On why I now call myself a feminist… and you should, too.

When Spanish radio host Pepa Bueno asked me earlier this summer if I was a feminist, I instinctively said yes. Frankly, I said so without hesitation. Curiously, declaring myself a feminist created a wave of surprise, encouragement, some criticism, and plenty of welcomed debate.

In fact, had Pepa asked me the same question 10 years ago, I would have said no. Contrary to speculation, there was, for me, no “Road to Damascus moment.” The road to Damascus, after all, was more than 140 hot and dusty miles on foot —plenty of time for introspection.

After years of serving as an executive I’ve seen enough to know, on balance, women are not treated fairly. But I frequently heard feminism equated with the idea of setting quotas. My gut reaction was against setting quotas. I thought they can be unfair to both men and women, in some ways I still do. I don't want to blame men. I also did not wish to advantage one gender over the other. 

It is obvious that women and men are not quite the same physiologically or psychologically —although we are more similar than some think. More significant is that women are exposed to very different experiences and expectations throughout their lives. Still, I always believed women have the intrinsic abilities to get ahead on merit. Working for eight years for a US bank in New York taught me something: If I spoke up and work harder than my bosses, my efforts won't go unnoticed.

And standing up for yourself, I thought, need not only be an individualistic act. After all Poet Maya Angelou once observed, “Each time a woman stands up for herself, without knowing it possibly, without claiming it, she stands up for all women.” 

Sheryl Sandberg has most recently championed this brand of feminism in her book “Lean In”. Often, by not backing our abilities says Sandberg, women “lean out” of the competition for positions of influence and fail to climb the career ladder. This is a feminism that says, yes we can get ahead, if we work harder, speak up in meetings, push – to be able to also run our homes— for flexible working conditions for ourselves. 

It is a feminism that you can do for yourself. It does not require collective organisation, let alone identifying publicly as “feminist”. Because of this it is not directly political. Perhaps that is why many career women like myself are instinctively attracted to it. 

However, reflecting on it now my ideas towards gender equality —even ten years ago— was not simply a brand of "lean in" feminism. Even back then, I was of the opinion that yes women must be bolder to get recognised. However, at the same time, I knew that the efforts of women individually wouldn't be enough to make the change we need. Besides personal fortitude women also needed structural changes in the way work is organised if we want to have a fairer workplace. 

I have seen the need for both personal assertiveness and structural change in the companies I have worked in. Back in April 2008, more than ten years ago, when I was the president of Banesto, I gave a speech at Bilbao’s Deusto Business School in a hall packed with men. That speech put flesh on the bones of my philosophy about a fairer work environment.

The speech sketched a world where we needed both for women to act with more self-confidence, but simultaneously that we had to change our work culture —and by extension society— if we wanted fairness. Importantly, these beliefs were also reflected in my policies as leader of Banesto, Santander UK and now at Santander Group. 

In the speech, I stressed the importance of diversity in the workplace. Quoting several studies, I said having significantly higher ratios of women in the workplace is not only fair. It is also good for business. 

Women I said, besides talent, bring a different set of competencies to business that complements those of men. A keener aptitude for interpersonal communication, cooperation, horizontal thinking and listening are some. Higher average levels of empathy and a sharper sense of prioritising tasks others. Back in 2008, research already showed that in groups with a healthy mix of men and women there is better communication, an openness to new ideas and higher mutual trust between the members of the group. From this comes greater efficiency and higher performance. We all win. 

Some of this higher representation of women –especially in leadership positions– will have to be achieved by women “leaning in”. But if we value the listening and cooperating ability of some employees the answer is not always to teach them to find their inner megaphones and have sharper elbows. The answer is also to make sure those that both those (whether male or female) that are better at speaking up and those that are good at truly listening are able to contribute, so these skills are maximised within our organisations. 

It is even clearer to me today that besides attitudinal changes among women even more proactive measures are needed. An example: A Mckinsey study has for example shown that when applying for jobs, many men who apply are only 50 to 60% qualified for the job. In women, however, the percentage is very high, are at 100-120% for almost all applicants. In other words, women are less pushy and assured even when qualified. When looking for talent, one needs to have both systems that identify these women and assertiveness training that cater to how women's sensibilities are different from men's.

A key sticking point in inequality today is still the vexed issue of housework –often a woman’s second shift. Again, in my Deusto speech of 2008, I pointed to The Spanish National Health Survey of 2006. It found that in Spain, women devoted many more hours per week more to housework (13 hours more) and caring for the children (25 hours more) than men did. This is still to this day one of the biggest disparities between the genders in Europe. 

We need more institutionally sanctioned flexible working arrangements so more men can take responsibility at home with their families I said. It is difficult for women to negotiate these arrangements individually. The drive for equality is also a drive for a healthier work-life balance in the workplace for both genders. 

Results I said trump intentions: To achieve work-life balance, we must measure employees’ achievements based on what we deliver, and not on how many hours they have spent in the office. Managers have to have the ability to prioritise, organise, delegate and abandon bad habits like long work lunches and last minute meetings organised for late in the day. Employees should be able to work from home. All of these work habits are part of a culture that does not favour women. They are better addressed systemically than individually. 

Today I stand by my belief in the policy changes we affected. I am proud of the progress we made ten years ago at Banesto to make things better. I am proud of the progress and programs underway at Santander Group. 

This program is not a threat to men, rather it is an opportunity to leverage talent and skills to achieve business success and social progress.

But yet, given that back then my feminism was already more expansive than "leaning in", the question remains: What changed that before I did not publicly call myself a feminist, but now I do?

One big reason is technological change. Technology and social media specifically has shifted the debate about women dramatically. The viral #MeToo movement in response to the Harvey Weinstein allegations is the latest most spectacular example of this power of social media to reframe our debate and shift our norms. 

How did social media help do this? The writing of sociologist Zeynep Tufekci, who specialises in technology and its impact on society, comes in handy to explain how this works. In an article in the Financial Times she describes the power of activism in public. 

Hashtags, just like protest marches, have a similar characteristic she says. They let people know they are not alone. Now, we do not only know the same thing. We know that we know the same thing. This changes the calculation of risk when speaking out.  

"Historically, sexual assaulters protect themselves by inducing shame in the victim… A culture of sexual assault is often accompanied by a culture of shame around sexuality and the female body. Authoritarian governance historically prevails not just through repression but also by isolating people.” This she says leads "to a spiral of silence, as many people assume their similarly quiet neighbours may well be supporting the regime, and that their feelings of dissent and rebellion are rare." 

But in 2017 says Tufekci, isolation is becoming more difficult to sustain. "Floodgates of connection have opened up, online and offline, making it harder to control people through isolation and fear."

Because of social media, and the shocking reports of harassment I came to see how previously women's isolation had sustained abuse. There is far more to do than I had realised. Is this the world we want? I came to see how many women had been affected and silenced through something we wrongly assumed to be rare —the threat of violence. The "floodgates of connection" had opened up and created a space for the abuse to be exposed. There is power in being public. And I wanted to be part of that connection.

Interestingly Sheryl Sandberg has also become an advocate to end the spiral of silence. Reacting to the Weinstein revelations, she remarked that "It's not just about him. It's not just about the other men that do it… It's about all the people around them that know and don't do anything." Yes, the many women ‘leaning in’ are admirable and the new policies in our banks are significant advances, but more needed to be done at the root of society, collectively.  

I now realise that saying things in public in solidarity with other women has power. I am in a position to make a bigger difference than most. So I am not speaking out only for myself. I am speaking out, along with the majority of men that support us, for women in general. That's why my feminism is now public, and yours should be too.