Why women are still penalised for showing up fully, and how we can rewrite the script.
In Abu Dhabi recently, a friend was celebrating a milestone birthday anniversary with her family, friends and a group of remarkable women. We are lawyers, board directors, philanthropists, and CEOs, but that evening, we were also glammed up, playful, fun, and boisterous. Over five days, a lovely guide had seen us laughing, dining, and dancing. Finally, she asked, “Are you celebrities? Bloggers?”
When I replied that we were lawyers and business leaders, and my friend was a managing director and philanthropist, she looked surprised. Somehow, because of how joyfully we carried ourselves, she assumed we must be entertainers. There’s nothing wrong with entertainment, but the underlying bias was clear: powerful women can’t possibly look this relaxed, radiant, and joyful.
The “Barbie banker” debate
Not long ago, a top African CEO, one of the few women to lead a tier-one bank, faced her own version of this double standard. Her official photo went viral, not because of her credentials, but because of her appearance. She wore a bright outfit, her figure 8 waist was visible, and her skin was glowing. She bore a striking resemblance to a model, yet some customers, including an elderly couple, expressed the opinion that she did not resemble a CEO.
The debate that followed was brutal. One man even suggested she was unqualified for the role, dismissing her career by saying she had only ever brought in deposits and never worked in treasury. As though a lifetime of leadership could be erased because she dared to show up feminine, stylish, and unapologetically herself.
The authenticity penalty
This is the unspoken tax women still pay at the highest levels: the authenticity penalty.
• When women are serious, they’re called uptight.
• When they’re stylish, they’re called frivolous.
• When they’re joyful, they’re called unserious.
• When they’re authoritative, they’re called difficult.
Meanwhile, some men golf, dance at all-white parties, wear flamboyant clothes, and post selfies on private jets, and it’s all seen as charisma.
The message is simple: women must choose between authenticity and authority.
Why this matters for wealth and power
This is not about fashion or dance moves. It is about wealth and legacy.
When women feel forced to shrink their personalities, mute their joy, or strip away their authentic presence to be taken seriously, they lose more than confidence. Women who shrink don’t just lose influence; they lose money, equity, and history’s memory.
They lose:
• Visibility: Hidden leaders are rarely promoted or sponsored.
• Opportunities: Boldness attracts partnerships, boards, and investors. Shrinking does not.
• Ownership: Playing small often means avoiding risk, which keeps women locked in titles, not equity.
The authenticity penalty doesn’t just cost women dignity; it costs them wealth.
Masculinity as the price of authority
History tells us something uncomfortable: women who lean into masculine-coded styles are often rewarded with respect, while those who embrace visible femininity have had to fight harder to be taken seriously.
Think of Angela Merkel’s famously plain pant suits or Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s grandmotherly gravitas; both projected seriousness that was never questioned. Compare that to leaders like Christine Lagarde, who redefined the rules by pairing sharp economic leadership with an unapologetic style, or Michelle Obama, whose sleeveless dresses and joyful presence became points of public debate even as she set new standards of influence.
Across cultures, the message has often been the same: women who mute glamour or joy are deemed “serious”, while those who glow unapologetically are doubted.
But here’s the deeper question: why must women perform masculinity to be taken seriously? Why are joy, style, or beauty still treated as incompatible with power?
What taboos need challenging?
1. Joy ≠ Frivolity
Why is it acceptable for men to laugh, dance, and play golf but suspicious when women do the same? Joy is not weakness; it is fuel.
2. Style ≠ Incompetence
Bright clothes, glowing skin, or a curvy body do not erase professional excellence. Leadership is about results, not wardrobe.
3. Femininity ≠ Lack of Power
Being visibly feminine does not make a woman less qualified. It makes her human. The taboo that power must look masculine is outdated and dangerous.
How women can respond
• Show up fully. Don’t trade authenticity for acceptance. The cost is too high.
• Let your work speak. Excellence silences critics more effectively than apologies ever will.
• Own your narrative. If others question your right to lead, make sure your story, not their stereotype, defines you.
• Build parallel wealth and power. A strong portfolio, board seats, or enterprise makes perception debates less relevant.
A call to leaders and society
If we keep penalising women for showing up authentically, we will lose the very leaders we need. Africa cannot afford to sideline women because they laugh too loudly, dance too freely, or dress too boldly.
Leadership is not about how you look in a photo. It is about the vision you carry, the risks you take, and the legacy you leave.
Rewriting the script
From Abu Dhabi to Lagos, from banking halls to boardrooms, the question remains: Are women allowed to be both joyful and powerful? Stylish and serious? Feminine and formidable?
The answer must be yes. Because the future belongs to leaders who bring their full selves to the table. And until women can do so without penalty, we have not truly rewritten the wealth script.
So the next time you see a woman glowing in her power, whether in stilettos, sneakers, or sequins, remember this: she’s not a Barbie. She’s a boss. And she’s building a legacy.
Have you ever felt penalised for showing up fully as yourself? I’d love to hear your experience.
Udo Maryanne Okonjo: The Women, Wealth, and Power Column — Challenging Norms, Creating Wealth, Changing Futures.
