Nepal’s current political moment has captured widespread attention. The possible alignment of a few new male leaders is being celebrated as a “new alternative” and an answer to the country’s long-standing political fatigue. On the surface, this moment appears bold and transformative. Yet from my perspective, it produces more discomfort than excitement.

Because this is not real change.It is another round of men against men.Women, third-gender individuals, and other gender minorities remain largely absent from decisive roles. Their presence is mostly symbolic—used to fulfill party quotas or constitutional requirements—while real power and influence continue to rest elsewhere. They are visible, but not authoritative; present, but not powerful.

Even where numerical representation exists, the absence of women in leadership positions is glaring. Data from the federal parliament, provincial assemblies, and local governments consistently shows that while the number of women representatives has increased, their share in positions of real power remains extremely low. At the local level, women constitute nearly 40 percent of elected representatives, yet only about 5–7 percent hold top leadership positions. Party hierarchies, political culture, and deeply rooted social norms continue to confine women to supportive or symbolic roles rather than positions of command.

From my observation, this is not merely a structural problem—it is also cultural. Women in politics are routinely sexualized and objectified in mainstream media, social media, and political cartoons. Even when women are referenced in political discourse, the focus often shifts to their bodies or appearance rather than their ideas or decisions. Cartoons frequently use female figures to symbolize “negotiation,” “compromise,” or political deals-but these women are never decision-makers. From a feminist lens, this is a deeply sexist practice that erases women’s intellectual agency and leadership capacity.

This objectification goes further. Under the cover of satire or humor, women are reduced to political props. Sexualized depictions in cartoons or jokes reinforce patriarchal thinking by normalizing the idea that women exist in politics not as leaders, but as symbols, ornaments, or punchlines. Humor is never neutral. It always reflects who holds power and who is made expendable.

What troubles me most is that in the name of “new politics,” we are witnessing little more than the replacement of old male figures with new male faces. The structure itself remains intact—a monopoly of men. From a feminist perspective, this reveals that the change being offered is largely superficial. Women may appear in the background, but they do not shape decisions, control power, or define political direction.

Representation alone is not enough. Real change can only occur when women stand as independent decision-makers and leaders. Legal provisions and party quotas may create entry points, but without genuine power redistribution and structural inclusion, they remain hollow gestures.Through my personal conversations with women leaders and politically active citizens, a consistent pattern emerges. Women are expected to wait for male approval, assigned minor roles, and denied meaningful leadership opportunities.

When women exercise authority independently, they are often labeled divisive, emotional, or “not serious enough” for politics. These responses are not accidental; they are structural barriers designed to preserve the status quo.At this point, I am fully aware of the questions and criticisms this article will provoke. In Nepali society, whenever gender, women’s rights, or feminism is raised, many dismiss it as “not the right time” or “not the real issue.” So it does not surprise me that this piece, too, will invite resistance.

Some will say, “But women already have representation.” Yes, they do—but representation is not participation. Filling quotas and placing women in lists is not the same as placing them in positions where decisions are made. Women are present, but power is absent. To deny this reality is self-deception.

Others will argue, “This is the time to fix the system; gender issues can come later.” This argument is familiar—and dangerous. The word “later” has always been used to delay women’s equality indefinitely. History shows us that systems built while postponing gender justice never become equal. Equality deferred is injustice entrenched.

There will also be those who claim, “It’s just satire. Don’t take cartoons so seriously.” But satire is never detached from power. Those who are repeatedly mocked, sexualized, or symbolized are pushed into weaker positions. Using women’s bodies, sexuality, or “attractiveness” to convey political messages is not harmless humor—it is a practice that denies women recognition as political actors. The fact that this has become normalized is precisely the problem.

Some may even ask, “If women were capable, wouldn’t they rise on their own?” To this I respond: when structures actively block women from leadership, questioning their capability becomes profoundly unjust. Demanding outcomes without offering opportunity is one of patriarchy’s oldest strategies.

And finally, there will be accusations that this is a “male-bashing” or anti-men article. It is not. This is not an attack on men; it is a critique of patriarchy. The problem is not men themselves, but the concentration of power in male hands alone.  I also know that raising these questions invites accusations of creating “division.” But unity built on exclusion is never sustainable. Questioning injustice is not divisive—silence is what allows injustice to persist.

I write this article because I know Nepali society is beginning to listen to conversations on gender, even if it remains uncomfortable. And it is precisely from this discomfort that real change emerges.If Nepal’s so-called “new politics” is truly to be new, it must confront these questions honestly. Otherwise, we are simply renaming the same old men-against-men power struggle and calling it transformation.

Ultimately, genuine political renewal in Nepal is possible only when: Representation goes beyond numbers to include real participation and power-sharing Structural inclusion ensures women and gender-diverse people hold decisive roles Objectification and sexualization in cartoons, satire, and social media are rejected Patriarchal monopolies are dismantled and power is genuinely shared

Writer :Bhawana Ayer

Social activist Currently international student of MRes in gender studies at University of Chester  United Kingdom

खेतीको समयमा मलको हाहाकार, माटो छ, जाँगर छ तर मलखोई ?

मनसुन सक्रिय भए संगै नेपाली किसानका खेतका गाराहरु पानीले भरिएका छन । अकाशे पानीको भरमा वर्षभरि खाने अन्न उब्जाउने किसानहरुको जाँगर पनि यतिवेला

युगको उभार कि शासनको उत्तरदायित्व ? निर्णायक मोडमा नेपालको नेतृत्व बहस

विरेन्द्र बाग, कञ्चनपुर,  नेपालको राजनीतिमा अहिले देखिएको दृश्य केवल दल–दलबीचको प्रतिस्पर्धा होइन, यो पुस्ताबीचको टकराव, शैलीबीचको संघर्ष र

“नेपालको जेन–जी आन्दोलन तथा कहाँ चुके राज नेता” 

नेपालमा गत भाद्र २३ र २४ गते (सेप्टेम्बर ८ र ९) मा नेपालको ईतिहासमा कहिल्यै नविर्सिने गरी पूरा देश आगोको लपेटामा जलेर खरानी भएको, विश्वसामु जेन–जी