How Invisible Women Exposes Economic Blind Spots
BLOG
Economics is a social science, often making positive statements based off of data. But when the data excludes half of the population, can economics really represent everyone?
I recently picked up Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, expecting an insightful read—but what I found was both eye-opening and frustrating. While I’ve never been one to box myself into labels, I believe in fairness, and as a woman of colour, the book resonated with me on a deeper level. It’s not just about gender; it’s about how entire systems overlook half the population.
The book starts with an eye-opening statement that I thought managed to sum up the flaws in data and treatment of women today. Men are seen as the “default human”, which is seen through simple things such as using “mankind” or “man” when referring to humanity. I’ve caught myself using these terms without realizing its weight, something Perez captures perfectly throughout her book.
“Men go without saying, and women don’t get said at all. Because when we say human, on the whole, we mean man.
Masculine terms dominate job titles like “fireman” and “policeman,” making us picture men in those roles. The bias is so ingrained that even a term like “beautician,” often associated with women, is still assumed to be male. When Dany Cotton, London’s first female Fire Brigade chief, suggested switching to “firefighter” (which in my opinion sounds way cooler), she was met with backlash and hate mail.
Another perhaps more significant way in which women are overlooked is in the healthcare department. An aunt of a friend of mine once went to the doctor with severe stomach pain, and they told her it was ‘probably just stress’ or a ‘sign that her period was coming’. She was dismissed without further tests, and months later, she was finally diagnosed with endometriosis- a serious condition where tissue that normally lines the uterus (womb) grows outside of it, often in the pelvis around the reproductive organs. Reading Invisible Women made me realize this wasn’t just an unfortunate oversight- it’s part of a broader pattern. Medical research and diagnostics have historically been centered around male bodies, meaning women’s symptoms are often misdiagnosed, downplayed, or outright ignored.
Now, one could argue that this book doesn’t relate to Economics and, therefore, is irrelevant to this blog, however, I argue otherwise. Economic decisions are all based on statistics and predictions. It’s a social science that almost bases whole concepts on normative statements- at least considering how much we’ve learned in school. But when the data itself fails to represent half of the population, how can we conclude that decisions made based on the data are beneficial to everyone?
Another difference between men and women covered in the book is women’s travel patterns. Men oftentimes have a simple travel pattern- work-to-home, then home-to-work. However, women do 75% of the world’s unpaid work, consequently impacting their travel needs. An example of their daily commute could include dropping their children at school, doing a quick grocery trip, going to work and taking an elderly relative to the hospital on the way back. This Pattern of many short interconnected trips is called ‘trip-chaining’ - one that has been observed to be used by women worldwide. 64% of public transportation commuters in Philadelphia are women. However, transport policies often overlook this and design routes that are more suited to the twice-daily commute men take to go to and from work, leading to inconvenient routes, longer wait times, and safety concerns for women.
Some might dismiss this book as just another “woke” critique of the way the world has always functioned, but reducing it to that would be a serious disservice. In a world where women’s rights are still often sidelined, books like Invisible Women aren’t just important—they’re necessary. They don’t demand special treatment; they expose systemic blind spots that affect half the population. After reading this, I couldn’t help but wonder—how many of the ‘normal’ things we take for granted today are built on biases we just haven’t questioned yet?
Invisible Women doesn’t ask for special treatment. It asks for fairness. And honestly, isn’t that the bare minimum?