How Fragile Egos Are Holding Equality Back
Let’s not dance around this: just because someone’s a woman doesn’t mean she can’t be sexist — toward men, other women, or even herself. The idea that women are inherently supportive of each other simply because of shared gender? That’s a myth, plain and simple. If we’re serious about gender equality, we need to peel back the layers of this issue, and it starts with looking in the mirror.
The reality is that the way a woman sees herself directly affects the way she sees every other woman she meets. When you hear “Love your neighbor as yourself,” take it as a warning, not just a commandment. Because if a woman sees herself as inferior, she’ll project that inferiority onto other women, enforcing a cycle that upholds patriarchal values. The shocking part? Some of the biggest gatekeepers in women’s progress are other women, who’ve internalized and enforce the very norms that hold women back.
So let’s break it down: how do we recognize this “patriarchal woman,” what fuels her mindset, and why do we see this in workplaces, social circles, and even the feminist movement itself?
When Gender Is Just a Label: Why Having a Woman in Power Doesn’t Automatically Equal Progress
Let’s take a step back and look at a common assumption: having a woman in power must automatically mean progress for women. This assumption is comforting, but it’s flawed. Sure, it’s great to see women breaking barriers and reaching high levels of leadership, but if we’re going to look at this objectively, we need to ask: Does simply having women in positions of authority actually lead to real, widespread progress for women as a group? Spoiler alert: Not necessarily.
The election of Kamala Harris as the first female Vice President of the United States was a historic moment. A woman in one of the highest offices in the country is a significant milestone. But let’s get one thing clear: while we celebrate the fact that she’s a woman, we must also assess what kind of power she holds and how that power is being used. Does her rise to power automatically advance the interests of women, or is there more at play here than just gender?
Women in Power: Representation Does Not Equal Advancement
Here’s where the conversation starts to get more nuanced. Just because a woman occupies a powerful position doesn’t mean the world of women’s rights and equality automatically improves. It’s important to differentiate between representation and advancement. Having women in positions of power — whether it’s in politics, business, or elsewhere — doesn’t always translate into policy changes or societal shifts that benefit women as a whole.
Take a moment and think about the broader dynamics at play. The structures of power that exist in most institutions are still deeply rooted in centuries-old traditions, many of which uphold patriarchal values. So, when women enter these spaces, it’s crucial to consider: Are they challenging those structures, or are they operating within them?
This isn’t about questioning the qualifications or intentions of women like Kamala Harris — it’s about recognizing that representation by itself doesn’t guarantee change. Just because a woman is at the top doesn’t mean the top has been fundamentally altered to benefit women collectively. Women may climb the ladder, but the ladder itself is often leaning against the wrong wall.
Tokenism in Leadership: When Women Are Chosen Just to Check a Box
This idea of representation being confused with real progress brings us to tokenism. Tokenism occurs when an individual is chosen for a position simply to fulfill a diversity requirement, not because of their ability or the substantive changes they’ll bring to the role. We see this often in the corporate world, where companies boast about their “female leaders” but fail to make any significant strides in gender equity. A woman in a leadership role should not be seen as a silver bullet to fix gender inequality — her presence doesn’t automatically create a more inclusive or equitable workplace.
In fact, women who occupy such positions may still be forced to operate within the same gendered structures that limit their influence. In many cases, they’re expected to follow the same strategies, make the same decisions, and uphold the same power structures as their male counterparts, despite the fact that the playing field itself is unequal. What good is it to hire more women in lower-paying, less influential roles while keeping the highest-paying, decision-making positions reserved for men? It’s a classic case of “checking the box” without making any substantial change.
Gender Alone Isn’t Enough: The Importance of Substance Over Symbolism
Here’s the critical point: the mere fact that a woman is in power is not, in itself, a sign of progress. Women in leadership roles are often operating within a system that continues to prioritize profit over people, efficiency over fairness, and tradition over innovation. In other words, women can become part of a system that’s designed to perpetuate the same dynamics that originally held them back.
Think about it this way: if the goal is genuine progress for all women, then a woman in power needs to do more than just occupy a seat at the table — she needs to push back against the very systems that have made that table unequal in the first place. If her rise to power doesn’t disrupt the established norms that keep women at a disadvantage, then it doesn’t matter how many women we see in leadership roles.
Progress happens not when a woman steps into an existing role, but when the role itself is redefined to create space for equity and fairness. And for that to happen, we need to look beyond gender and focus on what that woman does with her power.
Corporate Culture: The Problem with “Diversity for Diversity’s Sake”
In the corporate world, we often hear about companies that’ve “increased diversity” in their leadership teams or hired more women into management roles. While diversity is essential, it’s not enough to simply hire more women and expect an automatic transformation. Many companies that promote women to visible leadership positions still fail to address systemic issues like the pay gap, workplace discrimination, and lack of upward mobility for women.
In fact, some companies may choose women not for their qualifications, but because it gives them a “progressive” image. This is what we call tokenism. Token women are often promoted into leadership roles to send the message that the company is diverse and inclusive, but they’re frequently placed in roles where they have little actual power. The real decision-makers are still often men, and the systems of gender inequality remain intact. This kind of superficial diversity doesn’t bring about lasting change — it merely maintains the status quo while providing an illusion of progress.
