Women's Month Series | Part 2 - When “May Dating” Becomes a Qualification: On the quiet biases that shape women’s careers

There are moments in a woman’s career that do not appear in performance ratings, competency matrices, or formal feedback. They happen in side conversations. In interviews. In questions that seem casual but are not.

I have lived through a few of them. Once, after an honest conversation with a supervisor about whether I should continue applying for a higher post, I was told they were looking for someone “na may dating.” I understood what that meant. Not competence. Not track record. Not policy depth. Not decades of institutional memory.

Dating. Presence. Aura. A certain projection of authority that, in many contexts, has long been coded as masculine. It was not framed as discrimination. It was framed as fit. And that is how bias often operates—quietly, plausibly, without leaving fingerprints.

The “Presence” Standard

The phrase “may dating” is culturally loaded. It suggests gravitas. Command. An intangible authority. But we rarely interrogate what it truly means.

Is it height? Voice depth? Confidence without warmth? Decisiveness without visible hesitation?

Women who lead with firmness are labeled abrasive.
Women who lead with empathy are labeled soft.
Women who speak directly are intimidating.
Women who speak carefully are unsure.

The standard shifts—but it almost always moves.

The Motherhood Question

In an interview for a scholarship abroad, I was asked who would take care of my small children. I was also asked how young they were.

On the surface, the questions sounded practical. Responsible, even. But here is the question beneath the question: Would this woman’s family interfere with her performance?

Men are rarely asked this. Fathers are rarely asked who will take care of their children while they pursue leadership development. Their ambition is assumed to be structurally supported. A mother’s ambition is examined for logistical risk.

The bias is not always hostile. It is often protective in tone. But it still carries an assumption: that caregiving is primarily her burden.

And so women must not only prove competence—they must prove continuity of domestic stability.

The Subtle Credibility Gap

There is also the bias of age and life stage. When asked, “How young are your kids?” the underlying calculation begins: Will she be distracted? Will she travel? Will she prioritize family over work?

Yet the same life stage, in men, is framed differently: He is building his future. He is responsible. He is motivated.

The narrative shifts depending on who carries it.

The Emotional Toll of Unspoken Bias

Bias does not always slam doors. Sometimes it simply makes the hallway narrower.

You begin to question: Do I need to speak differently? Dress differently? Project differently? Downplay motherhood? Amplify toughness?

You adjust. You calibrate. You over-prepare.

And often, you succeed not because the path was equal—but because you refused to internalize the limitation. But not everyone should have to fight that hard just to stand still.

Why This Matters for Institutions

When leadership selection is shaped by undefined traits like “may dating,” institutions risk reinforcing sameness. When women are evaluated through domestic lenses that men are not subjected to, we quietly reduce our leadership pool.

Bias does not always look like exclusion. Sometimes it looks like preference. Sometimes it looks like culture. Sometimes it sounds like a harmless question. But over time, these small calibrations accumulate into systemic imbalance.

Director’s Cut

I have stayed long enough in public service to know this: Competence is measurable. Character is observable. Commitment is demonstrable.

“Dating” is subjective.

Institutions that truly value merit must be brave enough to interrogate their own definitions of leadership presence—and courageous enough to ask whether those definitions have been gendered all along.

Because when women are asked who will take care of their children before they are asked about their vision, we are not measuring readiness. We are measuring assumptions.

- Director Noreen