In 2023, I wrote a column about the “working” woman and how society perceives its meaning. The reflection was prompted by a news article I read about a 63-year-old woman who won the lottery, with the headline describing her as “a woman who has never worked in her life.” But in reality, she had spent her entire life in caregiving and household work.
At that time, I joined many female policymakers, researchers, and community workers in advocating that society recognize caregiving and household work as real work. The International Labour Organization has already taken steps to include it in formal definitions. So why is it still difficult for society to do the same?
You would think we would do better in 2026. But between the comments made by the husband of a member a popular dance group and a congressman about a female celebrity, this past Women’s Month has been one of the more difficult ones for me personally, and I am sure for many women as well.
What added to this was when I read a thesis paper about “working women.” I always get excited when students take on these topics. However, that excitement was short-lived when I saw the scope of their study. Homemakers, informal workers, and entrepreneurs were excluded from their definition of working women.
I had to pause. I felt a sense of disappointment but I knew that I have to step back and view the paper from a formative perspective. These are students, I told myself. There was likely no ill intention. But it is also my role as an educator to correct this.
This recent experience reveals something deeper. It shows how society has ingrained a narrow view of women’s work through education, the family, and even institutions that are supposed to shape values. And this is where the problem becomes more complex.
In my research, I have spent time understanding how women navigate work and non-work domains, and how they build pathways toward what we call “flourishing.” One thing is clear. Women exercise agency. They reflect, they adjust, they make decisions that align with what matters to them.
But agency does not exist in a vacuum.
A woman can choose. She can reframe what success means. She can reorganize her roles. But her ability to act on those choices depends heavily on the structures around her. If workplace systems are rigid, flexibility becomes a privilege rather than a norm. If caregiving is not recognized as work, then time spent on it is seen as absence rather than contribution. If cultural expectations remain fixed, then women continue to carry invisible responsibilities without corresponding support.
We often celebrate women’s resilience. We highlight stories of women who seem to be able to “do it all.” But there is a risk in overemphasizing agency without examining the conditions that enable or constrain it. Because the reality is that agency is only as strong as the environment allows it to be.
A woman may want to pursue meaningful work while caring for her family. But if policies penalize flexibility, she is forced to choose. A woman may want to take on leadership roles. But if organizational cultures still operate on outdated expectations, she is required to overextend just to be seen as capable. These limitations are not only built into policies and systems, but also in how we define and recognize work itself. If society continues to define “work” narrowly, then entire forms of labor remain invisible. And when something is invisible, it is easier to dismiss, undervalue, and exclude from policy conversations.
This is why the issue is not just about correcting definitions in textbooks or student papers. It is about confronting the assumptions that we continue to pass on. When students exclude homemakers or informal workers from their definition of “working women,” they are not simply making a technical mistake. They are reflecting what they have learned from the world around them. And as future leaders and policymakers, our students must not carry these assumptions forward. They must recognize the full range of women’s work and contribute to building systems that value it.
So what must we understand? First, that women’s agency is real. Women are not passive recipients of circumstance. They think, they decide, they act. They continuously negotiate their roles across work, family, and personal life. But second, and just as important, that agency alone is not enough. If we want women to truly flourish, then we need to look beyond individual effort. We need to examine the systems we have built, the policies we enforce, and the cultural expectations we continue to uphold. Are we creating environments where women can exercise their agency meaningfully? Or are we placing the burden on them to adjust within structures that have not changed?
Recognizing caregiving as work is one step. But it cannot stop there. We need workplaces that allow real flexibility without penalty. We need education that reflects the full spectrum of women’s contributions. We need public discourse that moves beyond outdated narratives.
Until structures shift, agency will always have limits. And if we are serious about advancing women’s well-being, then we cannot keep asking women to stretch themselves further just to fit into systems that refuse to evolve.
Dr. Jessica Jaye Ranieses is an Associate Professor in the Department of Decision Sciences and Innovation at De La Salle University, the President of the Philippine Academy of Management, and Co-Chair of the PRME Working Group on Global Women and Leadership. She can be contacted at jessica.ranieses@dlsu.edu.ph.
The perspectives shared in this piece are solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent the official views of De La Salle University, its faculty, or its administration.
