assumptions
At WGG Australia, we routinely hear from women whose lives and careers are dismantled not by their own substantiated wrongdoing, but by perception, innuendo, and rumour. One recent anonymous submission, shared with consent, illustrates this. A young woman was dismissed from her employment after a false rumour circulated alleging she had engaged in sexual activity in a work-related setting. There was no evidence, no investigation, no misconduct to address; only an unverified allegation that was treated as fact. Her employment was terminated, her reputation quietly diminished, and she was left grappling with the reality that a baseless allegation could produce such devastating professional and personal consequences.
Assumptions about a woman’s sexuality or perceived promiscuity remain one of the most under-examined forms of gendered harm, subtle enough to be dismissed as “harmless commentary,” yet powerful enough to discredit, discipline, and derail women’s lives. These assumptions operate silently, shaping how women are treated long before any facts are known, and often without any facts at all.
The danger lies in how quickly these assumptions solidify into perceived truth. Once a rumour touches a woman’s name, it is treated as evidence. Her credibility is questioned, her professionalism scrutinised, and her character dissected. The speculation alone becomes enough to shift how colleagues interact with her, how opportunities are offered (or withheld), and how she is judged in private conversations she is not part of. In many workplaces, a woman’s career can be jeopardised not by her conduct, but by what others imagine her conduct might have been.
This is more than a troubling anecdote. It highlights a systemic issue embedded deeply within workplace culture and institutional responses to gender, power, and credibility. While women continue to face tangible repercussions for unproven rumours about their morality or private life, we simultaneously witness men in positions of authority retain their roles, reputations, and influence even when confronted with credible allegations of serious misconduct, including sexual harassment, abuse of power, or violence. Many workplaces appear far more comfortable terminating a woman over speculation than holding a man accountable for substantiated harm.
The contrast is stark. Rumours about a woman’s sexuality are treated as organisational liabilities, yet proof of a man’s misconduct is frequently treated as an inconvenience to be strategically managed. Even within sectors committed to equality or guided by complex policies on misconduct and workplace safety, patriarchal assumptions about credibility still influence outcomes. Women are expected to uphold reputations of purity, professionalism, and propriety to maintain their employment; men are afforded benefit of the doubt, institutional protection and second chances.
This raises critical questions about due process, institutional bias, and the gendered application of workplace disciplinary principles. It forces us to confront the uncomfortable truth that “reputation management” is often applied selectively: used to justify punitive actions against women while functioning as a shield for men.
We cannot accept a culture where women's careers are tainted by rumours while men's careers survive proven abuses of power. Until workplaces commit to genuine accountability, for all genders, the system will continue to punish women for imagined sins while protecting men from their real ones.
This account is not presented to create a binary of men versus women, nor does its seriousness depend on comparison. The anonymous submission stands alone as a clear systemic failure. The comparison is not the purpose of the anecdote; rather, it illuminates the systemic biases that allow such outcomes to occur.
The question is no longer whether bias exists, but whether organisations and workplaces are prepared to confront it.
