Introduction 

Men should have a right to moisturize. 

Workplace physical safety for employees has been recognized for many decades now and has traditionally been treated as the core component of workplace safety for employees. However, psychological and emotional wellbeing and social safety have been only more recently recognized and talked about in India.  

Sexual harassment is one such aspect which threatens both physical as well as mental safety, thereby directly undermining workplace safety for employees. To fully understand the root cause of sexual harassment, it is important that we have a grasp at ‘Patriarchy’ⁱ.

This system runs and thrives through social control, that is enforced through misogynyⁱⁱ, a set of hostile attitudes toward women. This mechanism ensures patriarchy polices and penalises women who do not conform to its expectations.  

The modern-day workplace experience of ‘Patriarchy’ is often subtle, yet it exists, making its all-pervasive presence known through acts like gatekeeping, stereotyping, shaming and reinforcing the glass ceiling.  

This article is an attempt to put the spotlight on this subtle presence, with the intention to demonstrate how Patriarchy affects all people, not just women. It establishes how employees’ rights are curtailed due to these social structures.  

It draws on a metaphor, as to how taking care of one’s skin is conventionally given a feminine arc and does not conform to the perceived notion of masculinity within the Patriarchal structure.  

But everyone should have a right to moisturize. 

The metaphor may be crude, but it points to something real: though some sections of men have progressed to see skincare and beauty as human practices and not merely a “feminine” trait, it is not the reality for the larger population.  

A majority of men, even today, do not believe in the need to moisturise, deeming it unnecessary and frivolous – reinforcing a culture in which care and embodiment are devalued. Thus, restricting everyone’s right to freely moisturize, without judgment. 

While thinking about this article, we engaged in informal discussions with colleagues across diverse backgrounds. The perspectives and experiences shared through these conversations are reflected collectively in the themes discussed. Though these accounts do not constitute a study, they provide valuable contextual insight into the lived experiences that shape everyday interactions within contemporary work environments. 

Mapping the Gatekeeping Tendencies of Patriarchy 

 
“Are you planning on getting married?”
 
~ Question asked to women at professional interviews – workplace and Ph D interviews as well (reported experiences of multiple women)
 

Patriarchy enables power, authority and legitimacy to be disproportionately distributed to men, this also includes more men in the hiring structure. It has been observedⁱⁱⁱ that even gaining an entry point into workspaces has been difficult for women and other marginalized identities under this structure.  

In our conversations, we reflected on how women are often not hired because of perceived “inconveniences.” One common misconception is that women are less ambitious or less committed to their careers and will leave work once they marry. Another is the idea that granting maternity leave is a “problem,” rather than recognising it as a basic workplace right. 

Another interesting take on entry ways is the collective LinkedIn’s experiment^iv that showed that when users changed their gender and “bro-coded” (catering to algorithmic in-built sexism) their profiles to match dominant masculine norms, they saw a sharp increase in visibility. 

This experiment clearly demonstrates that anyone of any gender, who does not fit into this mould envisaged by the hiring structure would be less likely to be hired. It is hence proposed that ‘Bro-coding’ is also a form of patriarchy which disenfranchises all employees, not just women. These practices affect employees’ rights to equal opportunity and to livelihood both of which are foundational to workplace safety for employees.  

The question, therefore, arises that who even gets access to the bottle of moisturizer? 

We see this also in the approach towards maternity benefits and parental roles. Women’s competence is often questioned after motherhood, with commitment and leadership potential being doubted regardless of performance. Expectations of returning mothers are high, as are the stakes. Maternal bias allows stereotypes to override merit, pushing women out of advancement pathways. 

At the same time, organisational policies frequently erase and diminish fathers’ roles by treating caregiving as women’s work. When benefits like crèche access or caregiving leave are limited to women, men are denied the right to be recognised as equal caregivers, reinforcing unequal parenting roles and workplace exclusion for all parents. 

We must recognize that fathers need to moisturize too.  

Analyzing Patriarchy as a Structural Risk Factor in Workplace Safety

“And this is why I always say that women don’t belong here – this industry is for men. We wouldn’t need this POSH and all, if they stayed home.”
 
