
The Dark Side Of Women's Empowerment
Written by Lauren Hendricks, President and CEO, Trickle Up
Women are living through dark times. Gender-based violence kills one woman every 10 minutes, and feminist attitudes and policies—after decades of hard-won progress—are now regressing due to an onslaught of anti-feminist rhetoric in the news, on podcasts, and across social media. Younger generations are shifting to more conservative viewpoints, and anti-feminist beliefs amongst young men have been on the rise.
A Trickle Up participant in Odisha, India, works on a task for her small business.
These shifting attitudes make it even harder for women to navigate gender bias on their path to economic equity and empowerment. One study across 20 countries found that 40% of respondents felt it was 'natural for men to earn more than women,' 23% agreed that men should be paid more than women for the same job, and 34% believed that men make better business executives than women. What's more, another study found that 60% of Gen Z men across 31 countries believe that women's equality actually discriminates against men.
In many of these countries, deeply ingrained patriarchal attitudes deny women autonomy and limit their access to education, financial resources, job opportunities, and business or property ownership—the full spectrum of economic independence. In rural regions where employment opportunities are scarce, one of the best ways for women to reach economic empowerment is through entrepreneurship, but social norms biased against women often create barriers to success. And even when women overcome these barriers, their success can prove dangerous.
The Cost of Ambition
The threat of women's success to the male ego is universal. Having lived and worked in developing countries, I have seen this dynamic unfold repeatedly: when women become primary breadwinners or earn more than men, it creates conflict.
In Uganda, I worked with some of the most capable, intelligent women I have ever met. But many hesitated to accept high-paying international jobs that could transform their families' futures because they feared their husband's disapproval and jealousy.
For rural women living in poverty, the situation is even more dire. In my work on women's economic empowerment projects across Africa and Asia, every opportunity had to earn a man's approval, requiring careful navigation around what husbands or fathers would allow. Giving a woman a smartphone could boost her income, but it could also lead to physical violence and confiscation of the phone by her husband.
Women across the globe make large and small decisions based on what they believe their husbands or partners will tolerate instead of basing goals on their talents or ambitions—placing limitations on themselves that wouldn't be necessary in the face of true equality. When women step outside their carefully defined roles and succeed too much, they may risk a violent backlash.
Redefining Masculinity: From Dominance to Partnership
Violence against women is a symptom of a larger problem: some men's belief that they have the right to control women's behavior. Some exert control through violence, some through financial dominance, and others through the threat of divorce and social isolation. Whatever the method, the goal is the same: to keep the women in their lives under their control.
The tactics needed to overcome these entrenched and dangerous attitudes require slow and painstaking work on multiple fronts. And much of this is men's work. We need more men to openly support their wives' success. We need more conversations within households about how an entire family benefits when a woman thrives. We need men to congratulate each other when their wives succeed, instead of questioning their masculinity. And we need men to model to their sons the appropriate behavior of showing women respect and decency. The bottom line is that we need to redefine manhood in a way that does not involve dominating women.
Shifting harmful gender norms starts with encouraging men of households to be allies (AVSI Foundation).
For any of these strategies to succeed, we must engage men and boys and transform them into allies by working at the ground level with families and communities to shift harmful gender norms. Some of this begins with early education on gender issues, while other tactics begin with including men in discussions about economic challenges and financial literacy—which has been shown to encourage joint-decision-making, joint goal setting, greater cooperation, and more equitable partnerships that redistribute household and caregiving responsibilities.
Changing Gender Norms by Investing in Women's Potential
Dismantling harmful social norms also requires a woman-centered approach. We've discovered that when women earn income, they reinvest in their families and communities, leading to improved health, education, and economic outcomes. Financial independence also gives women greater autonomy, enabling them to challenge oppressive social norms and participate in decision-making in their communities and households. And when men see women as equal partners in the household, we get one step closer to true equity.
By providing the right resources to women in rural areas—like seed capital, savings groups, training in financial literacy, and links to local markets—we can help them start and sustain small businesses. And while a savings group may seem like a simple approach, it's more complex than it sounds: these groups are essential venues for women to gather, meet, and learn from one another how to advocate for their rights, negotiate better wages, access new economic opportunities, and build the support and self-esteem they need to take on larger roles in their households and communities.
Pushpanjali Baccha of Balangir, India, works with her livelihood coach on her agricultural business.
