Why women decline panel invitations

Dear Women Marketers, I didn’t hear back from you. We invited more women than men to speak at Full Circle this year. By a lot. And yet, it was the women I couldn’t find. The men replied. All of them. Even when they said no. Some hopped on calls. Some wrote back long notes. One even chatted about Bangkok night markets (he was on PTO). But the women? Most of you stayed silent. Left me on read. Or vanished into the DM ether. At first, I cribbed about it. Then I paused. Of course you didn’t respond. I don’t think it’s because you didn’t care. (And you definitely didn’t owe me a response.) I think it’s because visibility feels heavier for women. Because so many of us were never taught to treat our expertise as something the world should hear.  Only something the world can 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 on. Where men practice talking about their work, women deliver quietly. We’ve spent decades being rewarded for competence, and almost never for visibility. So when someone asks, “Will you speak?” “Will you let people see how good you are?”, it feels like stepping into a spotlight we weren’t raised to claim. Which is why I’m writing this at all: We need you to show up. We need your voice in the room. We need your point of view, your frameworks, your stories, your scars, your experiments, your brilliance. Not because the internet needs another “hot take,” but because women are often doing the best, sharpest work… quietly. And quiet isn’t serving you anymore. It isn’t serving the industry either. So this is an invitation.  A gentle-but-firm shoulder squeeze. Make more noise. Claim the mic. Say yes to panels and podcasts and posts. Say no loudly when you want to, and reply when you can. Let yourself be seen - not because you owe anyone visibility, but because you deserve to take up space in a world that has benefited from your silence for far too long. And while I didn’t hear back from many, I did hear back from four incredible women who said yes. With zero hesitation: Kira Klaas Jess Cook Molly Bruckman Akshaya Chandramouli They’re carrying the flag this year. They shouldn’t have to carry it alone. So to every woman marketer reading this: Next time the moment comes, step forward.  And bring the thunder.

I'm honored, I really am, thank you. But...my entire work week would be unpaid if I said yes to every invite to mentor, speak, present, or support a startup or VC fund just “for exposure” or equity. There's actually a term for this: the pink volunteer economy. ⏰ It's 2025—and yet women are still disproportionately asked to do work that isn’t paid, promoted, or even acknowledged. Every single week of the year I’m asked by people who are paid... to work for free. Make it make sense. 🙅♀️ From unpaid panels, presentations, and mentoring to invisible tasks like note-taking, free advisory sessions, making introductions, and planning events—it all adds up. And when we say no? We’re told we’re “not team players” or missing out on “visibility” or even better, "future opportunities." 📊 This isn’t just anecdotal—it’s backed by research ⤵️ 44% more likely: Women are asked to do non-promotable tasks more than men (Babcock et al., 2017). These include event organizing, mentoring, and internal admin—critical to the org, but ignored at promotion time (Harvard Business Review). Women are also more likely to say yes, thus keeping the cycle alive. 🎤 Panels & speaking gigs: A 2023 Women in Global Health survey found women experts are routinely unpaid or underpaid vs. male peers. Anecdotally, colleagues across sectors share with me the same story: men get fees, and women get to do “favors.” 🎨 Creative & consulting work: In creative industries, women are 40% more likely to be asked for unpaid strategic input (Creative Equals, 2021). We talk a lot about the gender pay gap and the second shift. But what about the unpaid labor that hides in plain sight in the professional world? I get it. I do want to help as much as possible, especially for friends and those doing "good" in this world. And I am! But the work often... spirals. Non-profits, starving start-ups, and new initiatives don't have budgets. But can we at least get an honorarium? Credit for the deal? 💡 But folks, if the work is really worth asking for, it’s worth budgeting for. Full stop. I know you all know this pain ➡️ Modern Agriculture Foundation (MAF), Sonalie Figueiras - The World's Green Queen, Jenny Stojkovic, Women In The Food Industry, Women in Food and Agriculture, Jenny Tang, Malin Frithiofsson, Michele Champagne, Floor Buitelaar, Julia Vol, Julia Pekerman, Tarika Vijayaraghavan, Ph.D. P.S. - Gary is not his / her real name. P.S.S. - Do you like my male twin? Now I know what I'd look like as a guy (according to AI). Do you think he'd more likely be offered payment above me?

I’ve said no to more women’s panels in the last year than I can count. May seem strange 🤨 Not because these conversations don’t matter - they do. But too many happen without the people who control the majority of capital, board seats, and allocation decisions in the room. A conversation about structural exclusion that takes place without those who operationalise that structure isn’t a structural conversation, its a support group. I’ve spent my career in male-dominated rooms, as a biophysicist/academic, VC, investment committee member, and board director. Scientific training shaped how I think about most things: you don’t get to frame the problem incorrectly and still solve it. The focus was always execution and performance. That very same rigour applied here points to a misdiagnosis. A $55 billion empowerment industry has been built around fixing women’s confidence and visibility - mentorship, coaching, peer-initiatives … meanwhile the global financing gap for women entrepreneurs sits at an estimated $1.7 trillion, compounding at roughly the same rate the advice does. That is not a coincidence. Empowerment is cheaper to supply than capital. It generates no accountability, because there is no measurable outcome to miss. Here’s what I think - what actually shifts patterns is sponsorship - not mentorship. Sponsorship puts reputation on the line. But even that, circulating within homogeneous networks, becomes a refined version of the same closed systems, which risks propagaiton. There’s a subtler problem too. Framing this as a diversity issue rather than a capital allocation issue makes it easier to deprioritise. It gets siloed, addressed in a panel, not an investment committee. The commercial case isn’t complicated: diverse teams outperform, diverse portfolios reduce correlated risk, and the financing gap is one of the largest under-allocated opportunities in private markets. That’s an ROI argument. It belongs in the same room as every other investment thesis. The hierarchy of diversity, where some forms of imbalance receive sustained attention and others are quietly deprioritised, is itself a form of inequity - often unintentional but real. What I want to see more of is men in these rooms - not performing solidarity, but held to the same accountability standard as any other capital allocator. The bottleneck was never confidence. It was always capital, access, and who controls both. And there’s a broader concern underneath all of this. We’re living through a period of accelerating segregation across almost every dimension. The recent empowerment efforts come from genuinely good intentions. But I worry about the second and third-order effects. Separate forums, separate funds, separate networks - risk deepening the divide they’re trying to close. We may be losing the shared language to challenge each other across difference, and the safety to do so without stigma or fear. That concerns me more than the panels I declined over the last year.