~ Experience or a female trainer during a POSH training session, while discussing challenges and vulnerabilities of women at work.

Organisational hierarchies frequently mirror patriarchal arrangements, where patriarchal men occupy the highest rungs of the organizational ladder. Therefore, the safety structure is built around an assumed ‘average’ cis-hetero male norm shaping what is the ‘standard’ in workplace safety for employees.  

Cars, safety equipment, uniforms, AC temperatures, ergonomic chairs, desks, sometimes even toilets are designed keeping this standard in mind^v.  

What if one does not meet this “average” criterion?  

What if one is shorter than the average, do short people need ergonomic chairs? Do short people need to moisturize?  

Lack of awareness of different needs – of the spectrum of identity and their unique requirements leads to the absence of basic provisions – a sick room or basic amenities to facilitate breastfeeding. For example, in an incident brought to our attention, one of the employees in an organization did write to the IC about the need for room for pumping milk, in the absence of the same, she as a returning mother was forced to pump in employee washrooms.  

Power asymmetries are often very normalized and internalized, which is evidenced from the pregnancy car parking example dealt by Criado Perez^vi showing how parking spaces are designed around assumptions of full physical agility. Pregnant women are therefore assigned standard spaces, despite pregnancy affecting balance, reaction time, mobility, and the ability to safely enter and exit vehicles requiring pregnancy parking to be wider and located closer to buildings with restroom access. 

It took Sheryl Sandberg’s pregnancy while she was a senior leader at Google to make this bias visible—because before her, there were no women, let alone pregnant women, in the rooms where these design decisions were made. 

For leaders, it’s vital to recognise that when power hierarchies go unchallenged, even seemingly ‘minor’ sexist acts can escalate into serious threats to workplace safety, as harassment becomes a tool for asserting power. 

Everyone should have access to moisturizers that recognize their specific skin needs. 

Misogyny and Patriarchal Policing at Work: 

“Wow, you’re so awesome. Not a typical woman. Love hanging out with you”
 
“She got hired because of her Facebook DP.”
 
“Are you sure you didn’t misunderstand?”
 
“It’s okay you don’t need to connect now. Go spend time with your husband”
 
~ Sexist statements reported by several women in our experiences, including during POSH processes.

Statements like the above are examples of micro-aggressions which are subtle, often unintentional, everyday comment or action that communicates a derogatory, dismissive, or exclusionary message toward a marginalized group^vii.  

Micro-aggressions along with the normalization of sexist humour, trivialization of complaints, and even benevolent sexism (attitudes toward women that seem positive or protective but indirectly reinforce traditional gender roles and gender inequality) stem from Misogyny and build problematic patriarchal workplace norms. 

It is important to recognize misogyny and curb it at the bud. Sexism isn’t normalized overnight; it becomes familiar over time. What begins as an “exception” can easily become something we learn to tolerate- making it harder for people to identify problematic behaviour and address it, even if redressal systems are in place.  

For example, in one of the Sexual Harassment complaints we have received, the complainant Ms. P^viii shared her performance was undermined by male colleagues who claimed her success came from “favouritism,” not merit. Rumours painted her as “too ambitious” and as using “charm” to get ahead. At a client dinner, a senior manager made inappropriate remarks about her appearance and told her to be “more accommodating.” When she reported it, her team lead dismissed it as a “harmless joke.” 

This shows how misogyny enables sexual harassment: ambition in a woman was mocked and sexualised, while the same trait in men is often valued. Her competence was reframed as manipulation, creating a culture where disrespect—and eventually harassment—felt normal and was acceptable. 

These responses also invalidate the experiences of an employee facing sexual harassment, linked instead to ‘perceived slights’ or exaggerations or even misunderstandings, rendering workplace safety mechanisms in danger of becoming procedural formalities rather than tools of protection.  

Patriarchal policing further reinforces these norms by regulating behaviour, appearance, and expression. For example, Women are more often subjected to a dress-code but not men^ix. For example, several institutions require women teachers to wear sarees, as it is ‘more dignified’, but men had zero dress code requirements.  