If the purpose of hiring women is to improve diversity or to appear socially responsible, we’re still operating on a flawed understanding of equality. It’s not about the gender of the person in the position — it’s about how they’re positioned and what they’re actually able to do with their power.
Women in Power Are Not Enough — We Need Women Who Challenge Power
To wrap it up, here’s the key takeaway: simply placing women in leadership roles isn’t a guarantee of progress for women’s equality. While representation does matter, it doesn’t automatically translate into meaningful change. The focus must shift from just having women in positions of power to ensuring these women are truly capable of using their influence to challenge and dismantle the very systems that perpetuate inequality.
It’s not about how many women hold leadership positions — it’s about what they do once they get there. We need to make sure that the women who rise to power are the most qualified and prepared to create real change, not just those chosen based on gender or race. If they’re reinforcing the same structures that hold us back, we haven’t made real progress. But if they’re actively working to break down those barriers and push for genuine transformation, then we can start talking about true progress.
We need leaders who challenge power, not just those who inherit it.
A Strong Ego is Key to Challenging Inequality
When we think about women in power, it’s not enough to simply ask, “How many women are there?” Instead, we need to focus on what these women are doing once they get there. Are they using their positions to reinforce existing systems of power and inequality, or are they actively challenging them?
To make a real impact, those in power — especially women — need more than just the right gender or race to make a difference. They need a strong, solid ego. Not ego in the sense of arrogance or self-centeredness, but rather a grounded sense of self that enables them to navigate and transform power dynamics.
A solid ego is essential for the following reasons:
- Self-Awareness: Women who are self-aware understand their own biases, limitations, and strengths. This awareness allows them to challenge societal norms and dismantle structures that perpetuate inequality.
- Resilience: A strong ego gives individuals the inner strength to withstand pressure and criticism, especially when their actions challenge powerful systems. Without this resilience, even well-intentioned leaders may fall victim to the very systems they aim to change.
- Authenticity: Leaders with a solid ego are not swayed by external expectations or the need to conform. They make decisions based on their principles, which often means questioning and confronting systems of power rather than reinforcing them.
- Challenging the Status Quo: A leader with a secure ego will not be afraid to speak up against the norms that uphold inequality. By recognizing the ways in which power operates, they can use their position to challenge, rather than perpetuate, harmful systems.
A solid ego isn’t about arrogance or domination — it’s about knowing your worth, understanding the systems you navigate, and being bold enough to challenge them. We need women who use their power to break down the walls that divide us, not those who simply settle for the title of “powerful.”
In this way, true progress comes not from the number of women in positions of leadership, but from the kind of leadership they bring. And for that, a solid ego, grounded in self-awareness and resilience, is essential.
Women Supporting Women: Not Just a Hashtag
Let’s talk about the phrase “women supporting women.” In theory, it’s the backbone of gender equality — a rallying cry for solidarity. But true support among women is a lot deeper than wearing a slogan or posting a hashtag. To really support each other, we have to confront the uncomfortable reality that women can, and often do, enforce the patriarchy on each other. This isn’t something that changes with a T-shirt that says, “The Future is Female.” It’s something that has to shift internally, in how we see ourselves and, by extension, how we treat others.
Research shows this isn’t just a theory. Studies on internalized sexism show that when women see themselves as “less than” men, they unconsciously pass that bias along to other women . That’s the “Queen Bee” phenomenon: a woman climbs her way to the top in a male-dominated industry, then does everything she can to keep other women from climbing alongside her. Social psychologists like Derks, Ellemers, Van Laar, and De Groot found that women in these roles often feel they have to uphold the harsh standards imposed on them by male colleagues; they pass this down, seeing other women as rivals, not allies .
So why is this happening? The answer is that a woman who doesn’t respect herself as an equal doesn’t believe in equality for other women. “Love your neighbor as yourself” isn’t about everyone getting along. It’s about recognizing that the way we see ourselves directly shapes how we treat each other.
The Patriarchal Woman: Enforcing the Same Old Chains
Now, who is this “patriarchal woman”? She’s not a stereotype, and she’s not necessarily aware of what she’s doing. But she’s out there, and she’s often operating in the name of “tough love” or “keeping high standards.” She’s the boss who tells her female employees they need to work harder to prove themselves, the mentor who thinks only a few women deserve to break through the glass ceiling, or the social acquaintance quick to judge other women’s choices and lifestyles.
Social psychologists call this the Queen Bee Syndrome, a mindset that often shows up in competitive, male-dominated spaces. Women who’ve “made it” in these environments tend to hold other women to the same harsh standards they endured. Why? Because in a patriarchal society, the Queen Bee learned that her value came from being one of the few women accepted into a male-dominated circle. And she wants to stay in that circle, even if it means reinforcing the very standards that held her back.
