Little (to no) Women

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 any body 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. 

Note: This article is part one of a two part article. This part majorly focuses on the challenges that women face while contesting for or holding elected positions of responsibility in the institute.  

The emphasis of the second part will be on the issues women face while applying for or holding PoRs in independent bodies and tech teams.

This article sheds light particularly on the experiences of UG students 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 gaining a well-rounded perspective on the situation and better context.

Part 1: Women v/s The State of Elections

Representation of women in elected positions in the institute is of utmost importance. This helps the respective councils have a more balanced and diverse perspective on things so that informed decisions can be taken to benefit various segments of the institute populace. The elected positions of responsibility that we focus on in this article include Institute Secretary positions in the Institute Cultural Council (ICC), Institute Technical Council (ITC), and Institute Sports Council (ISC), as well as the General Secretary positions in ICC, ITC, ISC, Hostel Affairs Council, and the Undergraduate Academic Council (UGAC).

Insight interviewed women across years who have either contested, are in the position (at the time of publishing) or have been in it in the past. 

Why do fewer women apply for these roles?

The observed trend is that fewer women apply for elected positions of responsibility in the institute as compared to men. One can argue that this is simply due to the number of women being less in the institute, but historically, the fraction of women candidates has been even lower than the institute’s sex ratio. Although we have seen a shift in the previous year, there are still positions that have never had female applicants. Now, there are a plethora of reasons that might prevent students from applying for these elected PoRs, but the focus of this piece is on those that seem to be an issue for women only. 

One fact that seems to be true for many major positions of power is the lack of women who have held them in the past. We do not view this as the sole reason for women to hesitate from applying; however, it is a factor that might lead some women to reconsider the position and their candidature. Elected positions are unlike other PoRs – they require garnering votes from a predominantly male population, in most cases, within the institute. Difficulty in doing so does cross women’s minds in such a scenario. Additionally, seeing that women have historically not held the position in question might further lower their confidence. This presents an initial hurdle specifically for women even before they apply or enter the process. Insight interviewed a previous General Secretary candidate who mentioned:

‘<previous female PoR holder> shirked her responsibilities according to general public opinion …… and that affected my candidature also – that a girl doesn’t work. Now, people didn’t want to consider a girl candidate anymore and I didn’t have many examples of women who had held this PoR to give and win their confidence.’                                             

This case highlights that widespread sexism undermines credibility, where positions previously held largely by men are considered unfit for women. It sets the tone that women are not suitable for them in the future. Therefore, to be considered for the position, women have to face an additional layer of scrutiny, which does not seem to exist for their male counterparts. They have to overcome skepticism about their capability from the forefront, which hampers their confidence which is a prime part of being able to compete in an election and go ahead to win.

Can a woman really win? (against herself)

In addition to these external factors that come into play when contesting an election, internal factors such as one’s belief in themselves is also a crucial factor. This belief, when contesting, is mainly made up of two things: one’s credentials and inherent confidence. When a candidate is assessed on the basis of their credentials, women tend to set a higher bar for themselves when gauging their suitability for a role than men (see below-mentioned study). 

A study by Harvard Business School Associate Professor Katherine B. Coffman shows that women are less likely to apply for jobs unless they meet every single qualification as compared to men. Insight also found this to be true through interviews with women who have held major positions of responsibility in the institute.

‘I considered backing out because I felt under confident about getting selected, but then I saw that one of the other male candidates who was significantly less prepared than me was fairly confident about getting selected, after seeing that, I decided to give it another shot.’ 

It follows from the study that women have an inflated perception of risk when it comes to applying for these positions in addition to overcompensating with their abilities for the PoR. This might be due to perceived psychological, reputational, and backlash-driven costs in the face of failure. Women often anticipate a larger backlash associated with rejection, driven by a fear of violating gender norms that associate assertiveness and ambition more with men. It could also be that the cost of rejection is larger for women. Another interviewee had the following to say about failure: 

‘Even in such a body that had a female majority, not many women decided to go for the fourth-year position. There were fewer boys, and still, most of them did end up applying. I think girls see failing as a very big thing while guys didn’t care as much about losing, it was quite low stakes for them.’  

A lot of women, when they lose, also feel like they have to carry the burden of their failure being potentially painted as an inherent flaw of all women, while that is rarely the case for men. 