In the aviation industry, there are strict gendered grooming rules for women cabin crew including mandating makeup, specific hairstyles, heel height, and body standards. Men face far fewer controls. 

Patriarchal policing works through constant scrutiny of women’s appearance, shaping who is seen as credible and who must conform to be accepted. Women’s bodies and presentation are regulated in the name of “professionalism,” prioritising visibility and compliance over autonomy. 

At the same time, feminine coded traits are stigmatised, pushing everyone regardless of gender to limit their autonomy and self-regulate their behaviour in both appearance and communication. 

We also note reported experiences of adult women teachers who used the Hostel facilities, in some universities, still having to take ‘permission from their guardians’ for overnight outside stay, whereas, the Gents Hostels had no curfews whatsoever.  

In order to assert their autonomy, they had to eventually resort to living outside the campus premises, thereby spending unnecessarily on commute and other living related expenses.  

One must reflect: can autonomy and self-expression truly exist in workplaces where patriarchal norms continue to police bodies, behaviour, and ambition even under the guise of protection? 

Can one dictate who is ‘allowed’ to moisturize and how? 

Patriarchy Within POSH Implementation 

Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan^x was a progressive piece of judicial activism which ultimately led to the enactment of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. However, it is to be noted that the effectiveness of the POSH framework is often undermined by patriarchal organizational structures, weakening its role in ensuring workplace safety for employees. IC may replicate organizational hierarchies. Tokenistic trainings may take place. Bias may creep in, in inquiries. Priority may be given to the organizational reputation rather than the ‘discomfort’ of the Complainant. 

Let’s look at a case study, based on our experience as external members:  

A junior female employee, visibly distressed but determined to present her case, files a sexual harassment complaint against a reputed senior male manager and accuses him of passing inappropriate comments and unwelcome physical touch. One of the IC members who is a senior HR representative, known for his conservative views repeatedly frames the Complainant’s testimony as “misunderstood friendliness” rather than a case of harassment at workplace. He emphasises on the Respondent’s long service record and contributions to the company, and thereby subtly suggest to the IC that punishing him would damage the reputation of the company.  

In this case study, we find an example of leadership response that invalidates an employee’s experience or complaint due to bias. Such bias compromises the principles of natural justice, risks invalidating the inquiry, and exposes the employer to liability for failing to provide a safe workplace.  

The Complainant’s testimony must be assessed on its merits, free from prejudice or irrelevant considerations, and the IC should ensure neutrality, confidentiality, and protection against retaliation to uphold compliance and safeguard employee rights. 

Per our past experience, we also see that retention of the complainant as an employee may require a nuanced approach even if the case goes in her favour owing to the psychosocial impact of the incident of sexual harassment, the response of those who are aware of the incident and subsequent impact to workplace environment.  

True effectiveness of POSH implementation requires moving beyond procedural compliance to address structural power imbalances and ensure survivor-centric implementation.  

Everyone should have a right not just to surface level moisturization, but to deep hydration as well. 

Supporting Effective Implementation of Law and policy: Transforming workspaces 

Everyone bears the brunt of Patriarchy, everyone’s skin needs moisturization. 

The Vishakaha judgment along with the POSH law holds the potential to act as a robust mechanism for securing workplace safety for employees and employees’ rights. However, its transformative potential depends on sincere implementation and cultural change. Patriarchy does not harm only one gender. It polices masculinity, restricts emotional expression, assigns caregiving as exclusively feminine labour, and denies all genders the right to nurture, to care, and indeed, to moisturize. POSH law must not only be viewed as a checklist, but it should ideally function as a transformative instrument. It should be able to fight the demons of power asymmetries and misogynistic practices. POSH Law must be empowered enough to provide the lens to view the workplace as place of dignity, autonomy, and equality. Only by dismantling the existing societal patriarchal foundations which normalise exclusion and silence can workplace safety mechanisms truly function as tools of protection.  

Because ultimately, everyone deserves equal rights at work 

—  and everyone deserves the right to moisturize however they want. 

Written by Delhi Chandana & Vasantha Kotagiri, supported by Rosanna Rodrigues