In a world where gender inequality continues to threaten the rights, safety, and potential of women, we must move beyond surface-level solutions. True change starts by recognizing the power women hold and ensuring they have the tools, opportunities, and support to claim it. At Trickle Up, we see every woman not just as a participant in our economic inclusion programs, but as a leader, a provider, and a catalyst for transformation.
When women gain economic power, they shift the dynamics of entire communities and reshape the future.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
40 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Miniso Is Said to Hire JPMorgan, UBS for Top Toy's Hong Kong IPO
Miniso Group Holding Ltd. has hired JPMorgan Chase & Co. and UBS Group AG for the planned initial public offering of unit Top Toy in Hong Kong, according to people familiar with the development. Miniso is also looking to bring fresh investment into Top Toy from potential backers such as sovereign wealth funds before the share sale, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing a private matter.


Skift
40 minutes ago
- Skift
Marriott's Strategy for Its New Series Brand: Why It Started in India
Sure, Marriott had the scale, but it lacked a midscale brand in India — until now. With Fern and the launch of Series, it's finally filling the gap and going all-in on India's fastest-growing hotel segment. When Marriott International introduced its newest global brand — Series by Marriott — it chose India as the launch market and took the unusual step of making an equity investment in its local partner, Mumbai-based Concept Hospitality. Asked if this is the hotel company's first equity investment in the Indian hotel sector, Rajeev Menon, president of Asia Pacific (excluding China) at Marriott International, said, 'You could say that. Marriott will only invest for very strategic purposes. And we see this as a very unique opportunity.' It's a notable move for the hotel giant, which traditionally expands through franchise and management contracts and typically launches brands in Western markets. 'For the 24 years that I've been with Marriott, very rarely do we make investments,' said Menon. 'So you can understand t


Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
How misinformation overtook Indian newsrooms amid conflict with Pakistan
NEW DELHI — Shortly after midnight on May 9, an Indian journalist received a WhatsApp message from Prasar Bharati, the state-owned public broadcaster. Pakistan's army chief had been arrested, the message read, and a coup was underway. Within minutes, the journalist posted the information on X and others followed suit. Soon enough, it was splashed across major Indian news networks and went viral on social media. The 'breaking news' was entirely false. There had been no coup in Pakistan. Gen. Asim Munir, far from being behind bars, would soon be elevated to the rank of field marshal. It was the most glaring — but far from the only — example of how misinformation swept through Indian newsrooms last month during several of the most violent nights between the nuclear-armed neighbors in decades. The Washington Post spoke to more than two dozen journalists from some of India's most influential news networks, as well as to current and former Indian officials, about how the country's information ecosystem became inundated with falsehoods — and how it warped the public's understanding of a crucial moment. The journalists spoke on the condition that their names and employers remain anonymous, fearing professional reprisals. Most of the officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information. As the fighting escalated night after night, few Indian officials were put forward to explain what was happening, said Nirupama Rao, India's former foreign secretary. The vacuum was filled on television newscasts by 'hypernationalism' and 'abnormal triumphalism,' Rao said, creating what she called a 'parallel reality.' Times Now Navbharat reported that Indian forces had entered Pakistan; TV9 Bharatvarsh told viewers that Pakistan's prime minister had surrendered; Bharat Samachar said he was hiding in a bunker. All of them, along with some of the country's largest channels — including Zee News, ABP News and NDTV — repeatedly proclaimed that major Pakistani cities had been destroyed. To support the false claims, networks aired unrelated visuals from conflicts in Gaza and Sudan, from a plane crash in Philadelphia — and even scenes from video games. Zee News, NDTV, ABP News, Bharat Samachar, TV9 Bharatvarsh, Times Now and Prasar Bharati did not respond to requests for comment. 'It's the most dangerous version of what a section of TV news channels have been doing for a decade, completely unchecked,' said Manisha Pande, media critic and managing editor of Newslaundry, an independent news outlet. 'At this point, they're like Frankenstein's monsters — completely out of control.' India has one of the most expansive and linguistically diverse media landscapes in the world. Nine hundred television channels attract millions of viewers each evening across Indian towns and cities; newspapers still have a wide reach in rural areas. Over many decades, the country's independent press has played a critical role in exposing government corruption and holding power to account. In the past decade, however, particularly in television news, that independence has been eroded. Some of India's largest channels now routinely echo government talking points, analysts say — out of ideological alignment with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, or as a result of pressure from the state, which has prosecuted journalists under terrorism, sedition and defamation laws, as well as by using regulatory threats and tax probes to silence critical voices. Pande also attributes the shift to opportunism. 