Bridget Phillipson doesn't think women can be ambitious

[Imnobody4]

I remember this idea from the 70s, is this really the best she's got. It's ironic how badly she tried to belittle Kishwer Falkner for being too big for her boots.
I despair.

Employers have criticised new government guidelines for British businesses that advise recruiters to strip “stereotypically masculine” language — including terms like “competitive” and “ambitious” — from job advertisements.

The move is part of a broader “evidence-informed” strategy unveiled by Bridget Phillipson, the women and equalities minister, before International Women’s Day. She said the guidelines were designed to “ensure women can thrive at work” and to help businesses find the best talent by removing “invisible barriers” in the hiring process.

www.thetimes.com/article/c6da6c53-0d02-4e13-b98b-49f89985d71c?shareToken=8068a9cbfe249af3e6497a2597eee606

There is a significant body of research that shows that masculine coded language can deter women from applying for jobs.
It can be more pronounced in male dominant sectors where there will be other influences such as culture, working practices etc.

The issue is that these words and traits are still considered masculine.
It's not about stopping girls being any of these things but it's about understanding how society perceives these particular words and people's unconscious biases.

Who is giving girls this message? Is competitiveness a good thing? Or is collaboration better in a workplace? Is ambition the only option? What if you’re not ambitious, and want to be sustainable or creative or nurturing instead?

I think we should be allowing girls to develop into the best version of what they are meant to be and stop heaping on expectations that might not feel authentic to them.

Recent research supports earlier findings - masculine coded wording in job adverts reduces women's likelihood of applying. They reduce women's interest in the role and their perceived sense of belonging and fit. - this is from a large scale piece of research which took place in 2024.

Another paper published in 2024shows that masculine‑coded words in job ads (e.g., competitive, ambitious, independent) operate as signals of masculine cultural defaults, which help maintain gender disparities. Replacing masculine words with gender‑neutral equivalents increased application rates from:
women, and men whose identities are less aligned with traditional masculinity.

Masculine coded language impacts perceptions related to flexible working and results in fewer women applying.

Have you got a link, title, author?

Have you got any manners?

All of these can be found on Google Scholar @Imnobody4

Cheryan, S., & Muragishi, G. A. (2025). Removing masculine defaults in the hiring process. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(14), e2501630122.

Diaz, A. M., Salas, L. M., Piras, C., & Suaya, A. (2023). What Job Would You Apply To? Findings on the Impact of Language on Job Searches. Gender, Work & Organization.

Ridgway, M., Oldridge, L., & Mavin, S. (2025). ‘Leading’by example? Gendered language in Human Resource job adverts. Human Resource Management Journal, 35(1), 1-24.

Hu, Y., Denier, N., Ding, L., Tarafdar, M., Konnikov, A., Hughes, K. D., ... & Jiang, B. (2024). Language in job advertisements and the reproduction of labor force gender and racial segregation. PNAS nexus, 3(12), pgae526.

Dikshit, M., Bouamor, H., & Habash, N. (2024, August). Investigating gender bias in STEM job advertisements. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing (GeBNLP) (pp. 179-189).

It’s not about whether you have those qualities personally. It’s about the way they’re describing their workplace. A competitive workplace populated by competitive people.

Competitiveness is a normal way of motivating and achieving good performance for a lot of men, less so for a lot of women (yes there are plenty of exceptions). But it’s not synonymous with driven or successful for women in the way it might be for men.

So if they mean ‘successful performer by output measures x,y,z’ then that’s what they need to say - rather than talking about how that’s achieved by ‘people like us’.

If it’s a City trading floor in the 1980s then that’s a fair description of both workplace and role.

If it isn’t and what they want is competent, motivated people with strong leadership skills / target driven / customer focused etc they need to describe that.

I can think of few woman who would describe themselves primarily as competitive - ahead of competent, reliable, able to get the best out of a team etc.

That is the gender ideology mode of thought...whereby what makes you a man or a woman is conformity with gendered expectations, not your actual sex.

What if you want someone who is ambitious and competitive and driven?

Just because 'ambitious' or 'competitive' have been coded as 'masculine' characteristics, it does not mean that women do not possess those characteristics too. Some women are very ambitious, very competitive and very aggressive...in the same way that some men are gentle, empathic and/or nurturing team players.

Trying to change language in the way you suggest would be the epitome of socially repressive engineering...in which you are not permitted to say what it is you actually want or mean, without having to pass it by the censor first.

How would you word such an advert - without compromising on the qualities you are looking for? Can you give an example for the purposes of illustration?

The problem then is with people's regressive stereotypes not with the actual qualities. If you pander to those perecptions they remain and grow.

If you want the sort of role which requires team work and lots of nurturing then going for a role that required ambition, competitiveness, drive and personal initiative might not be a good move.

The private sector can be a very different place to the public sector - but even in the public sector you need leaders and people who take initiative and responsibility. Not everyone is leadership material. Look at Kier Starmer as a good example. Dithering, too concilliatory, too concerned with what others think, not direct or strong enough.

The two issues aren't mutually exclusive though. We can (and I do) work on challenging stereotypes while also looking to address issues which are impacting women right now.

I’d be surprised if competitiveness was what they really wanted. I think they’re using it as a synonym for ‘consistent high performer by x,y,z measures’.

Based on their existing workforce, they describe the type of person they think would deliver that performance. That’s what they see, it’s their company culture, it’s people like them - seeking to employ more of the same type.

It’s just really lazy to describe a ‘type’ of person, rather than the role and competencies required.

It leads to people employing people who look and behave like them. Thus likely to be discriminatory on all sorts of levels - age is a huge one too.

Then everything others have posted about how people read the advert. The coded description of a type.

Not everyone is ambitious, driven or leadership material. We can't all be suited to everything and every role. There will most likely always be some types of role or position which are male dominated, but that doesn't mean that that a woman cannot also be successful in that type of role.

I think there is very much a certain type of mentality on the Left/Labour party which is more interested in 'creating or engineering social justice' than in actually just getting on with the project. The Tory party, for example, has had three female leaders now - and one of them, Margaret Thatcher, remains a heroine to the party faithful; meanwhile the Labour party has not had one, and still seems intent on trying to bring one about through social engineering, short lists etc

If you are good enough, driven enough, talented enough and competitive enough as a woman then you can succeed. It will probably mean that you are someone who has many characteristics that are coded as 'masculine'.

‘Exceptional women and mediocre men may apply’.

Ambition and competitiveness is culturally ordinary for men.

Yes, but clearly not all men are particularly ambitious or competitive or leadership material - but that is the culture that they have to operate within. 'Masculine' values are often needed. You cannot have an organisatioin which only wants 'feminine' coded characteristics in its employees/staff/appointments.

What is she good for?

(Absolutely nothing)

My point is the company may attract interest from the top 1% of potential women candidates but the top 60% of men - because they’re aligning themselves with a cultural description.

Whereas the company would be better off attracting the top 10% of men and women candidates. A bigger pool of high quality candidates.

Well it’s also a pity that adverts state they need certain attributes and experience, then take on men who didn’t have those things but applied anyway, whereas women with more experience, who didn’t quite hit the profile decide not to apply.

One day, perhaps the job market will stop being sexist, but it’s sad if some women are put off by those words. As others have said, I’m not sure not using them is the best way forward though. I wonder whether use of words like compassionate would put men off. It’s all about what attributes are considered useful and whether they really apply to the position or whether it’s actually more reflective of the culture in that particular workplace or sector.

Agree. It's a coded call-out for people who will do anything the company wants.