Watching business forums between Pakistan's Prime Minister and Central Asian delegations, I see conference rooms filled with men in suits signing MOUs and discussing trade. Where are the women?
To understand this absence, I conducted a non-funded, exploratory survey of entrepreneurs across Pakistan on a one-to-ten scale (one hardest, ten easiest): How easy is doing business for educated urban women?
Dr Hayam Qayyoum (Islamabad), academic and CEO of Shelley’z Trading: “One.” Dr Syma Jafri, academic and a Member of the Board of Directors of Soormi Women Development Society, Badin, Sindh: “One.” Sahibzadi Mahin Khan, founder and president of Women Chamber of Commerce, Korangi: “Three.” Shad Begum, globally celebrated nonprofit leader from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: “Five.” Not a single woman rated it above five.
The men? Syed Waqar Hasnain, former senior banker and currently Director at Grey Matter Consultancy Services Limited, rated it eight for men, dropping to five for women. Ali Raza Khan, founder of YES Network Pakistan, said six for men, four for women. Dr Ikramul Haq, tax lawyer and retired civil servant, gave men seven, women four. Waqar Zafar Bakhtawari, President of the Pakistan-Azerbaijan Joint Chamber of Commerce, rated women at six. Maj (Retd) Arif Khan, an entrepreneur from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, offered the most optimistic assessment: seven for women.
It is worth considering what shapes such perspectives. When you occupy senior positions in the system, when you move in circles where business happens through established networks and relationships, perhaps barriers facing women entrepreneurs appear less insurmountable. The frame of reference shifts. Urban educated women do have advantages compared to their rural counterparts, with no access to markets, credit, or connectivity. From that vantage point, a six or seven might seem fair.
The women? The more educated, independent, and experienced the woman, the lower her score. Those who know the system best rate it worst. And the men with senior positions in business? Their perspectives, shaped by proximity to power, diverge sharply from women’s lived reality.
Entry Is Not the Same as Success
Mr Fazal Noor, an architect and academic (NED, Karachi), notes that female architecture graduates establish practices relatively smoothly, rating women “above five.” But his and some other highly educated male entrepreneurs’ and academics’ own descriptions reveal the problem: Some quotes include: “Building permits are available at a ‘cost,’” meaning corruption is the entry price. “Contracts are loose, financial management informal,” meaning no institutional protections. Then the admission: “The difficulty is mainly in growth and mobility. Middle-income female graduates are at a disadvantage.”
They can enter but cannot scale, and scaling is where real economic impact happens, where jobs are created, wealth is built, and seats at those business forums are earned
Women can start. They cannot grow. Dr Haq captured this precisely: “Urban women do have comparatively better access to education, internet connectivity, banking, and markets than rural women, which makes entrepreneurship possible. However, the overall ecosystem remains difficult. Complex tax and registration procedures, inconsistent enforcement of regulations, limited access to formal credit, high energy and compliance costs, and weak institutional support significantly raise the cost of doing business.”
This implies that women remain confined to micro or informal businesses rather than becoming growth-oriented entrepreneurs. They can enter but cannot scale, and scaling is where real economic impact happens, where jobs are created, wealth is built, and seats at those business forums are earned.
Map these experiences to the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business indicators. Getting Credit? Women lack collateral. Construction Permits? Available “at a cost” that disadvantages those without connections. Enforcing Contracts? When contracts are loose, those with power benefit. Trading Across Borders? Dr Qayyoum, like many other highly educated and experienced women entrepreneurs, reports “zero government cooperation from banking to export.” Protecting Minority Investors? Women are a minority in business with no protection whatsoever.
The Wounded, Not the Bleeding
Dr Qayyoum explained her rating of one with surgical precision: “We are not bleeding in front of sharks but wounded, discouraged, insulted, degraded, pushed aside.” Not bleeding because a dramatic injury would demand attention. Wounded because the damage is real but deniable, chronic but dismissible.
Hasnain detailed the obstacles: complex registrations with SECP and FBR requiring endless follow-ups, vendor management where women face different treatment, harassment issues, competition with male-dominated businesses, and disproportionate social media costs. “There is no proper platform designed by the government or chambers for assisting urban women,” he noted, recommending reduced tax slabs, special incentives from NAVTEC, SIFC, BOI, SMEDA, and lending targets for microfinance banks.
Next time you watch those men in suits discussing Pakistan’s economic future, ask: Where are the women? They are the ones who rated the system one, three, and five. They are the wounded, not the bleeding
Dr Haq’s analysis was equally precise: complex tax procedures, inconsistent regulation enforcement, limited formal credit access, high compliance costs, weak institutional support; “Social norms, safety concerns, and the double burden of work and family responsibilities further restrict women’s ability to scale enterprises. The result is that many women remain confined to micro or informal businesses rather than becoming growth-oriented entrepreneurs.”
The Superwoman Trap and Moral Double Standards
Modern urban women face expectations men never shoulder: super mom, super looks, super skills. Men can be mediocre and succeed; women must be exceptional to be taken seriously. Even successful women face questions men never hear about, such as childcare and compromises.
Networking is essential but morally suspect for women. Men build relationships over golf without comment; women, doing the same, face whispers. This moral double standard explains why women lacking networking skills do not progress beyond certain points.
When Women Undermine Women
Perhaps the most painful obstacle comes from other women. Dr Qayyoum said it plainly: “Females exploit females.” Internalised misogyny is real. When women are socialised to see each other as competition, when success is so scarce it feels zero-sum, solidarity becomes impossible. Women undercut each other for a few opportunities, reinforcing the system that marginalises them all.
Scarcity turns natural allies into competitors. It makes women protect a small territory rather than claiming the whole table. Without old girls’ networks to match old boys’ clubs, women remain isolated, lacking mentorship, sponsorship, and the casual information exchange that happens organically in male networks.
Change Begins with ‘I’
Structural change remains elusive. But while we work for systemic reform, we can each become the woman we needed when we were young. I mentor. I make introductions. I share information freely, the intelligence that flows naturally in male networks, but must be deliberately constructed among women. I create the solidarity that was missing for me.
This is not a substitute for structural reform. But each woman who reaches back to pull another forward weakens the system, keeping us all down. Each act of solidarity chips away at internalised misogyny that makes us see each other as competitors.
Beyond Celebrations
As International Women’s Day approaches, we celebrate achievements and applaud exceptions. But what of the rule? What of the majority who start with ambition and education but find themselves stymied?
Those ones and threes remember: one means hardest — representing dreams deferred, potential unrealised, economies at half capacity. When the most educated, experienced, capable women rate business ease at one, something is catastrophically wrong.
Instead of showcasing successful women as proof that the system works, we should examine why success remains exceptional. We need structural change: reformed banking not requiring collateral most women lack, simplified bureaucracy not depending on unavailable clout, targeted tax incentives, mandatory lending quotas, platforms designed for women’s business entry and growth. We need to challenge moral double standards, making networking “shameless” for women, dismantle the superwoman myth, confront internalised misogyny, and build genuine solidarity networks.
Most of all, we need honesty. The ease of doing business for urban women in Pakistan is not five or six. For the most qualified, experienced women, it is one. Until we admit that, all celebrations ring hollow.
Next time you watch those men in suits discussing Pakistan’s economic future, ask: Where are the women? They are the ones who rated the system one, three, and five. They are the wounded, not the bleeding. They are the ones with all the knowledge and none of the keys.