In a display of woke stupidity Nanny, in the shape of the Minister for Women and Equalities Bridget
Phillipson, intends to ban masculine words.
They're earnestly advising employers to scrub words like "competitive", "ambitious", "dominant", and "independent"
from job adverts because these are apparently "stereotypically
masculine" and might somehow deter women from applying. The theory seems
to be that if we just neuter the language enough, we'll magically close
the gender pay gap and usher in an era of perfect equality.
This is nonsense on multiple levels.
First, it infantilises women. The implication is that adult
professional women—many of whom are already leading companies, running
departments, winning promotions, and thriving in high-stakes,
competitive environments—are so fragile that seeing the word "ambitious"
in a job advert will make them recoil in horror and scroll past. It's
the soft bigotry of low expectations dressed up as progress. Women
aren't scared off by strong adjectives; they're repelled by actual
barriers like discrimination, unequal caring responsibilities, or biased
promotion processes—not vocabulary.
Second, it misunderstands how language actually works in recruitment.
Words like "competitive" and "ambitious" describe real job demands in
many roles—sales targets, innovation under pressure, driving results in
tough markets. Stripping them out doesn't make the job less demanding;
it just makes the advert dishonest. Candidates (of any gender) arrive
expecting a collaborative knitting circle only to find a high-pressure
environment, leading to worse hires, higher turnover, and resentment all
round. Great way to "empower women at work."
Third, this isn't even original or evidence-based innovation—it's
recycled HR fluff from a decade ago that studies have repeatedly shown
has marginal (if any) impact on application rates compared to things
like flexible working, pay transparency, or blind CV processes. Yet here
we are in 2026, with a Labour government repackaging it as
groundbreaking equality policy.
The real drivers of the gender pay gap—segregated occupations,
motherhood penalties, negotiation differences, outright bias—require
structural fixes: better childcare, paternity leave uptake, transparent
pay bands, robust enforcement of equal pay laws. Not word-policing job
specs.
Instead, ministers are busy with performative gestures that cost
nothing politically (who's going to defend "masculine" words?), achieve
nothing measurable, and distract from the hard work of actual economic
reform. It's the classic Labour 2020s move: when you can't fix the
economy or public services, micromanage language and declare victory
over patriarchy.
Critics are right to call it patronising gibberish. It's not
empowering anyone—it's treating half the population like delicate
flowers who need reality softened before they'll participate in the
world of work. Meanwhile, ambitious, competitive, independent women (and
men) will just keep succeeding regardless of what some quangocrat in
the Office for Equality and Opportunity thinks their job advert should
say.
If this is the best Labour can do on workplace equality, we're in for a long five years of sanctimonious irrelevance.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by
www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Visit
Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts