An article in the Times last week stated: ‘If women want to reach the top in a man’s world, they may have to decide between femininity and success.’ The point was that a recent study into the behaviour of chimpanzee courtship had shown female apes that made themselves desirable to the male of the species were provided for – our ape relatives were effectively exchanging ‘meat for sex’.

Three decades after women burnt their bras for equality; there is a school of thought that suggests women should abandon the celebration of their feminine wiles in favour of diminishing male/female differences.  The article suggests that instead of being it all – ‘glamorous, desirable and feminine’ – women should, for progressive reasons, be more conservative in the boardroom. By having a ‘more unisex working wardrobe for women in macho workplaces’ perhaps women would achieve more in the boardroom.
With huge disparities in male/female City bonuses, recent studies into how different groups perform in relation to their perceived abilities have shown that merely highlighting a variation can cause people to underperform.  The classic case is women in science and technology.  Social scientists argue that statistics showing women achieve lower grades in Maths and Science almost cause them to do less well.  True, in single sex schools where no gender gap exists, average grades are consistently higher, but it would be short sighted to ignore the calibre of such pupils who have more than likely sat an entrance exam just to attend the school.

The argument is a curious one and goes against the grain of years of marches and demonstrations for women’s lib.  I for one believe men and women alike have the ability to be as successful as their potential allows them, and yet you have to question why these differences exist – perhaps the article was right and ‘biology (really) is our destiny.’