Gender Role Challenges

As GenAI becomes more ubiquitous, research alarmingly shows that women are using these tools at lower rates than men across nearly all regions, sectors, and occupations.   A recent paper from researchers at Harvard Business School, Berkeley, and Stanford synthesizes data from 18 studies covering more than 140k individuals worldwide.   Their findings:   • Women are approximately 22% less likely than men to use GenAI tools • Even when controlling for occupation, age, field of study, and location, the gender gap remains • Web traffic analysis shows women represent only 42% of ChatGPT users and 31% of Claude users   Factors Contributing the to Gap:   - Lack of AI Literacy: Multiple studies showed women reporting significantly lower familiarity with and knowledge about generative AI tools as the largest gender gap driver. - Lack of Training & Confidence: Women have lower confidence in their ability to effectively use AI tools and more likely to report needing training before they can benefit from generative AI.   - Ethical Concerns & Fears of Judgement: Women are more likely to perceive AI usage as unethical or equivalent to cheating, particularly in educational or assignment contexts. They’re also more concerned about being judged unfairly for using these tools.   The Potential Impacts: - Widening Pay & Opportunity Gap: Considerably lower AI adoption by women creates further risk of them falling behind their male counterparts, ultimately widening the gender gap in pay and job opportunities. - Self-Reinforcing Bias: AI systems trained primarily on male-generated data may evolve to serve women's needs poorly, creating a feedback loop that widens existing gender disparities in technology development and adoption.   As educators and AI literacy advocates, we face an urgent responsibility to close this gap and simply improving access is not enough. We need targeted AI literacy training programs, organizations committed to developing more ethical GenAI, and safe and supportive communities like our Women in AI + Education to help bridge this expanding digital divide.   Link to the full study in the comments. And a link also to learn more or join our Women in AI + Education Community. AI for Education #Equity #GenAI #Ailiteracy #womeninAI

As International Women’s Day nears, we’ll see the usual corporate gestures—empowerment panels, social media campaigns, and carefully curated success stories. But let’s be honest: these feel-good initiatives rarely change what actually holds women back at work on the daily basis. Instead, I suggest focusing on something concrete, something I’ve seen have the biggest impact in my work with teams: the unspoken dynamics that shape psychological safety. 🚨Because psychological safety is not the same for everyone. Psychological safety is often defined as a shared belief that one can take risks without fear of negative consequences. But let’s unpack that—who actually feels safe enough to take those risks? 🔹 Speaking up costs more for women Confidence isn’t the issue—consequences are. Women learn early that being too direct can backfire. Assertiveness can be read as aggression, while careful phrasing can make them seem uncertain. Over time, this calculation becomes second nature: Is this worth the risk? 🔹 Mistakes are stickier When men fail, it’s seen as part of leadership growth. When women fail, it often reinforces lingering doubts about their competence. This means that women aren’t more risk-averse by nature—they’re just more aware of the cost. 🔹 Inclusion isn’t just about presence Being at the table doesn’t mean having an equal voice. Women often find themselves in a credibility loop—having to repeatedly prove their expertise before their ideas carry weight. Meanwhile, those who fit the traditional leadership mold are often trusted by default. 🔹 Emotional labor is the silent career detour Women in teams do an extraordinary amount of behind-the-scenes work—mediating conflicts, softening feedback, ensuring inclusion. The problem? This work isn’t visible in performance reviews or leadership selection criteria. It’s expected, but not rewarded. What companies can do beyond IWD symbolism: ✅ Stop measuring "confidence"—start measuring credibility gaps If some team members always need to “prove it” while others are trusted instantly, you have a credibility gap, not a confidence issue. Fix how ideas get heard, not how women present them. ✅ Make failure a learning moment for everyone Audit how mistakes are handled in your team. Are men encouraged to take bold moves while women are advised to be more careful? Change the narrative around risk. ✅ Track & reward emotional labor If women are consistently mentoring, resolving conflicts, or ensuring inclusion, this isn’t just “being helpful”—it’s leadership. Make it visible, valued, and part of promotion criteria. 💥 This IWD, let’s skip the celebration and start the correction. If your company is serious about making psychological safety equal for everyone, let’s do the real work. 📅 I’m now booking IWD sessions focused on improving team dynamics and creating workplaces where women don’t just survive, but thrive. Book your spot and let’s turn good intentions into lasting impact.