✨ "If I set boundaries, I'll be invisible." That's what my client told me last week before turning down a keynote that could've changed her career. Her logic? If she asked for what she needed, they'd find someone "more accommodating." Sound familiar? (My alarm bells were going off like a disco ball dropping at Studio 54) 🪩 Here's what the research reveals: ‼️ 31% of women don't set work boundaries vs 25% of men. ‼️ And 43% of female leaders burn out compared to 31% of male leaders. We're literally exhausting ourselves into invisibility. I spent years in my career overcommitting to everything - stretching myself to breaking point. Meanwhile, colleagues who spent more time stretching on their yoga mat than actual work were getting promoted and applauded. The irony wasn't lost on me. Here's the truth that changed everything: Your visibility isn't built on endless availability. It's built on strategic boundaries. The most visible women I know? They're saying no to almost everything - except what showcases their brilliance. I call this Boundary Brilliance - the missing piece that transforms how women are seen: 💡 Saying no to unpaid gigs (your expertise has a price tag) 💡 Declining that all-male panel's diversity checkbox invite 💡 Protecting creation time (brilliance needs space to breathe) 💡 Refusing to downplay achievements (own your wins, loudly) My client? After setting boundaries, she negotiated exactly what she needed and delivered 20 focused minutes instead of her usual hour. Everyone remembered every word. Including the CEO who tried to poach her during coffee break. Full disclosure: I still struggle with this. My enthusiasm for opportunities and people means I often say YES when I should pause. As a founder, the feast-or-famine mindset makes every opportunity feel essential. But I'm learning: boundaries aren't limitations. They're liberation. Summer reminder: Those boundaries matter even more when you switch on your OOO. Actually disconnect. The emails can wait. Your sanity can't. 🌴 Because boundaries don't make you invisible. They make you unmissable. ⚡️ The most visible women aren't trying to be everywhere. They're unforgettable in the right places. 💬 What boundary will you set this week? Drop it below - let's hold each other accountable 👇 📧 Join "All That Glitters" - my weekly newsletter for women ready to go from invisible to unmissable: https://lnkd.in/en6Z3E7W ✨ I'm Nishma - I help women and brands become unmissable in an AI world. After years at Google, I traded Artificial Intelligence for Authentic Intelligence to tackle the real cost of invisibility: missed opportunities, lost influence, untapped income. Through keynotes, consulting, and the Glittersphere community, I transform how women show up, speak up, and scale up. Because your influence matters. Your impact matters. Your income matters.

That moment when you’re introduced as a “female founder” instead of just… a founder. Or when someone asks if my co-founder is the “brains” behind the brand. Or getting that panel invite and wondering if it’s for my insights, or just to tick a diversity box. It’s a pattern so many of us know too well. Honestly, I’ve had my own industry explained back to me in meetings. I’ve seen my name left out of funding announcements in both my startups (10 years apart), while male counterparts are front and centre. And don’t get me wrong, sometimes the visibility helps. Those panel invites and features looking for diversity can open doors. But they also come with this weird undertone of tokenism. That question in the back of your mind: am I here because I’m good, or because I’m a woman? The best moments, though? The ones where I forget my gender completely. When I’m in a room and I’m not a “female founder.” I’m just a founder. A peer. An innovator. Those are the conversations that remind me why I do this. The goal isn’t to be celebrated for being a woman who builds. It’s to build in a world where “founder” is enough. No qualifiers needed. #WomenInBusiness #FounderLife #Entrepreneurship #GenderEquality #Tokenism

🎙 3 insights about women on panels from my conversations with women leaders across industries: 1️⃣ Almost all women have been denied the opportunity to be on stage because of their gender. Either openly, or discreetly. When I speak to women about Draupadi on the Dais, our database of female experts available for speaking opportunities, all of them nod. All of them smile. It never feels like I'm pitching a new story to them. It's their story. 2️⃣ When women are invited to discussions on public forums, they're told to do it for free. This is not a conversation about money. It is a conversation about expertise. If one expert is being paid for their time, so should the others. Not paying women because the opportunity is "good for them" or because they "represent a community" is also gender bias. 3️⃣ There is a lack of awareness. And effort. Most times, underrepresentation is not a conscious choice. It’s a conditioning. Some decision-makers don't consider this a priority. Some do not know. But this is not bad news. It means that all of it is reversible. 📌 One of the things at Decoding Draupadi is focused on this very problem. We're helping event organisers get more women on the dais by connecting them with experts across domains. More details are in the comments.