. They informed me that the number of protection organisations active in and around Gao had fallen from 51 to just 14 over the past year, pointing to the same underlying concern: the local protection ecosystem appears to be shrinking rapidly at a time when humanitarian needs remain exceptionally high. https://lnkd.in/eEJNiCP2 #HumanitarianAction #Protection #WomenLedOrganizations #WomensRights #GenderBasedViolence #Localization #HumanitarianFinancing #Gao #Mali

I've been designing evaluations and leading gender and inclusion analysis for two decades, mostly in low-income countries. The work has always been political, but I've never seen a funding environment like this. Global aid for gender equality is in freefall. Only 2.3% of development funding goes principally to women's rights, and more than half of that is about to vanish as major donors cut foreign aid budgets by 37% through 2027. At the same time, the anti-gender movement has become a billion-dollar operation, bankrolled by ultra-conservative donors who've gotten very good at using our own language against us. It is pitting feminist organisations against each other as we all fight for survival. The need for rigorous, feminist, intersectional research has never been more urgent - if we're not asking hard questions about power and whose futures matter, we're not doing development research anymore. We're just managing donor expectations and doing a light touch at accountability. Yet the questions donors will pay for are narrowing, along with the budgets. We're asked to deliver "empowerment" without naming power structures. To reach people with disabilities without budgets for reasonable accommodation. To evaluate "inclusion" while avoiding any analysis of whose voices, disabled women's, LGBTIQ+ people's, are being systematically shut out and why. We're meant to measure impact while the systems that could actually sustain it are pulled apart, piece by piece. The funding is hostile. The politics are worse. But backing away isn't an option. Includovate is 7 years old this month. We survived COVID-19, and we will continue to deliver high-quality, inclusive and ethical research for development.

Social support drops significantly during early perimenopause - precisely when women experience their highest levels of psychological distress. A study of 272 women found that early perimenopausal women report the worst psychosocial quality of life scores, with depression ratings averaging 4.8 out of 8 (compared to 3.0 for pre-menopausal women). Yet this is exactly when their social support systems are most likely to fail them. This creates a devastating double burden: women face their most psychologically vulnerable period while losing the support networks they need most to cope. Why does support disappear when women need it most? Because perimenopause is invisible and misunderstood: -Friends don't recognize the biological basis of personality and mood changes -Partners dismiss symptoms as "overreacting" or "just getting older" -Healthcare providers normalize severe distress as "typical menopause" -Women themselves don't understand they're in a predictable transition that deserves support The research shows that resilience and self-efficacy are protective factors against psychological symptoms - but these are precisely the qualities that erode when support systems collapse. Unlike other major life transitions that come with clear social scripts (pregnancy, illness, bereavement), perimenopause leaves women isolated with symptoms that others can't see or comprehend. We discuss postpartum depression openly but whisper about perimenopausal anxiety. The economic implications are staggering. The study notes that menopausal symptoms lead to $150 billion in global productivity losses annually, with 1 in 3 women reporting reduced work performance. Yet we're not investing in the social infrastructure that could prevent this. The research identifies early perimenopause as a critical intervention point - not just medically, but socially. When women have strong support networks, they show better psychological outcomes even when experiencing identical hormonal changes. We need systematic change: -Public awareness campaigns about perimenopause symptoms and timelines -Workplace policies that acknowledge this vulnerable transition period -Healthcare provider training about the social isolation that compounds symptoms -Community programs connecting women through similar experiences -Partner and family education about effective support strategies The data proves that social support isn't just comfort during perimenopause - it's medically protective. Women with strong support systems show measurably better psychological outcomes. This research exposes a critical gap in women's healthcare. We identify the biological vulnerability but ignore the social factors that determine who thrives versus who suffers. No woman should face her most psychologically vulnerable transition without the support system that could make the difference between crisis and successful navigation. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gvkJ55Bv

