> We all play by economic rules set by men. Do we? Did Merkel have no impact in Germany? Did Jacinda have no impact on New Zealand? Did Thatcher have no impact

> We all play by economic rules set by men. Do we? Did Merkel have no impact in Germany? Did Jacinda have no impact on New Zealand? Did Thatcher have no impact on the UK? That's a damning report on their time in office if so. > What could a feminist economics look like? If the goal is to re-write history and establish falsehoods as facts, I would suggest feminist economics would be negative. The idea that some immutable characteristic makes you somehow better at handling economics is discrimination. > There, she eventually chaired the Public Expenditure Committee and learned the peculiar set of values that seemed to govern not only New Zealand’s economy, but the economic structure of the entire world. So men apparently rule the world of economics - then Marilyn Waring "learned the peculiar set of values", and assumes this is a feminist invention? > [..] even as, by many measures, they work harder than men and contribute more to their communities. By what measure? Not an economic one according to their own points. So how is this being measured? > Further, she sets out a series of prescriptions for how, through electoral politics, policy, budgets and even language, society can begin to re-value the unpaid work disproportionately taken on by women. We do have systems in place already. The concept of marriage is not just a declaration of devotion, it's also a legal declaration of shared resources. If one partner is at home whilst the other works, it's recognized that even though just one works, the other plays a supporting role in this income.