End soft patriarchy: Why assume women won’t put their careers first?

A panellist batting for flexible work hours chimed in, “But what if you want to give that time to your family, be around for that one hot home-cooked meal a day?"

The gender ratio of the panel was three men to one woman. All three male heads, plus the fourth one of the moderator, turned towards me. The panellist who had raised that question did not take my name. But people are so deeply conditioned by social norms that hearing the keywords ‘family’, ‘meal’ and ‘home cooked’ was enough for everyone to turn to me. It was a reminder that in society’s word associations, women were responsible for all of that.

Also Read: A thank-you note for all the tough bosses who went unloved

Soft patriarchy is amply found among both men and women. It is not harsh and obvious, so it cannot be easily stomped down and argued against. Instead, it mellifluously shackles you to the belief that men and women have inherent duties that they are destined to fulfil, and that not doing this would expose you to the charge or guilt of being neglectful.

Even today, the usually-male household ‘provider’ is seen to be fulfilling his ‘duty’ just by pursuing a career, even if home chores are left out. A woman, on the other hand, must ‘nurture.’ A job, let alone a career, is considered an added advantage at best. Many of us are so busy fighting obvious gender biases that we often fail to notice the judgements that come our way from those who are under the influence of the gentler but steely resolve of soft patriarchy.

Women can be just as harsh as their male counterparts in judging those who they see as failing to balance their ‘family’ and ‘work’ commitments. If someone asked aloud why there should be any such balance at all, how much support would they get? Yet, not everyone wants an equilibrium; some may want the see-saw loaded just one way, and if their career is on top, why not?

A McKinsey & Company study released in May points out that women’s representation in India Inc stalls at the starting line: “It is low at the entry level (33%) and drops sharply at the move up to manager (24%) before somewhat levelling out." The data gets suffocating for those battling for more women in the workforce. “A man at the entry level is 2.4 times more likely to be promoted to a managerial position than a woman in the same role. At the same time, women are 1.3 times more likely to leave their positions than men at this stage," states the study, titled ‘Women in the Workplace.’

Also Read: Abandon prejudices for women's participation in workforce to rise

As kids, one believes that all are equal. But slowly, biases crawl into sight and accidents of birth become obvious. Something similar often happens at the workplace. Initially, just-graduated job-takers enter a workplace where only the hours put in matter. Then cliques shape up, opportunities grow increasingly unequal, and, for many of us, the need to be heard means adopting a louder voice. It can be jarring, but there is often no other way.

Allegations of being ‘too ambitious’ or wanting a ‘career at the cost of family’ hit many women hard. It is rare for a woman to muster the courage and unapologetically say ‘no’ to striking a ‘balance.’

And contrary to what colleagues, bosses, family and society tell us, I do not think it is a ‘fine’ balance. I think it is a huge broad beam—and I refuse to vault over it all the time.

It is increasingly common now to hear interviewers questioning women candidates on whether marriage or children feature in their five-year-plan. Sure, given the high drop-out rates and pressures of business performance, one can understand the need to recruit employees who will more than ‘pay back’ what’s invested in their training.

Also Read: Manu Joseph: A right that women don’t have is the right to mediocrity

But what these interviewers are doing, perhaps unwittingly, is sowing doubts in the minds of many young candidates. Forget their intrusion of privacy, many young women are not trained or encouraged to say, “In five years, I would like to be in a senior designation in this firm or handle an account worth a certain amount." 

We are usually taught ‘world peace’ answers, which include “I see myself growing into a better employee", “I want to learn and lead by example," etc. At this juncture, if questions on family and children are thrown in, one is flummoxed. If those responsibilities are assumed, you may face pressure to prove yourself as a good multi-tasker. And that dreaded ‘fine balance’ creeps in again!

Soft patriarchy lurches at us from every nook and corner, but we do not call it out because it could quash office conversations. Many of us ignore it or laugh it off.

Two years ago, I took that microphone and answered the question I had seemingly been asked by the panellist: “No, I do not care a dime if people at home eat frozen food. For me , at this juncture of my career, being visible in my work is more important than being visible at home."

I rest my case.

The author writes on workplaces and education at Mint.