I’ve read Women in the Workplace 2025 (https://lnkd.in/ewnu6gHv) , and I need to say this plainly: The problem is not women’s ambition. The problem is what corporate America is willing to invest in women’s careers. I am supremely disappointed at the analysis from the very bleak backwards slide in corporate America. After a decade of massive progress for women at the highest levels of corporate life, from 10% to 34% on public boards, from 12 to 380 women run venture firms in the same period, there is no lack of  ambition. But it just got significantly harder with the hostile anti-DEI efforts and the massive exodus of women, especially black women from the workforce. This report shows only about half of companies are prioritizing women’s career advancement, and even fewer are prioritizing the advancement of women of color. And when companies deprioritize women, the “ambition” conversation becomes a convenient distraction. Here’s the part too many people will gloss over: the report also makes clear that when women receive the same career support men do, the “ambition gap” disappears. So no, women aren’t “less driven.” Women are less supported. Women are less sponsored. Women are less advocated for. And then companies pull the very levers that drive advancement: • 25% of companies scaled back or discontinued remote/hybrid work options. • 13% scaled back formal sponsorship programs, and 13% scaled back career development tailored for women. Let’s talk about sponsorship for a second: employees with sponsors are promoted at nearly twice the rate of those without (65% vs. 35% over the last two years). That’s not a “soft” issue. That’s a growth strategy. We don’t need another cycle of blaming women for a system that keeps closing doors. Women are not the risk. Rolling back opportunity is.

Two decades of progress on maternal and newborn survival is being undone according to recent reports from The Independent. The report reaffirms what has been known for a while, that the progress is slowing down and reversing especially in crisis contexts. The first report looks at the big picture: global maternal deaths fell by 40% over the last two decades, but that progress has slowed — and recent aid cuts threaten to reverse it. Global aid fell 23% in 2025 and is projected to drop further in 2026. According to the report, study projects that the termination of USAID programmes could increase maternal deaths by an average of 45% across six highly vulnerable countries in West and Central Africa — roughly 1,000 additional deaths in a single year. On the Central African Republic's border with Sudan, midwives have already lost their jobs, mobile maternal clinics have closed and medicines have run out — just as refugees fleeing war need them most. One 25-year-old mother, who fled Darfur, told reporters she “nearly died giving birth after walking to the nearest clinic while in labour”. The second report shows what's at stake: a Save the Children maternity clinic in Mahama refugee camp, Rwanda. Before it opened in 2023, women travelled up to two hours to reach a hospital — some gave birth on the way, and babies died in transit. Since opening, newborn deaths have fallen to nearly one-thirtieth of previous levels. But the clinic relies on the US government for 70% of its funding, and its future is now uncertain. Even with a temporary reprieve, staffing has been cut to the bare minimum and queues are growing. As the two reports elaborate maternal and newborn survival isn't an abstract statistic. When funding disappears, the consequences are measured in lives. Check out the two articles available at: https://lnkd.in/eRC-pbYZ https://lnkd.in/eq9WT2Nr Checkout also about PMNCH worm on humanitarian crisis and women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health. https://lnkd.in/ePfPddCM PMNCH

Six months or less. That’s how long nearly half of the 800+ women’s humanitarian organizations surveyed by UN Women can continue their operations with the funding they have left. Not because the need went away. Because the money did. At least one million women and girls have already lost critical support since January 2025, as aid cuts dismantle the organizations they rely on. UN Women's new report, Beyond the Breaking Point, documents the impact of funding cuts on women's organizations in humanitarian crises around the world. Conflict is at its highest level in 80 years. But Official Development Assistance has just seen its steepest annual decline on record. Eighty-eight per cent of these organizations say they can no longer meet current needs. But the work doesn’t stop. Staff are showing up, working without pay to keep life-saving services running. Two in five organizations expect to suspend operations or close within the next year. When they do, women and girls with the fewest alternatives lose support first: women and girls with disabilities, single mothers, and communities furthest from reach. Women and girls are already losing shelter, safety and support. Women' humanitarian organizations are their lifeline. They should not become another casualty of war. 🔗 Read the report: https://lnkd.in/e6h4C592 #ForAllWomenAndGirls #Humanitarian #WomensRights #HumanRights #InvestInWomen #FundingCuts #AidCuts #WomenPeaceSecurity #ODA #ForeignAid #ForeignPolicy #WomenPeaceAndSecurity #WPS United Nations OCHA #Women #Genderequality #WLOs #CivilSociety #Womensorganizations #War #ImpactOfWar  

