FEMINISM WITHOUT UNITY: QUIET BETRAYAL OF PRIVILEGED LEADERSHIP

What does women’s empowerment really mean? Is it about a Bollywood glamour icon who demonstrates what it means for women to be financially independent? Or is it about women whose achievements are built on family privilege?

I recall a conversation with a lady family court judge to whom I shared my latest article on Contemporary Challenges of Gender Justice. I had hoped it would align with her professional insights, perhaps lead to a deeper conversation. Instead, I was shocked by her sarcastic response. She questioned the very necessity of such an article, asserting that gender justice is a woman's personal responsibility and not something for which society or institutions should be held accountable. 

The question that hinders my mind is, how can someone with a restrictive outlook on women’s rights rule fairly on marital matters? Marriage involves uneven power play between men and women. This imbalance takes many forms, inter alia, financial dependence, social expectations, emotional factors, etc. If a judge fails to recognise these underlying aspects, she may treat complex cases a routine, missing signs of control, unfair treatment or emotional issues faced by women.

This is not a sole incident. A deeply important and often under-discussed issue is the complexity of women’s relationships in hierarchical professional settings, especially when power dynamics are involved. A woman in a leadership role may feel the need to overperform or overcontrol to prove her worth, sometimes at the expense of compassion. It is worth mentioning the “Queen Bee” Phenomenon here. The word originated in 1973 and was coined by a group of researchers named Graham Staines, Carol Tavris, and Toby E. Jayaratne. The researchers found that women in leadership positions treat other women subordinates more critically than male colleagues. This behaviour is thought to stem from a feeling that there is limited room for women at the top, leading them to view other women as competition. To simplify, some women with queen bee syndrome believe that there is limited space for women in leadership, causing a “me-or-you” mentality that views other women as rivals. This behaviour may be either due to systematic pressure or a defensive strategy adopted by women in leadership positions.

As per the latest data from UN Women and the International Labour Organisation (ILO), women occupy only 28.2% of managerial roles worldwide. In India, women now hold just 17% of corporate leadership roles, only a modest rise of 8.6% since 2012. This figure underscores a significant underrepresentation of women in decision-making positions across sectors and regions. Despite gains in education and workforce participation, the gender gap in leadership remains a major barrier to achieving full gender equality.

For many women, just stepping outside their home can feel unsafe. Walking to work, taking public transport, or even going out after dark can be scary. But the stark truth is, danger isn’t only outside. Many women don’t feel safe even inside their own homes because of abuse, control or fear. While women leaders focus only on big goals, like business success or political power, they often ignore the issues faced by another woman. It is like building a house without a strong foundation. You can’t talk about empowerment if women disregard the hurdles confronted by their female subordinates. Women in leadership must listen to and speak for those who don’t have a voice. They need to make sure that policies, laws and decisions actually help women feel safe, respected, and free at home, at work and in public.

Sexual favouritism or workplace romance is another prevalent workplace phenomenon that often contributes to the emergence of a hostile work environment. Quid pro quo can be seen as a subset of sexual favouritism in terms of outcome, i.e. someone receiving benefits due to sexual dynamics.

Quid pro quo is a Latin phrase meaning “this for that” or “something for something”. It is a sexual harassment that involves a proposed exchange of actions. One party forces the other party to offer sex in return for recruitment, promotion or salary raise within the first party's powers, and threatens to demote, cut the salary or even fire the second party if rejected. Quid pro quo sexual harassment can also occur as part of a threat, specifically a threat to remove a job benefit unless a demand is met. This type of harassment involves a harasser who has authority over the victim.

For example: An Employee working on a contract basis approaches her boss to request a permanent position. The boss responds that, if the employee agrees to join him for dinner to discuss about her future, she can be retained as a permanent employee.

When one party interferes with the work performance of the other employees in an unreasonable manner, or intentionally leaves the victim in an intimidated or hostile work environment, or exposes other employees to a rude, lewd and uncomfortable work environment, it constitutes a hostile environment sexual harassment. Quid pro quo sexual harassment may also lead to a hostile work environment. 

Admittedly, I encountered a deeply distressing situation when I was working as an assistant professor on a contract basis in a central University.   A meeting was held by a superior in an organisation to discuss the performance of the contract employees in his cabin. During the course of the meeting, he paused and expressed his discomfort with sitting on the worn revolving chair.  He stated that “there is something wrong with the chair".  While the supervisor was still seated, one of the female employees. abruptly walked over to him, squatted down, and began adjusting the chair's lever while indicating that "the lever might be loose." Is everything okay now Sir”, she then asked him? The supervisor shook his body slightly and said, "No."  After moving a bit forward and adjusting the lever, the employee again asked "Is it better now Sir?". "Yes," he answered. Then, the supervisor casts a glance at the other employees and remarked, "This is how the employees are meant to work". This behaviour of the supervisor and employee has put us in an embarrassing situation. 

Thus, the quid pro quo sexual harassment of one employee can lead to a hostile work environment for other employees. It jeopardises the victims’ right to life, results in the violation of a woman’s fundamental right to equality, and increases absenteeism. The negative impacts do not stop at an injury to the one individual. It has a ripple and multiplier effect on the rest of the workers in the organisation, impacting the workplace and bringing negative consequences such as compromised teamwork, economic loss, impaired productivity, and hindered development. sexual harassment impedes the achievement of equality between men and women as it condones sex discrimination and sexual violence, and has detrimental effects on the development of the country as a whole and the well-being of people. 

The United Nations (UN) recognises collective women's groups as a highly effective approach for women's empowerment. This recognition is grounded in a decade of global evidence showing that when they come together in organised groups, whether cooperatives, self-help groups, unions or grassroots, or grassroots networks, they amplify their voices and build solidarity. Which in turn fosters leadership, creates safe spaces and enables economic empowerment.

Written By Dr. Chemmalar