"This report developed by UNESCO and in collaboration with the Women for Ethical AI (W4EAI) platform, is based on and inspired by the gender chapter of UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. This concrete commitment, adopted by 194 Member States, is the first and only recommendation to incorporate provisions to advance gender equality within the AI ecosystem. The primary motivation for this study lies in the realization that, despite progress in technology and AI, women remain significantly underrepresented in its development and leadership, particularly in the field of AI. For instance, currently, women reportedly make up only 29% of researchers in the field of science and development (R&D),1 while this drops to 12% in specific AI research positions.2 Additionally, only 16% of the faculty in universities conducting AI research are women, reflecting a significant lack of diversity in academic and research spaces.3 Moreover, only 30% of professionals in the AI sector are women,4 and the gender gap increases further in leadership roles, with only 18% of in C-Suite positions at AI startups being held by women.5 Another crucial finding of the study is the lack of inclusion of gender perspectives in regulatory frameworks and AI-related policies. Of the 138 countries assessed by the Global Index for Responsible AI, only 24 have frameworks that mention gender aspects, and of these, only 18 make any significant reference to gender issues in relation to AI. Even in these cases, mentions of gender equality are often superficial and do not include concrete plans or resources to address existing inequalities. The study also reveals a concerning lack of genderdisaggregated data in the fields of technology and AI, which hinders accurate measurement of progress and persistent inequalities. It highlights that in many countries, statistics on female participation are based on general STEM or ICT data, which may mask broader disparities in specific fields like AI. For example, there is a reported 44% gender gap in software development roles,6 in contrast to a 15% gap in general ICT professions.7 Furthermore, the report identifies significant risks for women due to bias in, and misuse of, AI systems. Recruitment algorithms, for instance, have shown a tendency to favor male candidates. Additionally, voice and facial recognition systems perform poorly when dealing with female voices and faces, increasing the risk of exclusion and discrimination in accessing services and technologies. Women are also disproportionately likely to be the victims of AI-enabled online harassment. The document also highlights the intersectionality of these issues, pointing out that women with additional marginalized identities (such as race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or disability) face even greater barriers to accessing and participating in the AI field."

A concept that came up in coaching yesterday was the double-bind. I've spoken previously about the glass cliff, the glass ceiling, and similar terms that are helpful in giving language to inequities faced by women & women of colour in the workplace. As someone who has been labelled as 'combative' by a previous manager, it's exhausting & frustrating AF trying to navigate layers of unspoken expectations and biases while striving to remain true to oneself and succeed professionally. The double bind for women of colour is where they encounter conflicting demands or expectations that place them in a no-win situation. Here are some ways this shows up - 🎤 Assertiveness vs. Likability: there is a risk of being perceived as aggressive or abrasive. This can sometimes lead to unfair backlash that other colleagues may not face. On the other hand, if one chooses to be more reserved to avoid negative perceptions, they may seem to struggle showcasing their leadership qualities. 🎤 Professionalism vs. Authenticity: Bringing your 'whole selves' to work and highlighting cultural identities is encouraged, but this can sometimes result in facing microaggressions, tokenism or feeling like one doesn't quite fit in with the company's culture. On the flip side, downplaying cultural identity to fit in may leave them feeling disconnected and inauthentic, impacting their job satisfaction and performance. 🎤 Competence vs. Approachability: In a predominantly white or male-dominated work environment, the pressure to prove competence while also being approachable can be overwhelming. While showcasing high competence is essential, it can inadvertently intimidate colleagues (aka tall poppy syndrome) and lead to social isolation. On the other hand, focusing on being approachable and accommodating may undervalue their competence, causing them to miss out on career opportunities. 🎤 Diversity Advocate vs. Professional Identity: women of color are often expected to take on this role (often unpaid) in the workplace. This can sometimes overshadow their professional skills and career aspirations. Striking a balance between advocating for diversity and focusing on their career path can be a difficult task, as they may face criticism for not fully embracing the role. 🎤 Visibility vs. Scrutiny: The yardstick is not the same for women in leadership! While being visible is important for serving as role models, it can also subject them to higher levels of scrutiny and criticism compared to their peers. This increased scrutiny may lead them to avoid visibility, resulting in missed opportunities for career advancement. Have you faced similar experiences? How did you navigate the same? #GenderEquality #Inclusion #genderEquity #InclusionAtWork #InclusiveWorkplaces #DoubleBind #WomenOfColour