A recent analysis from UNDP put data behind something many of us in global health and development have been seeing for some time. As debt pressures increase, the effects are not only economic. They are deeply human, and they are not felt equally. Looking across 85 developing countries, the report found that women’s incomes fell by 17% on average as debt burdens rose, while men’s incomes remained largely unchanged. In the short term, that translated into the equivalent of 55 million jobs lost for women, with longer-term effects that could be even more significant. The report also pointed to important health impacts. As countries faced tighter budgets and reduced investment in public services, maternal mortality increased and life expectancy declined. And when public systems came under strain, care responsibilities did not disappear. They shifted into households, where women most often carried the burden. For those of us working in global health and development, this is an important reminder that fiscal policy shapes many of the outcomes we care about, from access to care to the strength of health systems and progress on gender equality. As global financial pressures continue, this evidence should inform how we think about debt and what it means for people’s daily lives. #WD2026 https://lnkd.in/dyDeaSSJ

McKinsey's Women in the Workplace 2025 report just dropped, and there's a disconnect that should alarm anyone paying attention. 84% of companies say fostering an inclusive culture is a priority. 67% say diversity matters to them. But only 54% prioritize women's career advancement. And just 46% prioritize women of color's advancement. Let that sink in: Companies love the 𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙖 of diversity. They're just not investing in the infrastructure that actually advances women. The data shows what happens when commitment becomes abstract. While companies maintain their diversity language, they're quietly scaling back the programs that matter: → 13% cut formal sponsorship programs → 13% scaled back career development tailored for women → Remote work options declining when research shows they're especially beneficial to women's success Meanwhile, that pipeline chart—showing women dropping from 49% at entry level to 29% in the C-suite—hasn't budged. For the 11th consecutive year, women remain underrepresented at every level. This isn't just disappointing. It's a systems failure. And it's exactly why organizations like The Glow Initiative (Glowi) exist. When companies deprioritize women's advancement, the infrastructure gap grows wider. The need for accessible, high-quality coaching doesn't disappear—it intensifies. →You can't fix a systems problem with good intentions. →You need actual infrastructure. Not more workshops about the importance of diversity. Not more language policing about what we can and can't call our initiatives. Career development. Coaching. Support systems that treat women's advancement as a strategic priority, not a nice-to-have when the political winds are favorable. The 323+ women Glowi has served through 118+ volunteer coaches didn't need another company statement about valuing inclusion. 💪🏽 They needed someone to talk to about striving for their next promotion. 💪🏽 To help them navigate workplace politics. 💪🏽 To reflect back their potential when their own orgs wouldn't invest in it. That's the work. Not the rhetoric—the actual infrastructure. If your company is among the 46% that have deprioritized women's advancement while maintaining your diversity commitments, I have questions. What exactly are you committed to? And who benefits from keeping it abstract? Women are tired of diversity theater. ♻️ Share to reach someone who needs to see this #mckinsey #womenintheworkplace #genderequity #DEI Tagging some folks who might be interested in the topic: Brionna Ned, Katica Roy, Collette Swindells ♾️, Dr. Dawn DiPeri, Maureen Carruthers, 🖤Deneen L. Garrett, M.S.🖤

𝙏𝙝𝙚 McKinsey & Company 𝙒𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙒𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙚 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙧𝙮 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙧. 𝙄𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙨𝙤𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 (𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩) 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙! One finding stands out: 👉 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗺𝗲𝗻. That headline is easy to misinterpret. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. The report shows something more troubling:  • 𝘖𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯’𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴  • 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱, 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘴   • 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘢𝘱 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 In other words, 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, many are responding rationally to environments where progression feels uncertain, unsupported, or unsustainable. What’s particularly concerning is the broader context. In my talks with international organizations on 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, burnout, constant change, and pressure for speed come up consistently. Many leaders are genuinely trying to help their organizations move faster and stay relevant. Yet in that push for agility, some are scaling back exactly the practices that make performance sustainable: 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱, 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘰𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. That tension matters. Agility that ignores balance and well-being isn’t sustainable, and when career support becomes negotiable in times of pressure, women are often the first to feel the consequences. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭: 𝙄𝙛 𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙬𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙧𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙡𝙮, 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙚𝙥𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙧𝙨.