What I left unsaid in my previous post was the unequal playing field in the corporate world – or indeed any world – between a man and a woman. The things I have to think about, like whether I can break the glass ceiling teetering on my stilettos, a man will never have to. The only ceiling he has to think about is the one at home.

Let’s face it. If you are tough as a man, you are a leader. If you’re tough as a woman, you’re a b****.

If you’re soft as a man, you are understanding. If you’re soft as a woman, you’re indecisive.

If you’re a demanding man, you have high standards. If you’re a demanding woman, you have low EQ.

If you go out drinking all night with your colleagues, you’re networking. If you do the same as a woman, you’re asking for it. Gossips, that is.

If a man travels often, that’s because he’s ambitious. If a woman does, she’s too ambitious. Poor husband and kids!

I recently found out, whilst following Hillary Clinton’s campaign, that there’s a term for this. It’s called the double bind. A double bind means that there are two commands to obey, but anything you do to fulfill one violates the other. The requirements of a good leader and a good man are similar, but the requirements of a good leader and a good woman tend to be mutually exclusive. A good leader must be tough, but a good woman must not. A good woman must be self-deprecating, but a good leader must not be. And so on. I call it double standards.

Why is this? I guess the simple answer is that men have dominated all the major fields – political, corporate, culinary, even fashion – for so long that the rules, spoken or otherwise, are built by them, for them. Once women started playing in these same fields, society somehow decided that not only do we have to abide by those rules, we have to be held to a different standard. Thus, we have to be tough to get things done, but not too tough as to be hard (read: unfeminine). We have to be sociable, and expand our network, but make sure we get home in time to be the great wives and mothers we are too, with not a single strand of hair out of place. We have to be decisive, but not so decisive as to dent the egos of our err.. male colleagues, as that would make us a Dragon Lady! Ooooh, God forbid!

I’ve long given up trying to understand these rules and standards. Or playing by them. According to the article, the most difficult aspect of the double bind is that it is invisible. In other words, people are not even conscious of it. It seems to me then that we will be better served by introducing our own rules to the game. Here are some of mine.

McQueen or the Queen? That’s our poison to pick. Jimmy Choo or Bata? So long as we can walk in them.

Drinking to network? No, thank you. We’d rather network with our husbands and kids. But lunches? Sure, and surely they are no less effective.

Travels? As much as needed, yes. Poor wife and mother? Let the husbands and kids be the judges, no?

What about the trickier bits? You know, to be tough AND adorable, decisive YET gentle, demanding WITH high EQ? I say sure, if they are so important, let’s ask these of everyone. Men and women. That must be the fairest approach?

Cannot do? Well then judge us solely on how well we do the job we are hired to do. Not how we look whilst doing it. Or whether we brought our maternal instincts or inner SYT to work, because really, these are reserved for our kids and partners. What do you say?