AI poses a greater threat to women in the workforce, but why? ILO study reveals alarming gender gap predictions

Time of India

2 days ago

Behind the Numbers: Why Women Are More at Risk
You Might Also Like:
Is the AI takeover driving Gen Z back to traditional jobs amid uncertainty in white-collar careers?
Beyond Clerical: The Expanding Reach of AI
The Gendered Future of Work
Technology Isn't Neutral—Policy Shouldn't Be Either
As artificial intelligence continues to sweep through offices, industries, and workflows, a new global study has laid bare a stark gender disparity in its impact. According to the United Nations' International Labour Organization (ILO), women are three times more likely than men to lose their jobs to AI-driven automation. In an age already defined by digital transformation, this revelation has added a sobering new layer to the conversation around technological progress.In high-income nations, nearly 10% of female-held jobs fall under high-risk categories susceptible to AI automation. That's a striking contrast to just 3.5% of male-held roles. This isn't just a statistic—it's a glimpse into a future where automation may not only rewrite job descriptions, but exacerbate existing inequalities in the labor market.The ILO's findings were compiled through an innovative index that calculates the risk of job transformation or outright replacement by AI. The roles most under threat? Clerical and administrative jobs—positions heavily populated by women.These include typists, bookkeepers, data entry clerks, and even roles traditionally requiring specialized skills like financial analysts and software developers. The reason for the high exposure lies in the very nature of these jobs—repetitive, rule-based, and digitized—which makes them ripe for replacement by tools like generative AI.'Clerical jobs face the highest exposure of all,' the ILO report states, pointing out that GenAI can theoretically replicate many of their tasks. Senior economist Janine Berg warns against buying into the AI hype without a grounded understanding: 'What we need is clarity and context. This tool helps countries across the world assess potential exposure and prepare their labor markets for a fairer digital future.'What's particularly unsettling is that it's not just low-level clerical work under threat. As AI capabilities expand, so does its reach into more cognitively demanding roles. The ILO notes that jobs in software, finance, and media are now showing signs of increased vulnerability due to their highly digitized nature.This suggests that even women in high-skill, high-pay roles aren't immune. The AI wave is not just washing over entry-level tasks—it's creeping into creative and analytical domains that were once considered safe from automation.While some roles—like cleaners, dentists, performers, and garbage collectors—remain relatively shielded from AI, the jobs being replaced are more commonly held by women. This imbalance risks widening existing gender gaps in employment , pay, and career progression.Marek Troszyński, senior expert at NASK and co-author of the ILO study, stressed the tool's significance in guiding national policy: 'This index helps identify where GenAI is likely to have the biggest impact, so countries can better prepare and protect workers.'The ILO is now urging governments, employers, and labor organizations to work collaboratively on proactive strategies. The goal: harness AI to enhance job quality and productivity without sacrificing inclusion and equity in the process.At its core, the ILO's study is a warning siren: AI doesn't operate in a vacuum. It mirrors and magnifies existing societal structures—biases included. As the global workforce braces for the inevitable AI reshaping, there's a clear call to action.Without timely intervention, the automation revolution could become yet another chapter in the long history of gendered labor inequality. But with strategic planning, policy engagement, and equitable design, the rise of AI doesn't have to come at the cost of women's livelihoods.The future is being written by algorithms—but who gets to keep their job may depend on the decisions we make today.