Can the Rise of Women-Only Models Truly Advance Gender Equality?
In recent years, I have seen the rise of so many female-only locations and businesses, ranging from female-only gyms and restaurants to tech companies and investment firms.
One of my favorite and most compelling examples of pioneers in this field include Attorney Kathleen Martinez, a female attorney who was judged and not taken seriously because of her femininity. Despite her expertise and rich experiences, she was still mocked for her long blonde hair and pink clothing. Rather than conform, she took a different path: she founded her own law firm, built entirely around empowering women and reclaiming traditionally stigmatized expressions of femininity in the legal world.
Martinez is not alone. There are many more examples of brave individuals who transformed personal frustration into institutional change. Women are audaciously carving out safe spaces for women in the absence of gender oppression—nourishing environments to thrive, lead and be taken seriously in their own terms.
However, with the multiplication of women-only models, a pressing question appears: can gender-separation really advance gender equality or does it only exacerbate the problem by reinforcing the divisions we hope to overcome? My personal take on this is that although this model does offer some sort of relief and empowerment in the short term, a structural change and engagement with broader systems of power would be the wiser solution in the long term. Here’s the reason why:
What Is the Single-Sex Model?
The women-only model, a branch of the single-sex model, is not unique to the world. In simple terms, it basically is just businesses, schools, platforms, organizations, or spaces exclusively for women. Personally, as someone who goes to an all-girls high school right beside an all-girls college, I have very first-hand experiences with this structure.
We are often educated to exemplify female leadership, to speak boldly in class, and to take initiative without fear of being overshadowed by louder male voices. And, honestly, I agree with it and I totally get it. In a historical context, the construction of all-girls schools in the 19th century was the only way to offer women a chance of education at a time when they were denied access to mainstream co-ed educational institutions. Nowadays, going to an all-girls school also means having relatively less gender-initiated pressure as one matures and develops while being provided more opportunities to pursue academic and extracurricular endeavors without gender stereotypes. The same applies to other single-sex institutions and the appeal is apparent: to create solidarity, mentorship, safety and escape from male-dominated structures.
Why Do We Embrace It?
The advantages of being in a female-dominated environment or institution has also been statistically proven. Numerous studies have shown that graduates from all-girls’ schools are more likely to be academically confident than those from co-ed schools. Research has also found that women are 2.5 times more likely to land positions of higher authority when their inner circles are women-dominated.
The philosophy behind this phenomenon might be pretty expected: study shows that women communicate and establish connections differently from men: the former focuses on building rapport and the latter focuses on status. These differences in net-working styles helps explain why female-dominated environments would often offer more support systems with collaborative dynamics.
This aspect is also extremely critical in fields where women are historically underrepresented. Female-only spaces have given women countless opportunities, mentorship and communities that would have been denied to otherwise in traditional settings. These spaces often serve as an incubator for professional development. Many women who start in these spaces leave with the necessary tools to confront inequality in broader arenas.
Critiques of the Model
As someone who has been nourished by such a model and learnt to thrive in it, I completely agree with its advantages and positive implications it will have on the people who embrace it. It is safe, supportive and offers guaranteed guidance. However, I also believe that this structure can only serve as a temporary response to gender inequality instead of a long term solution.
While these models may act as a good launchpad for women to gain opportunities, it is also at risk of pushing the female population further and further away from the mainstream systems— afterall, its existence is valid proof for the inability of the society to accommodate women equitably. Relying on separation will not fully transform the social structure that is perpetuating inequality. Instead, it agrees to some extent — women are not at full competence and must exit the market, or in the other words, leave the main playing ground to the men.
Conclusion
But hear me out— I am not at all against women-only businesses or institutions. We need these all-girl spaces to feel more seen and heard. However, I also recognize that true gender equality cannot be achieved by separation alone.
In a sustainable society, we must value intersectionality and inclusivity. Thus, what we need beyond women-only models is structural change: a world with equitable resources, representation, treatment and salary. But before the establishment of such a society, single gender models might be the only way through. They might not be the best destination to arrive at, but a necessary mechanism along the way.
Written by: Penny Wei
