Little (to no) Women : Part 2

Disclaimer:

The purpose of this article is to encourage discourse around an issue that is omnipresent. We don’t intend to point any fingers at anybody or accuse anyone of sexism. We believe that we can all benefit from a healthy discussion and make the institute a more inclusive place. 

All the claims that we have made in this article are based on the interviews we have taken of women with varied experiences.

This article is part 2 of a 2-part article. This majorly focuses on the issues women face while applying for or holding PoRs in independent bodies and tech teams.  

The emphasis of the first part was on the challenges that women face while contesting for or holding elected positions of responsibility in the institute. 

This article mainly takes into consideration the experiences of UGs in the institute. The assumption of a 1:4 ratio of women is based on the UG population in the institute. 

We insist on reading both parts for better context. 

Positions of responsibility in our institute are one of the most significant ways in which students gain important skills outside of academics, build their network, and get a chance to be a part of a body they are (hopefully) passionate about in various capacities. This opportunity should be equally accessible to all students and the selection process should be conducted keeping this in mind. But as you get to the higher-tier PoRs, i.e., those that constitute heads of different clubs or bodies (Secretary, Manager, Core Group/Team members, Overall Coordinator etc.), we notice an unfortunate trend. The process of obtaining these PoRs seemingly becomes harder for women for reasons we’ll subsequently explain. 

In this article, we take a look at the experiences of women who have held positions of responsibility in a vast array of bodies, including but not limited to independent bodies (IBs), and tech teams. We highlight the issues they face during the selection process and during their tenure that often hinder them from performing to their full potential or sometimes even from applying for these positions. Some of these issues might be specific to the PoR they are going for, but our underlying focus here is to stress on issues that a lot of women face, but men might not, by virtue of their gender. Our interviews with women who have applied for and held PoRs show that their experiences are unique in some aspects due to their gender.  

Let us further look at the various stages involved in obtaining and holding a PoR and the challenges women face in each of these stages.

PoR Procurement Protocol

At the end of their first year, when students become eligible for PoRs, they typically apply to bodies that they have explored in their first year and that align with their interests. Over time, as they engage more with these bodies and become a part of them, they often develop a sense of attachment and sentimental value. On top of this, the value of a PoR as a resume booster becomes a significant motivating factor to aim for higher positions in those bodies. Regardless of the initial reasons for taking up the role, holding a PoR often comes with an expectation of self-growth. 

To evaluate their credentials, an individual is likely to look at their existing skill set, their interests, their past experiences, and how well they overlap with the requirements of the PoR. A crucial aspect is also an individual’s belief in their ability to meet the demands of a PoR, which often determines whether they decide to apply.

1. Confidence 

Often, the perceived barrier to entry into a body for women is much greater than that for men. We see this hypothesis reflected through the interviews we took. A 2014 Forbes article mentions that, ‘Men are confident about their ability at 60%, but women don’t feel confident until they’ve checked off each item on the list.’ This implies that women generally only apply to positions they are qualified or overqualified for. This disparity is particularly evident among women applying for roles at various levels of the PoR hierarchy, starting from entry-level positions. An example of this was shared by a former ITC club manager, who noted, 

“There were few female applicants. But, we also found that the girls who applied had experience in programming, whereas not all boys did.” 

This indicates that female applicants often feel the need to be more qualified before applying, while men may apply with less experience or have higher confidence in their abilities. This shows that women tend to doubt their qualifications and hold themselves to higher standards before taking the step to apply which may be a reason for fewer female applications.

While correcting for this is a complex societal challenge, in IITB context, basic steps to address this could include clearly and appropriately communicating requirements of a PoR in emails as well as groundworks.

At higher positions also, female candidates often weigh various factors before deciding to apply. As one IB CG candidate shared:

“People who apply do it very calculatively. They see if they have good chances of getting selected, and assess whether there has been a female CG in that department before. If a female sees the CG bonding more with male coordinators, she may assume that a male will be selected and decide not to apply.”