Hence, it is after overcoming all these internal factors do women actually enter the election process. This is not to say that men don’t doubt themselves, but it follows from the aforementioned study and from experiences shared by interviewees that women have been conditioned over the years to do so. Not seeing other women take up these positions leaves them with no one to look up to for inspiration. Hence, there seems to be much more internal conflict. We can now go on to explore why despite the election process and rules being the same for everyone, the experience is significantly different for women. 

Hurdle to the Ballot 

When women finally decide to contest, they contemplate the possibility of gaining support from the majority of the institute, and then the implications of the skewed sex ratio in the institute become more apparent. 

80/20: Gender Ratio

The presence of an uneven gender ratio in the institute means more boys’ hostels than girls’ hostels. We see this as a more obvious disadvantage for women in the case of Institute Secretary Elections that undergo a closed electorate-based election process. Each hostel gets to nominate five individuals involved in the respective genre from their hostel who’ll partake in the election along with the Hostel General Secretary and Councillor from that hostel. This means fewer women get to be a part of the electorate as compared to men since they occupy more hostels and thus nominate more people to be a part of the electorate. This might mean that most of the men active in a given cultural, tech, or sports genre get a vote in the electorate. However, not all the women involved in a particular genre might get a vote due to the cap on electorate nominations from each hostel. For instance, a player from a sports team in the institute told us, 

‘In the Institute Sports Secretary Elections, the entire boys’ team got a vote since they were spread across hostels, but the entire girls’ team did not because most of them were from H15.’

Sometimes, men who aren’t involved in the genre also get a vote in order to fill up nominations from hostels. While we are not saying that a man will necessarily vote for a man and a woman will necessarily vote for a woman, voters that lack context of manifestos and initiatives might vote on the basis of similarities like gender or hostel. Given the possibility of a larger number of men lacking context in such a situation, the odds might unfairly be against the female candidate. This becomes a problem because this increases the ambiguity around the selection of a qualified and well-rounded person for the PoR. Men who aren’t familiar with the sports community being added to electorates, while women who know and understand the candidates being left out result in more randomness in the process. Although these cases might not be universal and widespread, such small factors do often contribute to women being at a loss because of the skewed gender ratio.

Hostel culture transcending to ‘senti’

Networking might not be as accessible to women as it might be to their male counterparts. A very subtle contributor to this is how our hostel culture has been. Simply not being from a boys’ hostel may cut off any informal interaction that can be vital for bonding to take place. Such bonding and networking become crucial to garnering support to win and also to navigating the challenges of the position after selection. 

In the institute, being a resident of old hostels becomes an integral part of your identity and helps in winning the trust and support of other people from that hostel. Old hostels (parent hostels) include boys’ hostels, like H2, H3, H5, etc. They have a significantly more developed hostel culture than girls’ hostels. This is because these hostels have years of legacy For instance, winning general championships is given immeasurable importance since these hostels have had a rich history of competing fiercely in them. These hostels see remarkable participation as students put days of practice into preparing for competitions to win the hostel cup. This brings people from a particular hostel together and provides them with opportunities to bond. Girls’ hostels like H15 are relatively new and don’t have such a history because of which these hostels lack the same level of legacy, hostel culture, and hostel-based identity. Due to a fewer number of female hostels, wings of the same hostel have to compete against each other in the GCs. Girls’ hostels also see irregular participation in GCs except for a select few. Additionally, the disparity in hostel infrastructure across old boys’ hostels and girls’ hostels may further hinder bonding in girls’ hostels. The infrastructure of old boys’ hostels is much more conducive to large scale bonding with lesser capacity, closer rooms, and more common spaces within hostels allowing for tight-knit communities. The apartment-style rooms in girls’ hostels with more than twice the capacity of boys’ parent hostels don’t seem to foster such bonding in spite of a large number of them living together in closed corners. This lack of bonding and hostel senti might imply that they can’t count on people from a particular community or their hostel to support them during elections as men might. Even though the support of 400-500 people may seem like a small fraction of an institute population of over 10 thousand students, it can act as a significant boost to the campaigning opportunities of candidates and subsequently to their confidence. Women thus lack the assurance of hostel support enjoyed by their male counterparts, which can be essential in giving individuals confidence and people that they can bank on to get more votes. 

Additionally, during the time of the campaign, girls are not allowed in the boys’ hostel after 10 pm and, as a result, they lose out on trying to garner support from a major chunk of the electorate. 

