Content Warning: discussions of sexism
When people think of sex discrimination in the workplace, they often think of overt acts like unequal pay or denying someone a promotion. But can you recognise the more subtle examples of sexism in the workplace?
In this post, we’ll take you through some less obvious examples of sex discrimination - forms that can sometimes be even more damaging, as they often get dismissed or go unnoticed. In each scenario, we’ll take a look at what’s going on and help you learn the language to describe it, because being able to put words to something is a vital first step in education to protect against sex discrimination in the workplace.
Examples of sex discrimination in the modern day workplace
Let's take a look at four different scenarios, that each provide a different example of what sex discrimination might look like in Australian workplaces.
SCENARIO 1: Unequal Pay & Promotion Bias
Maria and David both work as software engineers at the same company. They have the same level of education and experience. Maria consistently receives excellent performance reviews and even led a project that significantly increased company revenue. However David, who joined the company slightly after Maria, earns a higher salary.
When a senior engineering position opens up, David is encouraged to apply and receives mentorship from senior leaders, while Maria's interest in the role is met with lukewarm responses and subtle discouragement, with comments like "Are you sure you're ready for that kind of pressure?"
This scenario demonstrates both unequal pay and promotion bias against Maria in several ways:
Unequal Pay: Maria and David have comparable education and experience, yet David earns a higher salary. This is a direct example of unequal pay for equal work (or work of equal value). The fact that Maria's performance is demonstrably better than David's only exacerbates the disparity and points towards gender-based pay discrimination. It suggests that factors other than merit are influencing salary decisions.
Promotion Bias: The scenario shows clear bias in the promotion process. While Maria, despite her excellent performance and leadership on a revenue-generating project, receives lukewarm responses and discouragement regarding the senior engineering position, David is actively encouraged and mentored. This demonstrates a clear difference in how their career progression is being supported.
We can break this down further into the factors that are contributing to this bias:
Lack of Encouragement: Maria's interest in the promotion is met with subtle discouragement, including questioning her readiness. This undermines her confidence and discourages her from pursuing the opportunity. It suggests a lower expectation of her abilities compared to David.
Lack of Mentorship: David receives mentorship from senior leaders, giving him a significant advantage in the application process. This support provides him with valuable insights, networking opportunities, and potentially even advocacy within the company. Maria is denied this same level of support, putting her at a disadvantage.
Differential Treatment: The contrasting treatment of Maria and David strongly suggests that gender is a factor in the promotion bias. David, despite joining the company later and not having shown himself to perform better than Maria, is perceived as being more "ready" for the senior role and receives preferential treatment.
In essence, the scenario illustrates how systemic biases can create unequal opportunities for women in the workplace. Even when a woman like Maria outperforms her male colleagues, she may still face barriers to equal pay and career advancement due to prejudice and discriminatory practices.
Scenario 2: Hiring Bias & Gendered Language
A tech startup is looking to hire a "rockstar developer." The job description emphasizes "disruptive innovation" and "aggressive growth."
During interviews, female candidates are asked questions about their "work-life balance" and how they would handle "juggling multiple projects," while male candidates are asked about their "vision" and "leadership potential."
The hiring manager mentions wanting someone who is a "real go-getter" and "thinks outside the box”.
This scenario demonstrates both hiring bias and the use of gendered language in the recruitment process, creating an uneven playing field for female candidates.
The scenario reveals several instances of hiring bias, both implicit and explicit bias:
"Rockstar Developer" and Masculine Coding Culture: The use of terms like "rockstar developer," "disruptive innovation," and "aggressive growth" often implicitly signal a preference for a masculine work culture. These terms can be off-putting to women who may not identify with this aggressive, competitive image. It subtly suggests that the company values traditionally masculine traits.
Differential Interview Questions: The stark difference in the questions asked to female and male candidates reveals a clear bias. Female candidates are asked about "work-life balance" and "juggling multiple projects," implying a presumption that they are primarily responsible for childcare and household duties. This not only reinforces gender stereotypes but also distracts from their technical skills and qualifications. Male candidates, on the other hand, are asked about "vision" and "leadership potential," suggesting that they are seen as more likely to advance to leadership positions. This difference in questioning reveals a bias in how the company perceives the potential of male versus female employees.
Gendered Language: The language used throughout the hiring process reinforces gender stereotypes and can discourage female applicants.
Masculine-Coded Language in Job Description: The emphasis on "disruptive innovation" and "aggressive growth" uses language that is often associated with masculine stereotypes. Research has shown that job descriptions with this type of language can deter female applicants.
"Go-getter" and "Thinks Outside the Box": While seemingly neutral, these phrases are often subtly associated with masculine traits. They reinforce the idea that the ideal candidate is assertive, competitive, and individualistic – qualities traditionally associated with men.
In summary, the tech startup's hiring process exhibits both implicit and explicit biases against female candidates. The gendered language in the job description and the differential interview questions create a hostile and discriminatory environment, making it less likely that qualified women will apply or be hired. The focus on masculine-coded language and the presumption of women's caregiving responsibilities create barriers that reinforce gender inequality in the tech industry.
Scenario 3: Workplace Harassment & Microaggressions
Sarah is part of a sales team. Her male colleagues frequently make jokes about "women drivers" and make comments on her appearance. During a team meeting, she presents a new sales strategy, but her ideas are dismissed and interrupted. Later, a male colleague takes her idea, rephrases it slightly, and presents it as his own, receiving praise from the team leader. Frustrated, Sarah eventually works up the courage to raise the issue of the comments and her ideas being stolen with her team leader. Her team leader doesn’t see the issue and suggests she should take it all “as a compliment”.