For years, I tried desperately to fit in at work. And yet, I was repeatedly branded as too aggressive, too assertive, and just... “too much.” One manager even called me a “bulldozer” — publicly, in front of dozens of people. The unspoken rules were clear. I needed to: ✅ Tone it down ✅ Be more positive ✅ Smile more and say less So, I tried to play by the rules… I held back in meetings. I suppressed my emotions. I smiled and nodded, even when I disagreed. And you know what? I was TERRIBLE at it. I tried and failed, over and over again, to fit the mold. I became a watered down version of myself that I barely recognized, and I still wasn't meeting their expectations and manufactured standards. The whole thing left me anxious, stressed, and depleted. It wasn’t until years later that I realized I was practicing something called self-shielding—the act of suppressing or toning down your true self to conform to others' expectations, often to avoid criticism or rejection. And here’s the kicker: Self-shielding is WAY more common (and destructive) for women. We’re told to be assertive, but not too assertive. Ambitious, but not too ambitious. Strong, but always with a smile. And so, we self-shield. We mute our brilliance, dilute our opinions, and shrink our presence to make others comfortable — often with disastrous results. Here’s the deal, friends...   No matter how much I edited myself, it was never enough, because I was chasing an impossible goal. I was trying to find a version of me that didn’t exist. I was trying to be enough FOR THEM, but I needed to be enough FOR ME. I needed the courage to bring the full force of who I was to the table—mindfully, authentically, and unapologetically. Even if it made others uncomfortable. So to all the women out there who have been told they’re “too much” at work: ✴️ Reclaim Your Narrative: Don’t apologize for being passionate or assertive. Embrace and celebrate what makes you exceptional. ✴️ Redefine Success on Your Terms: Be enough for yourself first. Align with your values, not others’ expectations or standards. ✴️ Find Your People: Build a community that celebrates your greatness and lifts you up, no matter what. You deserve to be surrounded by people who see your “too much” as just right. You got this. I’m cheering for you. 🎉 ***************************** Hi, I'm Sarah 👋 I help leaders and organizations live and work at their best. Follow me for more honest stories and reflections about life, leadership, and the land as I attempt to navigate the swirl. #womenleaders #womenatwork #selfshielding #leadershipcoach #autheticityatwork #changingwork

If you think gender work is just about workshops and awareness-raising… read this. Because what we’re up against isn’t a lack of information, it’s entrenched power. This isn’t just another gender checklist. It’s a step-by-step guide for reshaping how we design, implement, and evaluate programmes, so they stop reinforcing inequality and start shifting it. What you’ll find inside: ✔️ Concrete tools anchored in feminist principles like the TLWR framework and gender power analysis methods. ✔️ Step-by-step guidance with real-world examples from Senegal, Nepal, Cuba, Ethiopia, and Myanmar. ✔️ Intersectionality is addressed. It tackles how race, class, age, sexuality, and disability intersect with gender. ✔️ Clear distinctions between gender-aware, gender-sensitive, and gender-transformative programming so you can assess where you are and what it takes to move further. ✔️ A roadmap to reshape your Theory of Change to focus on shifting power, not just increasing participation. ✔️ Practices that move beyond quotas and representation to actually change norms, policies, and institutional structures. 💾 Well worth saving this post 🙂 Follow me for similar content #GenderTransformative