'For most of these anchors, aligning with power is a calculated career move,' she said. Journalists in these newsrooms were dismayed by the lack of fact-checking during the conflict. 'Journalism has just become anything that lands on your WhatsApp from whoever,' said one journalist with a leading English-language news channel. 'You realize the cost of that at times like this.' Just before midnight on May 8, in a WhatsApp message exchange seen by The Post, a journalist with a major Hindi-language network messaged colleagues: 'Indian navy can carry out an attack imminently,' citing unnamed sources. Another staffer responded simply, 'Karachi,' but gave no details on sourcing. Within minutes, the channel was falsely reporting that the Indian navy had struck the port in Karachi, Pakistan's largest city. 'The channels were taken over by bad fiction writers,' a network employee said. A journalist in a different newsroom said their channel ran the story after confirmation from the Indian navy and air force. India's military did not respond to a request for comment. Others admitted to airing the story based on claims from social media influencers closely aligned with the ruling party, or posts from open-source intelligence accounts. Sweta Singh, a popular anchor on India Today, declared on air that 'Karachi is seeing its worst nightmare after 1971,' referring to the most devastating war between the two countries. 'It completely finishes Pakistan,' she added. Singh did not respond to requests for comment. Around 8 a.m. on May 9, the Karachi Port Trust posted on X that no attack had occurred. But some Hindi newspapers had already published the news on their front pages. As erroneous reports ricocheted across Indian channels, retired military officials gave them credence in freewheeling panel discussions. Breaking-news banners were accompanied by the swoosh of illustrated fighter jets. At one point, the government issued a public advisory urging broadcasters to refrain from using air raid sirens in their graphics, warning it could desensitize the public to real emergencies. Across the border, Pakistani media pushed its own falsehoods — that India had bombed Afghanistan and that Pakistan had destroyed India's army brigade headquarters. Some of the false claims came directly from Pakistani military spokesperson Lt. Gen. Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry during live news conferences; in one, Chaudhry showed a clip from an Indian news conference that had been misleadingly edited to remove a phrase, giving the false impression that India hadn't accused Pakistan of hitting civilian infrastructure. 'We stand by the information shared and press releases issued based on verified intelligence and digital evidence available to us,' the media wing of the Pakistani army said in a statement to The Post. Competition drove much of the chaos in India. On NDTV, the country's most-watched news channel according to the Reuters Institute at Oxford University, a hot mic caught a reporter in the field venting his frustration to the control room: 'First you keep saying, 'Give an update, give an update,' and then later you say, 'Why did you give something fake?'' During a talk show on the Hindi news channel Aaj Tak, a young man in the audience asked about 'the embarrassment we have faced from the international community when our news channels were spreading unverified information.' The reporter swung the microphone away before he could finish the question. A head of public relations for TV Today, which runs Aaj Tak and India Today, did not respond to requests for comment. 'I felt depressed at the state of affairs,' an anchor at a leading English-language news channel told The Post. 'It's time to introspect.' As strikes between the countries intensified each night, Indian officials, led by Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, would generally wait until morning to brief the press. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's first public remarks on the conflict came two days after the May 10 ceasefire; Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar shared only a one-line post on X during the clashes. The vacuum was filled by television anchors. 'We've lost the information war to these characters,' said a former Indian navy admiral. But one senior Indian national security official said the misinformation played to India's advantage. If lower-level government sources deliberately spread false claims, it was to 'take advantage of the information space' and create 'as much confusion as possible because they know the enemy is watching,' the official said. 'Sometimes the collateral is your own audience, but that is how it is,' the official added. 'That is how war has evolved.' The problem, said Rao, the former foreign secretary, is that 'television channels were using a megaphone. We need to use a microphone with a voice that is obviously viewed as credible.' The frenzy of falsehoods has led to private soul-searching in many newsrooms, journalists said, but few public apologies. In a rare admission on Aaj Tak, an anchor said in Hindi that 'despite our vigilance,' there had been 'incomplete' reporting. 'For this, we seek your forgiveness,' she said. Other journalists have doubled down. Sushant Sinha, an anchor for Times Now Navbharat who declared on air that Indian tanks had entered Pakistan, posted an eight-minute monologue defending his coverage. 'Every channel did make at least one mistake, but not one of our mistakes was against this country,' he said. Niha Masih in New Delhi and Rick Noak in Bangkok contributed to this report.