This reflects how women often consider not only their qualifications but also the environment and dynamics within a department in the context of gender inclusivity which can impact their perception of whether they will be fairly considered. For example, the lack of female representation or perceived bias can deter them from applying altogether, even if they are qualified for the role.

2. Diversity Considerations

Diverse teams are statistically better at problem-solving, integrating different perspectives, and fostering collaboration. A varied set of individuals brings a broader range of ideas, experiences, and approaches, which can lead to more innovative solutions and better decision-making. However, when there are few women in a team, they are often perceived to have been selected exclusively for diversity reasons. This might lead to them being treated differently by people in and outside the team. Irrespective of the reasons for selection, what matters is that every member contributes meaningfully to the team’s functioning. Questioning someone’s presence based on perceived reasons for their selection not only disrespects their hardwork but also risks damaging the confidence and cohesion necessary for any team to thrive. Such perceptions, regardless of their basis, can erode confidence and create an environment where individuals feel undeserving or alienated. 

3. Pride and Prejudice

According to our interviews, a gender bias seems to persist in the selection process of many independent bodies. We observed a perception among most IBs that women are not suited for certain roles, particularly those that involve significant physical activity or vendor interactions. This belief often discourages women from applying for these positions, and if they do apply, they are often discouraged from continuing. As a result, the belief that women are not suitable for certain roles continues to perpetuate, discouraging applicants and influencing team members to dissuade them. Despite their qualifications and skills, credible women who aspire for the aforementioned positions often find themselves relegated to less operational roles, solely because they are perceived as not being the right fit.

One interviewee shared her experience, saying,

“I chose to apply only to one department instead of multiple to avoid being forced into a less preferred department, one which was stereotypically deemed suitable for women. This took a toll on me and made the process harder. A boy could have applied for both and said that he preferred a certain department, but I couldn’t do that.”

A lot of the time, female candidates might also end up choosing positions known to be indifferent to gender, rather than the ones they previously worked in and performed well at. As a result, women end up making decisions influenced by external expectations, rather than solely on the basis of their qualifications or interests.

Another interviewee reflected,

“When I held the <3rd year PoR> and was choosing coordies, I made up my mind that I wanted to maintain a good gender ratio. But in other portfolios like operations – for 4-5 years, they hadn’t selected a girl because it involves a lot of logistics like vendor dealing, on-ground work, etc. Even last year, they had a really strong candidate, but they shifted her to another portfolio, because of the stereotype.”

A reason that came up during interviews for women not holding positions in these departments was that the work involves interacting with vendors at odd hours on ground in unsafe circumstances. One argument for this we got is that “this creates an unwelcoming environment for women, and at times, the position might demand them to smoke on the job in order to calm down people they might be doing business with and get work done quickly and smoothly.”

However, many interviewees also reflected on the importance of letting women make their own choices in terms of department selection. One of them who worked in a certain department, but was encouraged to switch to a department previously held by females had this to say:

“This is something that was told to me since my first year. I strongly feel that a lot of things that come under the duties of a logistics manager, a woman can also do better than a man. If everything is judged by the ability of girls to vibe with the vendors, it’s stupid. I have seen girls interacting with vendors during my coordie year, which got the work done well. I have heard that there might be physical strength required for some things, which is why girls are discouraged. I think it’s stupid because girls, at some point in their personal life will have to interact with men and vendors. This stereotype is like saying – girls can talk to vendors until their coordie year, but not when they are CGs.”

When it comes to women being in these portfolios, it is automatically assumed that this sort of informal interaction won’t be possible. Women who apply for these positions are well-versed with the requirements of the job and make a well-informed decision to pursue such roles when they do. We believe that female applicants should be allowed to decide their suitability for roles instead of it being decided for them since suitability for any role is subjective and not necessarily correlated with a person’s gender.

Women are often also subjected to additional prejudices, especially in these positions. If a woman were to fail, her failure might lead to women not being considered for the position thereafter, but a man’s failure is generally not taken to be representative of their gender but is instead individualistic. 

