The Stage vs. The Backstage

International Women’s Day has become one of the most widely celebrated occasions in the corporate world. Companies host keynote sessions. They share stories of women leaders. They run campaigns with hashtags about breaking barriers, shattering glass ceilings, and choosing equality.

On stage, the message is clear: women are equal. Women are capable. Women deserve the same opportunities as men.

But behind the scenes, in the procurement emails and vendor selection meetings, a different kind of decision is often being made. A decision that says: “For the women’s self-defense workshop, we need a female instructor only.”

This is the gap between what we say and what we do. And I believe it is worth closing. Not with criticism, but with conversation.

Why This Matters More Than You Might Think

Some might feel that this is a small issue. After all, the company is just trying to make women comfortable. What is the harm?

The harm is subtle, but it is real. And it operates on multiple levels.

It Reinforces Gender Stereotypes

The assumption behind the request is that women cannot learn effectively from a man, or that a male professional presence is inherently uncomfortable for women. This is a gender stereotype. The same kind of stereotype that Women’s Day celebrations aim to dismantle.

It Undermines Women’s Perceived Strength

By shielding women from a male instructor in a controlled, professional environment, the implicit message is: you are not strong enough to handle this. For a training program that is supposed to build strength and resilience, this is a contradictory starting point.

It Prioritises Comfort Over Capability

Crime does not offer comfortable conditions. The entire purpose of self-defense training is to prepare women for uncomfortable, frightening, and high-stress situations. If the training itself is designed to avoid all discomfort, it fails at its primary objective.

It Creates a Legal and Policy Inconsistency

As I will outline below, specifying the gender of a trainer when gender is not a genuine occupational requirement creates conflicts with multiple legal frameworks and with most companies’ own internal policies.

The Laws and Frameworks Being Violated

Let me lay these out clearly. This is not legal advice, but it is important awareness for any corporate decision-maker.

Constitutional Provisions

Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15(1) (prohibition of sex-based discrimination), and Article 16 (equality of opportunity in employment) collectively establish that gender should not be used as a basis for exclusion unless there is a genuine, justifiable reason.

POSH Act, 2013

The Act mandates workplace safety training but does not specify the gender of the trainer. The Act’s core purpose is to eliminate gender-based bias and stereotyping, which means requiring a gender-specific trainer actually works against the Act’s objectives.

BFOQ Standards

Bona Fide Occupational Qualification allows gender-based requirements only when gender is essential to the job. Teaching self-defense, which requires knowledge, communication skills, and subject matter expertise, does not qualify. A male surgeon operates on female patients. A female advocate represents male accused. Professional competence is not gendered.

DEI Policies

Most corporate DEI policies state, in clear terms, that the organisation does not discriminate based on gender in hiring, engagement, or service procurement. Specifying a gender requirement for a trainer contradicts these policies on their face.

Equal Remuneration Act and Code on Wages

Both prohibit gender-based discrimination in recruitment for the same or similar work.

Companies Act, 2013 and SEBI Standards

Corporate governance norms require fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination in all business operations, including procurement.

International Frameworks

• ILO Convention No. 111 (Discrimination in Employment): Prohibits sex-based discrimination. India has ratified this.
• CEDAW (Elimination of Discrimination Against Women): Targets gender stereotyping. Requiring a female instructor based on comfort assumptions is a textbook example of stereotyping. India has ratified this.
• UN SDG 5 (Gender Equality): Calls for equal opportunities and the end of all forms of discrimination.
• ESG Standards: The Social pillar covers non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and fair procurement practices.
• UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Expects businesses to respect the right to non-discrimination.
• Title VII, U.S. Civil Rights Act, 1964: For companies with U.S. operations or clients, gender-based employment discrimination is prohibited with only narrow BFOQ exceptions.

“When a company specifies that only a woman can teach self-defense, they are making a gender-based employment decision. Now, take that same decision and apply it to any other role in the company. Would you specify gender for hiring a project manager? A consultant? A trainer on leadership? If the answer is no, then why is it acceptable here? The answer is: it is not.”

Read Franklin Joseph Corporate Women Empowerment / Self Defense ArticlesCall 9886769281 for Corporate Workshops

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

The Three Phases of Misdirection

I have been working in personal safety and crime psychology for decades, and I have watched the public conversation around women’s self-defense go through three distinct phases. Each phase had good energy behind it. But each phase also missed the point.

Phase One: Blame the Victim. What was she wearing? Why was she out late? Why did she take that route? The focus was entirely on the woman’s choices, as if she had somehow caused the crime. Society has thankfully moved beyond this in most professional spaces.

Phase Two: Teach Martial Arts. The pendulum swung from blaming the victim to training the victim. But the training was almost entirely physical: karate, kickboxing, Krav Maga. The assumption was that if women could fight, they would be safe. The problem? Martial arts and self-defense are fundamentally different. Martial arts is a sport with rules, referees, and controlled environments. Crime has none of those things. Most martial arts programs do not address the psychology of crime, the freeze response, de-escalation, escape strategies, or post-incident recovery.

Phase Three: Hire a Female Instructor. Now the focus has shifted again. Not to the content of the training, not to the methodology, not to the instructor’s expertise in crime psychology, but to the instructor’s gender. Once again, we are looking at a surface-level attribute instead of looking at the core issue: how to actually prepare women for real crime situations.

At every phase, the conversation has been about everything except the crime. And the crime is the only thing that should matter.

Read Franklin Joseph Corporate Women Empowerment / Self Defense ArticlesCall 9886769281 for Corporate Workshops

“First we blamed her clothes. Then we taught her martial arts. Now we are debating the gender of her instructor. At what point do we actually start focusing on the crime? Because the criminal is not waiting for us to sort out our priorities.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

What Would Actually Honour Women’s Day

If corporates want to genuinely honour the spirit of International Women’s Day through their self-defense workshops, here is what I would suggest.

Choose the best trainer, period. Evaluate based on expertise in crime psychology, real-world experience, training methodology, client feedback, and the ability to address psychological barriers. Not based on gender.

Demand comprehensive training. Pre-crime awareness. During-crime response. Post-crime recovery. All three. If your workshop only covers physical techniques, it is leaving your employees unprepared for the reality of how crime works.

Challenge your employees respectfully. The point of self-defense training is to take women out of their comfort zones in a safe, supportive way. Not to keep them inside those zones. Growth happens at the edges, not in the centre.

Walk the talk. If your Women’s Day celebration is about equality, then your training procurement should reflect equality too. No gender filters. No stereotyped assumptions. Just merit-based decisions.

Closing Thought

This is not about guilt. It is not about blame. It is about alignment. About making sure that the values you celebrate on March 8th are the same values you practise on March 9th, and every other day of the year.

Women deserve the best self-defense training available. And the best training comes from the most qualified instructor, not the most gender-appropriate one.

“Honour women by believing in their strength. Not by designing the world to protect them from challenges they are fully capable of handling. The strongest thing you can do for a woman is to stop assuming she is weak.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph