Workplace: The impossible standards women must meet just to be considered equal

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. This saying sounds quite good in theory. The reality, however, is the reverse: women are judged differently and more harshly than men for the same things. How this plays out in the workplace is well illustrated in a poem titled "Impressions from an Office" by Natasha Josefowitz.

The poem begins with the practice of placing family pictures on office walls. For a man, this is regarded as a sign of responsibility. But a woman who does exactly the same is dismissed as one who puts her family before her career. A male worker getting married is lauded because this will make him "more settled". For his female colleague, however, marriage means "she will get pregnant and leave".

This attitude demonises marriage and pregnancy, with the subtext that any woman who is, or intends to be, a mother does not belong in the workplace. It also undervalues children, the future workers for whose production women should actually be rewarded. The phrase "get pregnant" conveys the attitude that pregnancy is some kind of disease that women simply pick from the air, yet it is caused by men. Why are its perpetrators not judged for the same?

Also read: Dear abusers who hurt women online...

In another instance, having a baby is considered justification for increasing a man's earnings, the assumption being that he will have additional financial responsibilities and that it is the employer's duty to enable him to meet them. For a woman in similar circumstances, there is condemnation that "she'll cost the company money in maternity leave". The absurdity here is quite naked. The goalposts have changed. The increment for the man is not a cost, while the maternity allowance is considered one.

The poem also examines attitudes related to career advancement. A man going on a business trip is seen as "good for his career". But for the woman, the question is: "What will her husband say?" This exposes several patriarchal norms. One is that exposure is good for men, which is consonant with the structuralist-functionalist sociological theory that men are instrumental while women are expressive, hence should be consigned to the domestic sphere. The second is the hierarchy between the two sexes. There is a suggestion that a married career woman must seek her husband's endorsement to go on a work-related trip.

During a training event, how this works was demonstrated through an anecdote in which a woman got promoted to a regional position requiring frequent travel. The husband flatly told her to either forget the job or the marriage if she insisted on taking the appointment. Examples abound of women sacrificing career opportunities for the sake of their marriages, while men do not even consult their wives when such opportunities arise.

The poem also tackles the idea of women's emotionality and men's rationality. When a man is criticised by the boss, the judgement is that he will improve. But a woman in a similar situation "will be upset". A man who gets an unfair deal gets angry, but a woman who does so is expected to cry—underlining the idea that women are captive to their feelings rather than their brains.

Having an affair

In another stanza, a man "having lunch with the boss" is seen as discussing better career prospects. But a woman doing so "must be having an affair"—the connotation being that women are sexual goods who offer themselves to gain favour, an argument used to doubt their merit.

A man talking with fellow workers is "discussing the latest deal". For a woman, the same is labelled "gossiping", suggesting petty-mindedness. A man who is "not at his desk" is interpreted to mean he is at a meeting. But for a woman, the conclusion is that "she must be in the ladies' room", presumably sprucing herself up—equivalent to a preoccupation with physical appeal. When a man "is not in the office", the conclusion is that he is "meeting customers". But when a woman is not, "she must be out shopping", suggesting an obsession with materialism.

The last stanza speaks of a man who "is leaving for a better job" as one who "knows how to recognise a good opportunity". But when a woman does the same, the condemnation is blunt: "Women are not dependable."

Double standards reveal inherent hypocrisies in the treatment of women relative to men and make it impossible to know what society expects of them. Such inconsistencies are embedded in our subconsciousness, hence the need to deliberately identify and challenge them. Failure to do so narrows the road to gender equality and a better society.

The writer is a lecturer in Gender and Development Studies at South Eastern Kenya University ([email protected])