"Whats the difference between a man and a women.
Well men are the default and women are the other.
We get one day where this is apparently taken seriously in a performative way rather than having policy that reflects an understanding of this the other 364 days of the year as standard.
Instead we have a lack of reflection by bosses on why telling a female staff member that she is required to do a speech talking about her personal life as part of her work, might not be terribly appropriate and may in fact be; shock horror - sexist in its own right.
Women face difficultly saying no to this, even if it makes them feel uncomfortable and they feel its intrusive because if they do they will be viewed as 'difficult' by their employer. This is due to women's role in society as a whole, where they are expected to be compliant and to give. They represent the 'personal' rather than the 'professional' part of life and many companies have an attitude that reflects this. Women objecting are described in very different words to men: "confrontational" rather than "independently thinking" for example. These gendered descriptive words tell a lot about a company culture. We should think more about these issues and expectations.
Research shows that:
Communal language is mainly applied to women, and it invokes stereotypical female traits like being supportive, showing warmth, and helping the team. Agentic language is mainly applied to men and is more about getting the job done, taking charge, and being independent.
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/worklife/article/20170329-the-hidden-sexism-in-workplace-language
Another example of this is where female celebrities are asked about how having children has affected their career constantly in interviews as a default question. A male actors would only discuss this if he initated it in an interview because the default expectation is that his partner would be the one responsible for childcare.
Thus a woman is automatically assumed to have different priorites and perhaps not be as ambitious nor as committed to a job purely because she's a woman regardless of her performance or has to walk the tightrope of justifying her career over childcare responsibilities in a way that isn't true of men.
A woman is not asked if she want to contribute to women's day in this way. She is told - by men - that she should be doing a presentation on her personal life to date. Thus, we must ask ourselves, who is IWD for? Is it for women by women with the views and feelings of working women truly represented. Or is using women to present a false narrative of equality in the workplace by this failure to question whether asking if a presentation of your personal life might not necessarily be wanted or even appropriate?
It is a shame that we have to stand up and talk about power dynamics and how, even on IWD, the balance of power is tipped to this idea of men as default.
Men aren't interested in how we are responsible for the packed lunch in the morning in addition to our full day in the office. They aren't interested in who has done all the washing, who has to go to the supermarket afterwork. Who has to run the kids to kids club. Because if they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And women already know all this and they don't need to be told it again.
IWD just becomes a magnet for 'when's IMD?' That the 19th November in case you are interested.
So yes, if we want to talk about women on international womens day and what their life is like - take a look around at your colleagues and your mothers and sisters and wives and REALLY THINK about how you treat them differently. Because me lecturing you on the differences merely goes in one ear and out the other anyway.
Perhaps we can go around the room and ask everyone for every day examples of where they might have unwittingly treated male and female staff differently - and whether this is a good thing or a bad thing and how. Are there times where we should give more allowance? And if there are, is this a failing of women or actually a failing of men or just something unavoidable due to biology. If its due to biology then perhaps we should consider whether this benefits society as a whole in some way and whether we place enough value on it rather than taking it for granted that women should just suck it up.
Companies are focused on the costs of maternity leave and perhaps even female staff not working late as often as they are 'less committed'. We should turn this on its head and think about where women are of greater value. Women as a rule, are more loyal to companies, particularly ones that look after them well. They don't change jobs as often. This makes them often cheaper in terms of indirect recruitment costs and in terms of long term training costs for a company as a whole. But these benefits are rarely stressed because they are invisible and not measured in a format that is as easy to track.
How are women invisible? Well look at the height of this desk. Its made to male standardisation. That means it might be too high for the average woman. Look at the size of your phone. Its designed for men.
Instead of asking me to do a presentation on my personal life, perhaps we should do a speech on how the company uses the default of men as a template for everything and where this doesn't necessarily work for women or makes women somehow look worse than they are in reality. We should throw the question back to staff members to REALLY think about, and consider as a group, rather than singling out a woman into a difficult and potentially intrusive situation which is difficult to refuse."
Turn this on its head.