“During the tenure, if anything would have gone wrong, they would’ve said that it was because there was a female CG (there had been a female CG after a long time). That’s when you start questioning if they are correct. CGs should bond well for the department to function well. In reality, the boy might not want to bond with you but it will somehow still be the girl’s fault. After a while, you also think that if there was a boy in my place, the tenure would’ve been better.”

This might lower one’s confidence in their ability and leave them questioning their credibility. Women would appreciate team members being cognizant of the unique challenges they might face due to their gender, and acknowledging that the system is flawed can be the first step towards improving the system and making it more equitable. 

Casual Sexism

Even after successfully navigating the initial selection process, women may still face subtle forms of sexism after assuming the position in their interactions with peers and seniors. Many of our interviewees shared that while the situations they encountered were not always deliberately discriminatory, there was a general lack of awareness about behaviors and practices that could be more inclusive and supportive. They did not feel that their peers were actively treating them differently, but they recognized that unintentional biases still played a role. That said, some behaviors were indeed intentional and problematic, and in such cases, appropriate action would have been welcomed.

Since a lot of teams are male-dominated in terms of numbers, it is easy for the boys to meet in each other’s hostels and rooms, informally to simply discuss or just bond. An interviewee said: 

“H2 is the place where everyone goes. During the summer, all the boys from the team live there. Apart from that, they hang out informally after the meetings are done. There is a lot of bonding, sharing of thoughts, talking about the fest, that you end up missing out on as a girl since we live in H15.” 

Unintentional exclusion of women tends to happen at times because of the nature of hostels and entry timings. Hence, talking about these issues becomes paramount. The above interviewee mentioned that such incidents didn’t happen again once she raised her concerns about feeling excluded. Hence, it is crucial to have people in positions of power who can actively correct this. Having women in these positions may be one way of preventing these issues from getting perpetuated in the body because they may have faced them first-hand. They can start a cycle of improvement and inclusion, making it better for generations to come, and making their body a welcoming place in which everyone can grow equally. 

When women apply for a position, slanderous rumours are commonplace. Comments such as “She is close to her baap manager [male ex-manager], that’s why he will surely choose her” are heard more for women than men. Such harmful narratives create unnecessary hurdles for women, forcing them to not only fight for the position but also defend their reputation in the process.

Once women secure leadership positions, their leadership styles are scrutinized more critically than men’s, often leading to women being labelled as ‘bossy’ when they are being assertive.

When we asked our interviewees if they believed women in leadership are held to these standards, this is what they had to say: 

“People tend to assume that a female in a PoR would be more amenable than her male counterpart. Even if you’re equally assertive as your co, you’re labelled to be “bossy” or “strict”, while he might be looked at as any other man in power.”

Many interviewees acknowledged that women in such roles face a conundrum: if they are too strict or assertive, they are tagged as “zyaada chillati hai” (she shouts too much), but if they are too accommodating, they risk being potentially perceived as weak or ineffective. This constant balancing act may place an additional burden on women in leadership, forcing them to navigate not just the demands of their role but also the expectations of how they should conduct themselves to gain respect without facing undue criticism.

An interviewee who has held an IB position previously had this to say about women’s inclusion in decision-making during the tenure:

“48-72 hour long meetings are normal, where people loudly argue with each other. There are theme discussions and voting over ideas to be pursued during these meetings. Girls generally don’t yell as much as boys, otherwise, they’ll say ‘zyada chillati hai’. Boys live in H2 together during the summer and bond due to which internal groups form. This groupism influences voting during meetings. Girls are excluded from this, and their ideas remain unheard. OCs also listen to boy CGs more.”

On a positive note, in 2024, the Gender Cell conducted a mandatory session on sensitization towards gender equality in the workspace for all the student bodies. This event was organized to train the overall coordinators, and managers of all IBs on workplace sexual harassment. Even though there is still a long way to go, this is a step in the right direction in preventing potential issues that women in independent bodies may face. We’ll now look into a different set of challenges that women holding positions in tech teams encounter.