I was shocked when I realized the greatest challenge to closing the economic gender gap in Africa. And I think it's important everyone learns about it as well. Here goes: The greatest challenge to closing the gender gap, and why it is estimated that it will take more than 150 years to close the gap in Africa, is the significant perception vs. reality gap. Let me explain: According to research by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) & United Nations Global Compact, who surveyed 4000 men and women across Africa, they found that more than 50% of men and women in Sub-Saharan Africa believe that there is gender parity and/or women are ahead in their country when it comes to various indicators, including equal pay for work of equal value. Ironically, about 40% of the same men and women surveyed believe that men are better leaders than women in analytical and technical skills as well as leadership abilities. In reality however, even though women in Sub-Saharan Africa have higher rates of participation (54%) in the economy than global averages, 90% of them work informally, predominantly in low-skilled jobs, given their historical gap in access to education. They hold only nearly a quarter of management positions, with only 16% of CEO/MD positions held by women. And though this rate has been growing over the past 20 years, with the current rate, it is estimated that it will take more than 150 years to close the gender gap on the continent. So, the question now is what needs to be done? We all need to play our part in addressing the barriers that hold women back: - Every business needs policies against discrimination and harassment. - Flexible options like remote work and flexible hours are essential for working parents and women. - Training staff on gender equality and offering skills training for women are smart investments. - Programs such as financial literacy and business mentorship are crucial for female entrepreneurs and the self-employed. - Providing better access to financial products is vital for entrepreneurs and should be prioritized by banks and other businesses. - Equal pay and benefits, along with better parental leave and caregiving support, are important goals. Women's participation in the economy greatly boosts a country's productivity and can significantly increase GDP—by up to 50% in Africa—thanks to the added workforce and the benefits of gender diversity. The study authored by Qahir Dhanani and team (Sanda Ojiambo, Tolulope Lewis Tamoka, Lina Al Qaddoumi, Zineb Sqalli, Natasha Lendich, Maxime Kpangbai) also revealed a fascinating trend: women-led startups deliver a whopping 10% higher ROI. And that's not all! It also suggested that income earned by women has a significantly greater impact on communities compared to income earned by men. These findings highlight the incredible potential of bridging the economic gender gap.

Can Men Be Both Allies and Obstacles in Norm-Shifting Efforts? Kenya’s Deep Dive Says: Yes. Men are increasingly recruited as allies in gender equality programs—and rightly so. Engaging men and boys is essential to shifting the norms that perpetuate inequality. But the soon-to-be-published Kenya Deep Dive, the in-country exploration that accompanied "The State of the Evidence: Effects of Social Norms on Health and Livelihood Outcomes for Adolescent Girls and Young Women", complicates this narrative in all the right ways. It shows that men can be powerful partners in change—and, at the same time, unwitting gatekeepers who sustain the very norms we’re trying to dismantle. This is the beauty of having global Evidence Review findings tested in real world contexts. Allyship Is Powerful—But Conditional In Kenya, several programs successfully engaged men in parenting, contraception access, and community advocacy. These efforts reframed masculinity to include caregiving, emotional openness, and shared decision-making. Many men reported personal growth and a shift in how they viewed gender roles. But here’s the catch: allyship often stopped short of challenging power. Men supported women’s education, yet retained the final say at home. They promoted reproductive health—but only within “responsible” family structures they defined. Some male champions advocated for girls’ protection—while still reinforcing control over the terms of that protection. Control Repackaged as Care? Visible progress can sometimes obscure deeper continuity in patriarchal roles. The Kenya Deep Dive shows how narratives like “protecting our women” can sound empowering—while quietly reasserting male dominance. Is it patriarchy in protective packaging? And this isn’t just theoretical. Programs that don’t confront this dynamic risk reinforcing the very norms they aim to shift. What Does This Mean for Program Design? We need to engage men not just as “helpers,” but as subjects of transformation. That means: - Challenging the social rewards tied to dominance and emotional stoicism - Moving beyond inclusion toward accountability and co-creation - Making space for men to process and question their own privilege—not just support others The Promise and the Pitfalls The Kenya Deep Dive doesn’t argue against engaging men. It argues for engaging them better—with nuance, honesty, and structural awareness. Because men can be allies. But if we don’t interrogate the terms of that allyship, they may also remain obstacles. #GenderNorms #Masculinity #MenAndBoys #GenderEquity #NormShifting #Kenya #SocialChange #Intersectionality #Development Center on Gender Equity and Health at UC San Diego Hunter Davis, MPH Rebecka Lundgren Courtney J. McLarnon Dr . Stellah Wairimu Bosire

