Oprah Winfrey’s recent podcast interview with Melinda French Gates struck a nerve. They discussed how women rarely share their stories of failure or recovery, while men build entire legends out of theirs. Men are allowed to fail publicly and return stronger. Women are expected to be perfect. It’s one of the most expensive double standards in leadership today.

After last week’s column on Courage and Capital in a Man’s World — and the public back-and-forth over my civil dispute with a new-generation bank, I’ve been reflecting on the unspoken forces that shape how women handle conflict, crisis, and leadership.

Every woman who has ever been told to “just let it go” knows the hidden tax of shame.

We call it “protecting your image”, “keeping peace”, or “not letting them drag you”.

But beneath those phrases lies a powerful social control mechanism that costs women money, visibility, credibility, and sometimes legacy itself.

This is the shame economy, where women pay to stay respectable.

The price of polite silence

The shame economy begins early.

As girls, we’re told to “bunch our shoulders” when our bodies change. As women, we’re told to shrink when our power grows.

In boardrooms, it shows up when women soften their ask so they don’t appear “overambitious and aggressive”. In marriages, when they tolerate inequity to keep the peace.

In business, when they stay silent about unpaid fees to avoid being labelled “difficult”.

Even small compromises compound over time.

A mid-level executive who under-negotiates her pay by just 15 per cent from age 35 to 60 could forfeit hundreds of millions of naira in lifetime earnings and miss investment growth — money that could have built assets, funded a child’s education, or seeded a business.

It’s a simple equation: each year you settle for less, the gap multiplies. Add the opportunities not taken, board roles declined, partnerships postponed, and ventures underpriced — and it’s clear shame isn’t only emotional. It’s economical. And its debt compounds across generations.

“When controversy strikes, even when they’re not wrong, or when there’s been a public setback, many women retreat “for peace”.”

When women vanish after setbacks

Women in public life learn another costly habit: disappearance.

When controversy strikes, even when they’re not wrong, or when there’s been a public setback, many women retreat “for peace”.

Meanwhile, their male peers write books, call press conferences, file lawsuits, and double down.

We’ve seen it across boardrooms and parliaments, from Lagos to London.

Kemi Adeosun was forced out over an NYSC credential issue for which many male politicians would have survived.

Jacinda Ardern admitted the “toll” of leadership before stepping away at her peak.

And closer to home, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s political battle and quiet return to the Nigerian Senate sparked debate: was it worth it? Some said no. Others recognised her comeback as a quiet act of defiance — the kind that changes what women believe is possible.

When one woman disappears, a hundred others watching her learn that survival may depend on silence. The Shame Economy’s damage is rarely public. It shows up quietly in hesitation, hiding, second-guessing, and playing small.

Shame as a Business Model

There’s a reason patriarchal systems protect shame. It keeps the structure profitable.

Shame trains women to self-regulate before anyone else has to.

To dim brilliance before it blinds.

To pre-discount their worth so others don’t have to negotiate hard.

Clients, employers, and even entire industries benefit from this built-in discount.

That’s why so many women-led businesses are praised for “resilience”, yet rarely receive equal valuation or funding scale.

Studies show that women leaders are still more likely to be described as “too emotional” or “abrasive” when asserting authority, language that subtly punishes confidence while preserving control.

Rewriting the ledger: From shame to strategic sisterhood

Shame has a hidden balance sheet, one that quietly devalues women’s voices, work, and worth. To dismantle it, we must stop paying its bills: name it, refuse to confuse silence with strategy, and count what it costs in income, influence, and innovation.

Visibility is not vanity; it’s power. Especially in moments of crisis, women must own their narratives rather than surrender them. Fighting smart means structure, counsel, and courage. And resilience isn’t about pretending nothing happened—it’s about coming back stronger and visibly, so the next woman sees that survival and success can coexist.

But courage must also be collective. When one woman stands in the den of lions—outnumbered, misunderstood, or under fire—that is not the moment for others to shrink, analyse her tone, or count the cost of association. It’s the moment to show up.

Strategic sisterhood isn’t about blind loyalty or emotional solidarity; it’s about intelligent alignment. It’s the kind of network that knows when to defend, when to advise, and when to stand visibly beside you. It’s the quiet call that says, “We’ve got you,” and the public presence that shifts narratives. Because in high-stakes spaces – politics, business, or public life – silence isn’t neutrality. It’s consent to the system.

The cost of silence isn’t just personal; it’s systemic. Shame doesn’t only shrink individuals; it stalls innovation. It’s why we have so few women-founded financial institutions, so few female-controlled conglomerates, and almost no women-majority owners of listed African companies. The economic cost of excluding women’s courage is staggering.

If courage builds capital, then shame depletes it.

What we need now are women audacious enough to fail publicly, recover visibly, and lead boldly, not just to survive the system, but to redesign it.