“It was a problem to go to the boys’ hostel after 10 pm, some guard was like ki ‘nhi niklo bahar’ [no, get out]. I had scheduled a groundwork with someone at H9, and he never showed up. But it is easier for guys, they can just go into their rooms and ask for groundworks. That is a very big problem, but nothing can be done about it.”

This issue is particularly critical given the skewed gender ratio. Female candidates lack the proper informal access to the male population for effective campaigning. Thus the starting line for women and men competing in elections is not quite the same, leaving women requiring greater resources, campaigning, and effort in order to be on par with men. 

Sex and the Selection 

A combination of factors makes the election process more challenging for women to navigate and succeed in. Apart from internal factors such as imposter syndrome and lack of confidence, external factors, such as the presence of casual sexism or logistical arrangements in the institute, make vying for and attaining positions of responsibility more challenging for women. 

Casual sexism in institute elections

Gender-related microaggressions or commonplace behavioural, environmental, or verbal slights do affect women, especially in elections. These aren’t always intended to impede or dissuade women from succeeding. Sometimes, these aren’t conveyed consciously either, but still, they do end up having a negative effect on their confidence and, as a result, on their candidature.

For example, Insight found out through interviews with women who have contested elections that there have been instances where people considered voting for people based on gender, consciously or unconsciously without researching their initiatives. Either way, students often end up voting for candidates without thoroughly researching their initiatives. This issue becomes even more significant for a female candidate in a male-dominated institute. Implicit biases and societal stereotypes about leadership abilities can further disadvantage them, while male candidates may benefit from stronger existing networks. An extreme example of this as mentioned by a few women candidates also mentioned feeling discriminated against by certain sections of the population. 

‘PGs have this bias that they want to vote for a guy candidate. They would go to the mess tables in their hostels and tell people not to vote for me just because I’m a girl.’ 

Sometimes people may deem women as weaker candidates due to traditional gender roles and personality traits, considering women unfit for certain duties that the PoR might demand. Sometimes, such biases creep in even before women enter the election process for a particular PoR. For instance, women aiming for higher PoRs are at times told to go for softer roles like that of senior convenor or Girls Nominee instead by other people who are a part of that body to allow other male candidates to take up the leadership role at the top. We are cognizant of the fact that positions like Girls Nominee were proposed to ensure female representation in councils where only males traditionally took charge. Unfortunately, though, the position now acts as a deterrent for women from applying to the top-tier PoR of the council.

As mentioned before, even when women overcome initial challenges and are elected to major positions, they often face the burden of representing their entire gender, which men do not. If they make mistakes, the blame falls not just on the individual but can reinforce the stereotype that women are incapable of handling leadership roles. The responsibility when at the top is thus higher for women as they don’t have to just prove their capabilities but also the capabilities of women in general. This reflects pervasive sexism, where women are held to higher standards, and their failures are used to hinder future female candidates. We also see a previous third-year PoR holder resonate with the same: 

‘They don’t discriminate between men and women as long as you do exceptional work. Women have to be three-four times better than the male candidates to be selected here, in my experience. Since there are so few women, it is important that the ones who are there have an immaculate track record to pave the way for women further. If a man fails, his failure is individual and not a gender issue. That is not the case for women.’

The experience may thus be unsatisfactory and frustrating for women and hearing about these experiences can also act as a deterrent to women applying in the future.

Hindered accessibility to Groundworks

One of the most rigorous and important steps of the election process is learning about the respective position through groundworks. Groundworks are essentially meetings with important stakeholders associated with the PoR that you are contesting for to better understand the duties, responsibilities, and skills needed to perform well.   

Groundworks, especially in the case of most third and fourth-year PoRs, need to be scheduled and managed on your own. They usually happen at night when everyone finds common time post-classes, labs, and other extracurricular commitments.

Most of the active club members for a majority of institute bodies are men, making it easier for them to take groundworks and campaign to people in their hostel or even men in other hostels. This means that men can take groundwork from other men in the comfort of their hostel rooms at night or even in the mess during meals from seniors of the same hostel. This also allows opportunities for these male candidates to bond with the stakeholders or seniors through the process and network better. Women, unfortunately, due to these issues, are often deprived of such opportunities for bonding and it is relatively harder for them to find convenient time and public spaces for taking groundwork from male seniors. Our interviewee who faced difficulties with groundwork had the following to say: 

‘This was a huge problem, the rule stated that female candidates would not be able to enter and campaign in boys’ hostels after 10 pm. We appealed to the EC to make a rule fair to all candidates. Only campaigning managers could go to hostels, we missed out on being able to pitch our ideas. I think it was really unfair, we tried to make it better, but it didn’t happen.’

