Who keeps moving the finish line whenever a woman take over a leadership position in work or politics?
by Yumna Zahid Ali, Guest Commentator
Who told you leadership has a gender? Who decided authority sounds masculine and strength must wear a man’s face? Who keeps moving the finish line every time a woman reaches it? And why, in the 21st century, are we still pretending this debate isn’t already settled? Because, honestly, this argument itself is tired, dusty, and intellectually embarrassing. The idea that women are “born followers” is not an opinion. It is a confession. Yes! A confession of insecurity, nostalgia for unearned authority, and fear that their own mediocrity will be exposed.
So, let me be clear, once and for all: Women are leaders. Not potential leaders. Not emerging leaders. Not leaders “despite” being women. Leaders. Period. And anyone still arguing otherwise is not protecting tradition…they’re protecting their own comfortable delusion.
It’s unbelievable how men have been failing upward for centuries, but somehow, women are the risky choice? All of which exposes the double standard: a man forgets half the plan: he’s “visionary.” A woman delivers the entire plan: she’s “bossy.” A man yells: he’s passionate. A woman raises her voice: she needs to “calm down.” A man leads with ego: a strong leader. A woman leads with results: threatening.
Interesting math!
The world loves to say women are “too emotional” to lead, while history is basically a very long, very embarrassing highlight reel of male tantrums with catastrophic consequences. Wars started over bruised egos, chest-thumping pride, and leaders who mistook dominance for wisdom. Empires burned because someone could not handle being challenged, corrected, or told no. Borders were redrawn because a man felt entitled to land, power, or legacy. Millions died not because solutions were unavailable, but because compromise bruised male pride. Entire populations were sacrificed to prove strength, authority, and superiority.
Don't believe me? The evidence is written across the cities themselves: Warsaw, Berlin, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Grozny, Aleppo, Mariupol, Kyiv, Baghdad, Gaza City, and countless more.
The status quo consumes women’s labor but panics at women’s authority. It adores women as supporting characters, housekeepers, emotional sponges, therapists, sacrificial lambs, anything but decision-makers. Because a woman with power isn’t inspirational; she’s inconvenient.
Women who actually lead are called cold, unlikable, and arrogant. Interesting how male leaders with the same traits are called focused, commanding, and confident. Apparently, likability is a mandatory tax only if you are not supposed to have power.
Say it with me: Women are leaders. Not someday. Not maybe. Not if approved.
They always have been.
The only difference now? They’re done explaining it to people who were never even qualified to question it in the first place.
About the author ~
Yumna Zahid Ali is a writer and educator who spends her free time reading, analyzing literature, and exploring cultural and intellectual debates. When she’s not writing for global audiences, she enjoys reflecting on societal issues and using her voice to challenge inequities, especially those affecting women. She also loves diving into history, believing that remembering the past is an act of defiance and a way to hold power accountable.
More Editorial Viewpoints
TAGS: women have always been leaders, why are men so afraid of women in leadership roles, why are women a risky choice for governing, Women born flollowers, male insecurity challenged