Starting out the year with a read of the OECD - OCDE Development Finance for Gender Equality 2024 report - an unprecedented overview of international development finance, aid and beyond, and the extent to which it advances gender equality. The report reveals that: 🚨 The share of ODA with gender equality objectives has dropped to 42% - a worrying decrease from 45% in 2019-20. Of the 32 DAC members, 20 focused less on gender equality in 2021-22 than in 2019-20. 🚨 While DAC members’ volume of humanitarian aid has grown, its gender equality focus has dropped to only 17%. This is especially alarming in major crises, where only 32% of ODA to Afghanistan, 29% to Yemen and 11% to Ukraine integrated gender equality objectives in 2021-22. 🚨 Funding to women's rights organizations and feminist movements for their effectiveness, influence, and sustainability remains persistently under 1% of already limited ODA for gender equality. As we march ahead into 2025 towards #Beijing30 and #FFD4, we must act collectively and decisively to reverse these trends. Read the report here: https://lnkd.in/gJBjY3Fh #FFD4 #GenderEquality #InvestInWomen #OECDDevelopment Lisa Eveline Williams

"THE UNWRITTEN RULEBOOK: HOW UK CORPORATE CULTURE KEEPS BLACK WOMEN ON THE OUTSIDE" The most dangerous barriers aren't the ones written in company policy. They're the ones embedded in "culture." In UK corporate spaces, Black women leaders face a shadow curriculum: • Learn to make jokes, but never about race • Build relationships, but not too close • Join after-work drinks, but don't decline too often • Speak confidently, but never be "aggressive" • Share your perspective, but don't make anyone uncomfortable • Stand out enough to be noticed, but never enough to threaten These unwritten rules are: INVISIBLE to those who naturally fit them EXHAUSTING for those who must constantly decode them CAREER-DEFINING for those who fail to master them The true cost isn't just the mental labour of constant translation. It's the erosion of authenticity, the suppression of truth, the constant calculation of risk. Every gesture requires strategic thought: Is this hairstyle "too ethnic" for Tuesday's board meeting? Will my accent mark me as an outsider in today's presentation? Will challenging that microaggression cost me my promotion? Is that joke about my background "banter" I should tolerate? When we say "corporate culture," what we mean is: "The unspoken agreement to center whiteness as professional" Black women are forced to become cultural anthropologists just to survive—studying, adapting, and performing norms designed specifically to exclude them. 📢 The Black Woman's Rest Revolution refuses this impossible standard 📢 ✨ Black women therapists who understand cultural code-switching ✨ Healing circles for processing authenticity fatigue ✨ Expert guidance through corporate culture navigation ✨ Global sisterhood that honours your whole self Limited spots available for our next healing circle JOIN TODAY: [Link in comments] #UnwrittenRules #CorporateCulture #RestIsRevolution P.S. I help Black women heal from workplace abuse & racial trauma through revolutionary rest.