Why Women Leaf STEM? 🍀

Women play a vital role in shaping the future of technology and innovation. The Institute Technical Council (ITC) and tech teams drive the technical culture of the institute. ITC consists of convenors, secretaries, and managers for most clubs, and four cabinet positions. Like technical clubs, tech teams are also multi-hierarchical organizations. The usual structure includes trainees, (junior) design engineers, subsystem heads, and overall coordinators. 

Recruitment for tech team trainees usually happens in the first year, with some tech teams open to applicants from the second year. Every tech team conducts an orientation session where they discuss the various functionalities and aspirations of their team and try to garner as much audience as possible. After the orientation session, each tech team conducts its selection process, which usually consists of tests or assignments and multiple rounds of in-person or virtual interviews.

Based on our conversations with a few women who have headed tech teams. We further go on to understand why the ratio is not consistent when it comes to holding various positions of responsibility. One of the striking arguments that is usually presented for women not being in large numbers in the tech domain is that they are simply not interested in tech. But what we understood from numerous interviews is that this is indeed a false impression and that there are many women who are in fact interested in tech and go on to have very successful careers in the same. Then why is it that we don’t see a lot of them in these positions of responsibility? Why don’t we see women in managerial roles leading tech teams? Is it because women are assumed to not be good at tech or are not able to lead, or, in this case, both? We further go on to explore certain factors which affect the number of applications and consequently the number of women in tech teams. 

Why are there so few women in many tech teams?

To answer this question, one needs to analyze why an individual, particularly a fresher, with minimal context of what work entails in a tech team, would want to be a part of it. Generally, a lot of first-year students are motivated to join tech teams because these provide avenues to garner hands-on experience in tech which the curriculum might lack. The work presented to one is intellectually stimulating and application-based and there is an opportunity to collaborate with a team of like-minded individuals, all driven towards achieving a common goal. And, of course, in many cases, the perks of experiencing an international trip. While working in a tech team, one expects to have a good quality of experience. We define the quality of experience as follows:

Quality of experience means actively engaging with your work, growing through challenges, and connecting with your fellow teammates. It’s the meaningful relationships and stimulating conversations that shape your daily experience. When you gel with your team, work becomes more than tasks—it’s about collaboration and shared success. This brings a deeper sense of fulfillment, knowing your contributions are valued in a supportive, dynamic environment.

It is particularly important in tech teams as one is required to do on-ground work for a substantial amount of hours every week in a close-knit group. Hence, it also becomes very crucial to have good interpersonal relationships as it proves to be one of the incentives to work as one is naturally more inclined to work with their friends. However, experiences of many of our interviewees highlighted that they lacked such bonding with most of their male team members.

“The guys used to work together from their hostel and not call me. Sometimes, they would pull all-nighters for work and not inform me. When I used to confront them about it, they used to say that they didn’t think I would come late at night and dismiss me. They would over-explain how to use power tools and pass sexist remarks.”

By the end of the tenure, a team member is promised an experience, though its quality is debatable. This is where we see a shift in the experiences of women in these positions. Understanding why these experiences differ is essential, particularly since retaining women in tech roles is critical given their underrepresentation. 

Quality of experience

The above idea of quality of experience can be extrapolated to cover the existing work culture in various tech teams, where working typically involves being either in a classroom or a lab. The working hours are subjective and usually depend on the work that has been allotted but can be taken to be around 3 hours per day as a ballpark figure. From the interviews that we conducted, we concluded that a lot of women are initially more comfortable talking to women rather than men when they first join the team. Since the number of women is significantly lesser than the number of men in the team, they often lose out on socializing with a major chunk of the team and might end up feeling left out, at least in the beginning.

