{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023605150214592276, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008583690987124463, 'mean_word_length': 5.570422535211268, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Debate: The monetary absurdity of disaggregating women’s issues

In a speech to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in March 2016, the UK’s Minister for Women and Equalities, Caroline Dinenage, highlighted the critical time for gender equality that is now being entered. Referring to Gloria Steinman’s infamous quotation concerning the significance of economic freedom in changing the gender equation, she discussed the UK’s ‘good story’ on the matter and began to outline the plans in place to further improve upon social freedom (Government Equalities Office, 2016). Running alongside such stock-taking activities, however, and generating intrigue among an audience of accountants and economists, it can additionally be suggested that the full recognition of issues housing an inequitable level of female burden are of crucial importance when viewed through the alternative, pragmatic lens of government spending.