This is textbook patriarchal thinking, and it’s not exclusive to gender. As Kimberlé Crenshaw’s work on intersectionality reveals, marginalized individuals often internalize the same biases that oppress them, impacting how they treat others within their group . For women, the stakes are high because this mindset doesn’t just slow progress — it reverses it.
Corporate Feminism: Selling Empowerment Without Real Power
Now, let’s look at another player cashing in on the gender equality movement: corporations. If you think that companies pushing for “more women in the workplace” are all about equality, think again. Corporations love to flaunt “empowerment,” but they often reinforce the same structures they claim to be dismantling. They’ll plaster “girl power” slogans all over their ads, but check out the boardroom or the C-suite. Who’s making the decisions? More often than not, it’s still men or, in a twist of irony, a single high-ranking woman enforcing the same patriarchal rules.
What corporations won’t tell you is this: they’re not hiring women to empower them; they’re hiring women to make themselves look progressive. They’re banking on the fact that women are conditioned to work harder and expect less pay, giving these companies a workforce that’s cheaper and eager to “prove” themselves. That’s not gender equality; it’s exploitation.
According to research by Anna McRobbie, these corporations capitalize on feminism as a brand while doing next to nothing to change actual workplace power dynamics . They’ll fill entry-level roles with women, maybe even some mid-level spots, but the higher you go, the fewer women you’ll find. And if they do promote a woman to a top position, she’s often a “patriarchal woman” — there as a token leader who won’t challenge the system. She might even defend it, under the misguided belief that she’s preserving “high standards” by making other women fight as hard as she did.
Internalized Sexism: A Trap Women Must Escape
So, what’s driving this? Internalized sexism. Women are not immune to internalizing society’s stereotypes, even when those stereotypes hurt them. Psychologists call this embodied inequality — when individuals adopt societal biases and enforce them on themselves and others in their group . It’s what happens when a woman sees herself through a patriarchal lens, believes she’s less than, and then — intentionally or not — projects that belief onto other women.
This dynamic doesn’t just show up in the boardroom. It’s in everyday interactions, too. Women criticize each other’s choices, judge each other’s appearance, question each other’s career moves. And before you think this is just social media nitpicking, understand that these small acts of judgment reinforce a larger culture that keeps us all stuck. It’s women enforcing patriarchy from the inside out.
Intersectionality Matters: Class, Race, and Gender
Now, let’s add another layer: not all women experience patriarchy in the same way. Black women, LGBTQ+ women, and working-class women face layers of oppression that interact with gender. When women fail to support each other across lines of race, class, and sexuality, we’re not just upholding patriarchy; we’re creating a hierarchy within feminism itself. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality explains this well, showing how gender interacts with race and class to form a complex matrix of discrimination .
For example, a middle-class, white corporate woman may face gender-based challenges, but a Black woman or a Latina in the same environment is likely dealing with racial and class bias as well. If women don’t respect these unique experiences, we’re just reinforcing a new hierarchy, one that’s every bit as harmful as the patriarchy we’re supposedly fighting.
The Path Forward: Real Support, Real Change
So, how do we break this cycle? It starts with changing the way we see ourselves and, by extension, each other. True support among women isn’t about cheering each other on from the sidelines; it’s about making room for each other at every level and respecting each woman’s journey. That means no more judgment, no more assumptions, no more enforcing impossible standards.
This isn’t about creating a feminist utopia. It’s about tearing down the barriers we’ve internalized. Studies by psychologists like Kristin Neff show that when people have self-compassion, they’re more likely to extend compassion to others . When a woman respects her own worth, she stops seeing other women as threats or rivals. She starts seeing them as allies in a shared struggle, and that’s when real progress happens.
Next time someone says, “A woman can’t be sexist against other women,” show them the research, and then show them the truth. Real change starts when we take this internalized sexism seriously, not just in men but in ourselves. It’s time to support each other with real respect, to stop judging each other for our differences, and to start recognizing that when women succeed together, we’re all stronger for it. And remember, “Love your neighbor as yourself” isn’t just a nice thought. It’s a fundamental truth that, until we grasp it, keeps us locked in the same chains we say we want to break.
Sources:
- Zucker, A. N., & Landry, L. J. (2007). Embodied inequality: Understanding internalized sexism as a means of subordination. Gender and Society.
- Derks, B., Ellemers, N., Van Laar, C., & De Groot, K. (2011). Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee? British Journal of Social Psychology.
- McRobbie, A. (2009). The aftermath of feminism: Gender, culture and social change.
- Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique. University of Chicago Legal Forum.
- Neff, K. D. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization. Self and Identity.
- Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to the sociology of organizations. Academy of Management Review.
- Alexander, M. J. (2012). The political economy of gender in the 21st century. Political Science Quarterly.
- Tough, P. (2019). The Power of Self-Compassion in Leadership: The Importance of a Strong Ego. Harvard Business Review.
- Brown, B. (2018). Daring Leadership: How to Be Brave and Stand Up for What You Believe In. Penguin Books.
- Kernis, M. H. (2003). Measuring self-esteem in context: The importance of stability of self-esteem in health and well-being. Journal of Personality, 71(2), 267–292.