We see one of our interviewees citing her experience while she was a trainee in a tech team

“Sometimes I was the only woman in a room with 40 men, and it was weird and awkward. That made it hard for me to make conversations at the start, especially in my first year. The guys who were with me didn’t talk to me, and the two heads who were boys, couldn’t care less. They did try at times, but were just ineffective.”

She also went on to say a lot of times her peers would knowingly or unknowingly exclude her from conversations and would talk amongst themselves. Seniors in the team tried to include her in conversations but that did not compensate for the lack of women in the team. She went on to say “This didn’t happen with boys; they went on to be friends very quickly, and it looked like they were having fun working with each other – something I also wanted to be a part of.” The interviewee said that as time went on, things did get easier, but if that initial hurdle had still remained, then she would have probably not continued with the team the next year. These small things end up making a difference in the type of experience you have in the body, which is crucial for your retention.

Furthermore, the opportunity to attend overseas competitions is a strong motivation for joining these teams, but the lack of women serves as a deterrent. Many women might not feel comfortable travelling overseas and staying with a large number of men for a month, especially if they are one of the very few women on the trip. An interviewee had the following to say about it: 

“It is not a factor that would affect my decision. I was passionate about the project, and I wanted to go. But it was something that I did think of at that point in time, and without my friends in the team travelling with me, maybe it would have been a bigger issue than it seemed.” 

All of the aforementioned issues and inconveniences exist more prominently for women than for men, thus deteriorating the quality of experience for women. However, this is not to suggest that women don’t have positive experiences in tech teams. Many have stayed with their teams, participated in competitions, built strong connections, and even held prominent positions. Yet, some have faced significant challenges. Given the already low representation of women in tech teams, it is crucial to bring these issues to light, as even if one woman faces them, it likely reflects a broader concern affecting many others.

The Cur(i)e

We acknowledge that the situation is the result of a bigger societal issue (that happens in all bodies in some form or the other including Insight) and we hope that our article will make the readers more conscious of these so that we, as an institute can work toward improving on this collectively. We hope that people who are part of tech teams and IBs, and even those who aren’t, become more cognizant of problems that women and other minorities face so that the institute can be a more inclusive place. We are optimistic that after reading this article, there will be conscious efforts to make people’s experiences in bodies more fulfilling and enjoyable. Hopefully, in the future, women in IBs would be able to choose the type of work they want to do and that they are appreciated and respected for it – that a safe and forthcoming environment is created for women to operate in where their words and opinions are valued.

We hope to see more women in tech teams being actively included in team discussions and being assigned roles and responsibilities that provide them with satisfaction and add value to the team, so that instead of being sidelined, they can feel like an integral part of the team. Finally, women should be seen for their capabilities and not their gender because women, they have minds, and they have souls, as well as just hearts. And they’ve got ambition, and they’ve got talent, as well as just beauty.

“I would like to give advice to people other than women. Many of us have never had a proper conversation with the other gender before coming to campus, especially when it comes to building a team. It’s very important to listen and understand what another person is saying, and at the least being empathetic when they’re sharing something you may not have experienced yourself. And don’t stay anywhere where your work is not valued.”

“When I was a convenor there were a lot of people associated with the club who thought there were a lot of roles that women could not do, and that motivated me to do those roles really well in order to change men’s perspectives towards women’s capabilities, and I think by the end of the job, I had achieved that and it was very rewarding. I think it’s very important for women to push themselves to create increasingly better spaces for women in the future.”

“There will be things that are harder for you as a woman. There will also be things that are easier for you. Casual sexism and people taking you less seriously should be a motivating factor instead. Being in the position and driving change is hard but you have to try, it’s also how you can give back to the body, try to make the environment more conducive for the women on your team to succeed. It’s low effort, high reward. Learn how to deal with this stuff since you’ll have to do it eventually at your workplace too. Be a role model for the women to come. People will try to exclude you a lot, not always intentionally; do things that will lead to your growth and go out of your way to get things done.”

Editorial Credits: Amogha Pote, Ananya Jain, Vaidehi Jha, Yash Tangri

0