This scenario perfectly illustrates workplace harassment and microaggressions against Sarah, creating a hostile work environment.
Here's a breakdown:
Workplace Harassment (Creating a Hostile Work Environment): The jokes about "women drivers" and the comments on Sarah's appearance constitute harassment. This type of behaviour creates a hostile work environment because it is unwelcome, based on gender, and severe or pervasive enough to interfere with Sarah's ability to do her job. It creates an environment where she feels demeaned and uncomfortable. The fact that it's a pattern of behavior from multiple colleagues strengthens the case for a hostile work environment.
Microaggressions (Subtle Discrimination): Several microaggressions are present:
Dismissing and Interrupting Sarah's Ideas: This is a classic example of a microaggression. It subtly communicates that her contributions are not valued or taken seriously because of her gender. It undermines her professional credibility and makes it harder for her to succeed.
Stealing and Rephrasing Her Idea: This act is not only unprofessional but also a microaggression. It reinforces the idea that women's ideas are not original or valuable until a man validates them. It's a subtle form of intellectual theft that perpetuates gender inequality in the workplace.
Dismissive Response from Team Leader: The team leader's suggestion that Sarah should take the harassment "as a compliment" is a particularly damaging microaggression. It minimises her concerns, invalidates her feelings, and sends the message that the company does not take these issues seriously. This dismissal discourages Sarah from reporting future incidents and perpetuates the cycle of harassment. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding or unwillingness to address the problem.
In short, Sarah is experiencing a combination of overt harassment and subtle microaggressions that are creating a hostile work environment. The team's behaviour, coupled with the team leader's dismissive response, demonstrates a systemic problem that needs to be addressed.
Scenario 4: Microaggressions (related to assumptions about competence)
Dr. Anya Sharma is a renowned astrophysicist. At a conference, she presents her groundbreaking research. After her presentation, a male colleague approaches her and asks, "Your husband must be very proud of you. Does he work in a related field?" This subtly diminishes her accomplishments by attributing her success to her marital status and implying that her work is somehow connected to or validated by her husband's career.
This is another example of a microaggression. Let’s take a look at how it demonstrates subtle bias related to assumptions about Dr. Sharma's competence:
Attributing Success to Marital Status: The male colleague's question immediately shifts the focus from Dr. Sharma's professional achievements to her marital status. This subtly implies that her success is somehow tied to or validated by her husband's approval or involvement. It diminishes her individual accomplishments and suggests that her work is not entirely her own.
Assumption of Male Influence: By asking if her husband works in a related field, the colleague assumes that Dr. Sharma's expertise or success must be influenced or supported by a man in her life. This reinforces the stereotype that women in STEM fields are less competent or independent than their male counterparts, and that their achievements are often dependent on male support.
Undermining Professional Identity: The question subtly undermines Dr. Sharma's professional identity by reducing her to her role as a wife. It suggests that her primary identity is tied to her marital status, rather than her accomplishments as a leading scientist. This can be particularly damaging in a professional setting where individuals are expected to be judged on their merits and expertise.
Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes: The question perpetuates the harmful stereotype that women's success in male-dominated fields is often due to external factors like male support or mentorship, rather than their own talent and hard work. This can discourage women from pursuing careers in STEM and perpetuate the gender gap in these fields.
In essence, the colleague's seemingly innocuous question is a microaggression because it suggests that Dr. Sharma's accomplishments are not entirely her own, and that her value as a scientist is somehow linked to her marital status and her husband's potential involvement in her work. It's a subtle but powerful way of diminishing her professional standing and reinforcing gender stereotypes about women in STEM.
Why is it important to be able to recognise these types of sex discrimination in the workplace?
In December 2022, changes to the Sex Discrimination Act (1984) a saw the introduction of a new positive duty, meaning workplaces must take active steps to prevent sex discrimination from occuring. This law applies to all businesses and organisations in Australia, regardless of their size, including sole traders and the self-employed, small, medium and large businesses, and government.
The Australian Human Rights Commission explains this positive duty as follows:
“It imposes a legal obligation on organisations and businesses to take proactive and meaningful action to prevent relevant unlawful conduct from occurring in the workplace or in connection to work.”
Basically, organisations must shift focus away from simply reacting to unlawful behaviour, to a proactive approach in preventing sexual harassment and sex discrimination.
This means that any employer needs to be able to recognise sex discrimination in forms like these, and take active steps to not only address it, but prevent it from happing in the first place.
Taking Action: Addressing and Preventing Sex Discrimination in the workplace
Creating a truly equitable workplace requires ongoing education and a commitment to recognising and addressing sex discrimination in all its forms. While this post has shed light on some common scenarios, the nuances of workplace dynamics mean there's always more to learn.
If you're looking to deepen your understanding and equip your team with the tools to prevent sex discrimination proactively, we offer tailored training programs designed to foster inclusive cultures and ensure compliance with the positive duty.
Contact us today to learn more about how we can support your organisation's journey toward a more just and respectful workplace.
Let's Talk About X is a certified social enterprise. Our training and resources help schools and workplaces create safer, more respectful spaces for people of all genders and sexualities.