A study by linguist and tech entrepreneur Kieran Snyder was published by fortune.com in August, under the headline: “The abrasiveness trap: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews”.

“Described differently” was an enormous understatement.

Snyder’s study, which involved comparing 248 workplace performance reviews from 180 people at 28 different companies, revealed startling results.

Only 58.9% of the reviews submitted by men contained critical feedback, compared to 87.9% of those submitted by women. For male employees, the feedback tended to take the form of constructive suggestions for improvement, but for women it got a lot more personal. Snyder pulled out any reviews that contained what she described as “negative personality criticism”, including words such as “bossy”, “abrasive”, “strident”, “emotional” and “irrational”. Out of the 83 critical reviews received by men, just two contained such personality criticism. But it showed up in 71 of the 94 critical reviews received by women.

Snyder was the first to point out the limitations of her study, which involved asking tech workers to voluntarily share their performance reviews (though they didn’t know anything about the nature of the study). But as she rightly points out, the findings certainly merit further investigation. The word “abrasive” alone was used 17 times in women’s reviews, but didn’t crop up once in the men’s.

The performance reviews Snyder studied were almost exclusively strong, so these criticisms were generally being levelled at successful, high-achieving women. And the practice of giving a successful woman a sharp dose of sexism to put her back in her place is not an isolated phenomenon, if recent events are anything to judge by.

Russian cosmonaut Yelena Serova hit the headlines as she prepared to blast off into space after years of training. But despite her considerable expertise, journalists bombarded Serova with questions about personal grooming and parenting. I can’t be the only one who felt like applauding when she finally snapped at a press conference after being asked how she’d style her hair on the International Space Station, replying: “Can I ask a question, too: aren’t you interested in the hair styles of my colleagues?”

Then there was the UAE fighter pilot, Major Mariam al-Mansouri; widely praised for her part in a mission against Islamic State targets, only to be brought rudely back to earth by Fox News commentators. “The problem is, after she bombed it, she couldn’t park it,” said one, while another quipped: “Would that be considered boobs on the ground?”

The pattern repeats again and again; human rights barrister Amal Alamuddin provides another example as the media reduces her to George Clooney’s nameless arm-candy in repeated headlines. “George’s girl” may have a stellar international reputation, two law degrees and numerous awards, speak multiple languages and work regularly with the United Nations, but her most notable achievement has surely been capturing the heart of Hollywood’s most eligible bachelor. Even in headlines about Alamuddin’s career, the erasure of her professional identity is almost laughably blatant: “George Clooney’s fiancee rejects UN request to investigate Gaza conflict.”

These different cases reveal a pattern – successful women make people feel uncomfortable. They are seen as somehow unfeminine or unnatural and in need of being brought down a peg or two. And the best way to wrangle them back into manageability is to remind them of the fact that, regardless of their achievements, they will be judged first and foremost as women, and found wanting. Girls, after all, are supposed to be likable, pliant, polite, quiet and gentle. Be too smart, too successful, too accomplished, and risk facing a sharp reminder that you’ve done so at the cost of your feminine “appeal”.

As we continue to applaud strong, powerful, leadership in men, the double standard can be so flagrant it’s almost funny, but it’s no laughing matter for women trying to make their way in the workplace. One tweeted her experience to @EverydaySexism: “A sales guy loudly talked over me when I was presenting. I (quietly) asked him not to. Got told by MD that I was ‘abrasive’.”

These sentiments are still more common than you might like to think: it was only this week that Stella McCartney said: “Strength on its own in a woman is quite abrasive and not terribly attractive all the time.” Doesn’t that word “abrasive” have a funny habit of popping up?

This is not a problem that will have a quick fix. It’s deeply ingrained in our societal ideas about what it means for a woman to be attractive and how successful we are prepared to allow women to be before feeling the need to tear them down. Getting more women into prominent business roles should help, because the more of them there are, the harder it will be to stereotype them as “ballbreakers” or “harpies”. We can all play a part by examining our own unconscious bias and watching the language we use, especially while in the workplace or speaking to young people.

In the meantime, I applaud women such as Serova, who pointed out the double standard for what it is. And I encourage every female high-flier to follow the example of the Brazilian pilot who unceremoniously ejected a male passenger from her plane after he reportedly shouted, “I’m not flying with a female at the controls”. That will make him think twice next time.