Oscar Wilde already said that "everything in life has to do with sex, except for the sex itself that has to do with power." Now, as we all know, in virtually every sphere of social, political and economic life, most leaders have been and remain men. Not because they have some special talent for it nor because there's any kind of conspiracy against women. Then why does this happen? I will try to shed some light on this matter to understand the cause and origin of this phenomenon from an evolutionary point of view. In summary, and in this perspective, men have always occupied most leadership and power positions because they have always needed and sought (as they still need and seek) resources that increase their potential or real value in the "race and market of mating and reproduction". Therefore, the impulse of men for leadership and power positions derives from the fact that these positions have always allowed more and better opportunities for mating and breeding for men, since these, unlike women, are who most profit in reproductive terms if they have more sex. No matter whether it is through more material or symbolic gains, or through better status, men have always sought more opportunities so that they can have more sex. It is well known that leaders can accumulate better benefits and resources, be it financial, or of position and status, and this has always offered them more access to opportunities for sex, mating and eventual reproduction. Women, unlike men, do not benefit from more reproductive opportunities because they can have more sex. The final goal (albeit unconscious) remains the reproductive success in the natural and sexual selection, reflected in the intrassexual (male) competition to obtain resources and attract the attention of sexual partners. What is at the origin or, if we prefer, can be regarded as the main cause of most of the leaders being men is the result of a phenomenon called "effort or reproductive cost". The breeding effort of the human species is composed of the mating effort, that is, the total investment spent to attract and find a partner, which adds to the parenthood effort, that is, the total investment spent taking care of progeny. In the human species, as in others, the efforts associated with the reproductive cost are also divided, but not equally. While the mating cost is higher for the man, the cost of parenthood is much higher for the woman-for obvious biological reasons. Thus, it follows that men tend to obtain so many and better reproductive and mating opportunities, the more and better capacities, qualities and resources (or perspectives thereof), can be signaled in the context of the reproductive "storefront". This accumulated and encapsulated "evolutionary heritage" takes time to be updated to respond to the pressures of the "new evolutionary environment" in which we live, if it will ever be, considering the unequal breakdown in the sharing of reproductive investment costs that fit both man and woman. On the other hand, this makes sense to the extent that women prefer, intelligently, to mate with men who have more resources or signalize capacities to come to obtain them, which causes men in its turn to look for leadership positions because these positions signal real or potential capabilities or resources. Of course, in my opinion, there are no other profound and absolute reasons to explain this phenomenon of continuous persistence on the part of men in leading and the consequent overrepresentation of them in these positions. It is because of all the complexity and dynamics of the reproductive game in our species that men remain in competition among them in the search for resources that make them more attractive in the eyes of women to be by these... selected. As we also all know, in the current environment in which we live in, both the social status of position and the prestige associated with it constitutes the main source of the capital of attraction for man not to lose the "race" in the selection for reproduction. Today, income, wealth and status are the dominant competitive factors and leadership positions, which for the reasons pointed out concern men much more than women, are one of the best vehicles to achieve these "trump cards". The biosocial analysis based on the evolutionary paradigm can thus link the leadership, the search for wealth, prestige, power, resources status and sex, and in this way "unlock" the true and the absolute reasons for which there has always been and there are still more men than women to lead in every sphere of our social life. All of this seems to result from a profound biological urge for the creation of genetic copies, that is, for reproductive success. And this success, in the background, seems to be the ultimate end of life for all species and ours is no exception in nature. Everything else, even the struggle for preservation, is no more than a means to reproductive success. Then you will wonder: why do we not hear this explanation clearly when addressing this issue? I believe it is because men, in general, are unaware of the evolutionary logic behind their motives. After all, as I have already said, if women prefer (cleverly) select men with more capacities, qualities and resources, including status, then men, realizing how they can increase the possibilities of being selected, will do all for that. The final question is, can this ever be altered?