For those who haven’t been part of the election process, this issue might seem trivial. However, even minor inconveniences in such scenarios can affect the candidate significantly.

A previous General Secretary candidate told us:

‘There were fewer networking opportunities for me, whereas my male counterpart could go into their baap secy’s room and sit there for hours and take groundworks and make better bonds.’

In such an environment, men might have a natural edge over their female counterparts by virtue of having access to build such relations which women might not. More generally and not exclusive to a gender, the success of a candidate in an election is determined by support from the previous council for the Institute Secretary elections. Whereas, in the case of General Secretary elections the general institute populace has a major role. The support of the council for higher tier elected PoRs becomes imperative in winning a candidate the support of other people who are part of the electorate, and hence the election. These personalised groundworks then become a significant contributor in garnering support and favour from the individuals who hold power to influence elections.

Ask yourself: Why has there never been a female GSHA?

We made an interesting observation in the SAC Constitution while researching for this article. We’d like to quote from the SAC constitution – the basic duties section of each General Secretary PoR mentions the pronouns ‘he/she’ while the ‘Basic duties of the GSHA’ section III (d) of the constitution mentions only the pronoun ‘he.’ Whether this is intentional or not, the lexicon of the Constitution itself is inconsiderate of women wanting to apply for this position. Historically, there have been no women who have held positions of GSHA or ISHA in the Hostel Affairs Council. However, in the last two years, we have seen women also interested in applying for the role of ISHA. This shows that women also possess an interest in holding Hostel Affairs Council PoRs, and recent trends show increasing involvement of women in the process. Though this involvement has not yet manifested in women holding the ISHA or GSHA positions, we hope that such trends continue and we see greater representation of women in PoRs related to hostel affairs.

Breaking Bad Barriers

In this section, we talk about how many women have overcome hurdles to excel at major positions of responsibility. This has paved the way to encourage other women to see themselves in those positions. Female representation is vital. It is not just a matter of equity – it is an important driver of change. Women in decision-making positions within the institute or otherwise bring a nuanced and diverse perspective about critical issues that might be overlooked in a male-dominated sphere. Furthermore, this creates a positive ripple effect. Setting examples for future female students might encourage them and strengthen their belief in themselves. Additionally, women who reach these positions also often strive to ensure that the experience of women in the body is more conducive and the obstacles they face can be eliminated, creating a virtuous cycle of improvement. An Institute Secretary PoR holder told us,

‘During convenorship, people you have to approach for PoR work can create uncomfortable situations, and then your response can affect the image of the club. Even though my male secys were supportive, I was not able to approach them with this. When I became secy, I ensured that it didn’t happen with my convenors and also brought it to everyone’s attention, even male cons. Then, even the next secy, who was a guy, was able to learn about how to deal with a similar conversation that might come up during the tenure that he otherwise would have no knowledge or experience of.’

Also, at various places in the article, we have pointed out that some men knowingly or unknowingly create circumstances that might affect women adversely in having an equally well-rounded experience. Having said that, we would also like to acknowledge the efforts that a lot of men knowingly put in to ensure that women or any other minority are included and have a good experience in their PoR. Even the slightest effort or consideration goes a long way toward ensuring that the minority feels included and free to express themselves, making it a good experience for the entire team.

A message from our interviewees

Here’s what some of our interviewees had to say when we asked them for advice they would want to give to women applying in the future:

‘You have to be very vocal in terms of everything you think. Be a bit more confident in yourself, just don’t think much. Think of yourself apart from your gender. Think of your capabilities and what you bring to the table.’ 

‘Don’t let people’s words get into your head unless they have the courage to say it openly. If they’re talking behind your back, you don’t owe them any explanation or defense. Stay strong, hold your ground, and keep moving forward.’

‘I always try to encourage my juniors to go for PoRs, they have a lot of things to teach you. They’re very important life skills in general. The assertiveness, clarity of thought, diplomacy, will help you in your corporate journey as well. For the long term, PoRs are just a stepping stone, it’s a very good way to learn leadership. All women should actively go for PoRs.’ 

‘You should not be afraid of trying even if there hasn’t been a female candidate over the years. There has to be a girl who challenges the stigma. Try, even if you fail. Even if you don’t succeed, you set an example. Your work will speak for itself. After some time, everyone gets to know the truth. Don’t question your capabilities. Just be confident.’

To be continued

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

20