The Tension Nobody Wants to Acknowledge

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Three words that every modern corporation takes seriously. DEI policies are developed with care, reviewed by legal teams, communicated to all employees, and displayed proudly on company websites and annual reports. And rightly so. These principles represent some of the most important progress workplaces have made in recent decades.

But here is a tension that very few people are willing to talk about. What happens when the desire to create a “safe space” for one group of employees leads to a decision that discriminates against a professional based on their gender? What happens when DEI, in practice, contradicts DEI in principle?

This is exactly what happens when a company specifies that a self-defense instructor for women must be female.

The “Safe Space” That Is Not as Safe as You Think

The concept of a safe space has real value. In therapy, in support groups, in certain clinical contexts, creating an environment where people feel psychologically secure is essential for healing and growth. Nobody disputes that.

But self-defense training is not therapy. It is not a support group. It is preparation for some of the most unsafe situations a person can face. And when we prioritise making the training feel safe over making the training actually effective, we are doing participants a disservice.

Consider what we are actually communicating when we say, “We removed the male instructor so you would feel more comfortable.” We are saying:

• A male professional presence is something you need to be protected from.
• Your discomfort around men is something to be accommodated, not addressed.
• Your insecurities are valid reasons to limit your training experience.
• Comfort matters more than capability.

Every single one of these messages reinforces the exact vulnerabilities that criminals exploit. A criminal counts on a woman being uncomfortable around male aggression. A criminal counts on her freezing instead of acting. A criminal counts on her never having practised engaging with a threatening male presence.

A training environment that removes all male presence does not challenge these vulnerabilities. It deepens them.

“A safe space in self-defense training is not a room without men. It is a room where a woman learns that she can face a man, face a threat, face her own fear, and still act. That is the only safe space that translates to the real world.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

When DEI Policies Contradict DEI Decisions

Most corporate DEI policies include language along these lines:

• We do not discriminate based on gender in hiring, engagement, or procurement.
• We evaluate professionals based on merit, competence, and qualifications.
• We reject gender stereotypes and work to create an inclusive environment.
• We believe in equal opportunity for all.

Now read those principles again, and then read this procurement requirement: “We need a female self-defense instructor for our women’s workshop.”

Do you see the conflict? The company’s own stated values say that gender should not be a factor in professional engagement. But the procurement decision makes gender the primary factor. The policy says evaluate based on merit. The practice says evaluate based on sex.

This is not a minor inconsistency. It is a fundamental contradiction between what a company says it believes and what it actually does. And in the world of corporate governance, consistency between policy and practice is not optional. It is the entire point.

Legal Frameworks That Reinforce This Point

• Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution establish equality, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity as foundational rights. These principles inform corporate governance standards and procurement practices.
• The POSH Act, 2013 mandates awareness and training programs but does not specify the gender of trainers. The Act’s focus is on quality and effectiveness, not on the gender of the service provider.
• SEBI corporate governance guidelines expect companies to maintain fair and non-discriminatory practices across all operations, including vendor and service provider engagement.
• ILO Convention No. 111 and CEDAW, both ratified by India, prohibit gender-based discrimination in employment and occupation and call for the elimination of gender stereotyping.

The Deeper Problem: We Keep Losing Focus on What Matters

Here is something I have observed over more than two decades of working in women’s safety training. The conversation keeps shifting to things that do not actually determine whether women become safer.

First, it was the victim’s dress code. Society spent years debating what women should or should not wear, as if clothing had any correlation with criminal intent. It does not. Criminals target vulnerability, not fashion.

Then it was martial arts. Companies started hiring karate and kickboxing instructors, as if teaching a spinning back kick in a two-hour workshop would prepare someone for a real assault. It does not. Crime is not a sparring match. There are no rules, no referees, and no time-outs.

Now it is the gender of the instructor. And once again, the conversation has drifted away from the only thing that actually matters: understanding crime and learning how to deal with it.

Crime does not care about the gender of your instructor. Crime does not care about your comfort zone. Crime does not care about your company’s safe space. Crime operates on its own terms, and the only defence against it is knowledge, awareness, psychological preparedness, and the ability to act under pressure.

That is what training should focus on. Everything else is a distraction.

“We have spent years discussing what women wear, what fighting style they should learn, and now what gender their teacher should be. At no point has the mainstream conversation focused on the criminal, on how crime works, on the psychology of violence, on the pre-crime signals, on the during-crime survival tactics, or on the post-crime recovery process. That is where the focus needs to be. Everything else is noise.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

The Domestic Violence Reality Check

Let me share a perspective that I think is important for every HR professional and DEI leader to consider.

According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), approximately 30% of women in India have experienced physical or sexual violence from their spouse. Domestic violence remains one of the most pervasive forms of violence against women, and in nearly every case, the perpetrator is male.

A woman living in a domestic violence situation cannot request a female version of her abuser. She cannot ask for a safe space from the person she shares a home with. She must find the knowledge, the strength, and the psychological resources to deal with a violent male presence that is part of her daily reality.

If we truly care about preparing women for the threats they actually face, then we must prepare them to engage with, assess, and respond to male aggression. Removing male presence from the training room does not prepare them. It insulates them. And insulation is not protection. It is the opposite.

“If a woman cannot even be in the same room as a male instructor who is there to help her, how will she face a male aggressor who is there to harm her? The training room is where she learns that she is stronger than her fear. Take away the challenge, and you take away the growth.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

How to Honour DEI and Still Get the Best Training

The good news is that there is no conflict between genuine DEI principles and selecting the best self-defense instructor. In fact, genuine DEI principles point you directly to the right approach:

1. Evaluate based on merit. Look at the instructor’s qualifications, methodology, experience, and track record. Not their gender.
2. Prioritise outcomes. Ask what participants will actually learn. Will they understand pre-crime awareness? Will they know how to respond during a crisis? Will they know what to do after an incident?
3. Demand psychological depth. Martial arts techniques are not self-defense. Real training addresses the freeze response, social conditioning, fear management, and decision-making under stress.
4. Apply your own standards consistently. If your DEI policy says no gender-based discrimination, apply that standard to vendor procurement as well.
5. Trust your employees. Women are professionals who navigate complex, male-dominated environments every day. They are fully capable of learning from a qualified male instructor in a professional setting. Trusting them to do so is itself an act of respect and empowerment.

A Final Reflection

DEI is not just a policy document. It is a practice. It is a commitment to treating every person, including service providers and professionals, based on what they can do, not on who they are. When we make exceptions to that commitment, even with good intentions, we weaken it.

The companies that lead on DEI are not the ones that talk about it the loudest. They are the ones that apply it the most consistently, in every meeting, every policy, every procurement email, and yes, every training workshop.

“Empowering women does not mean shielding them from the world. It means equipping them to face it. And it starts with a simple decision: choose the best instructor, not the most comfortable one. That is what empowerment looks like in practice.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph