Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?
...and (my subheading) why do relatively few women break through the "glass ceiling"?
Incompetence knows no bounds of gender, or race. Ironically, it seems that those that are leaders are the ones that have figured out how to bullshit, and manipulate more than those who actually would be great leaders but are honest.
What I wouldn't give to have Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or some one like that for our President.
We're still living in a patriarchal society.
Even if the man is unqualified, and a completely qualified woman is running against him, more men will vote for him, and even a significant number of women will as well. (Do I really need to cite a recent example?)
It's a system that's been in place for thousands of years, so change is extremely slow in coming.
Wish I knew Jnei. I personally think men just want to keep the power to themselves. There are more Conservatives who show their racist and anti-Woman stripes.
Ever since the mono theism cults took over male dominance has been the rule. At one time women were revered as the givers of life. Then Moses came up with 640 rules & it has been down hill from there. The other continents had their own voyage into patriarchy whereby physical strength due to testosterone became subjugation of women. We need to take back our power but alas we do not have the nuclear bomb. They do.
Bad leaders are elected by good people that do not vote
They usually have lots of money which can make them look like leaders, but only enables them to cover up their mistakes. Do Gook Looking Women make Good Lovers, or are People who graduate from Ivy League Schools Smart? Doctors, Lawyers, Priests and Politicians are the biggest problem makers in Society.
Maybe because it's their ambition and they are more psychopathic than most. They're willing to do what it takes to attain their goals and they don't care who they step on. I think the more psychopathic you are, the further you might go, whether you're a man or a woman. They also hang on to their power for dear life. That's why the system is the way it is and nothing ever seems to change on a larger scale.
There are plenty of good men and women who don't make it up the ladder. Maybe there are just more psychopathic men then there are women. Remember, psychopath doesn't necessarily mean they are running around ripping people's skin off or sitting in their basements with a string of corpses having a tea party.
Edit: Just got to the part about personality disorders lol
Oh and I have had male and female managers in my life. The women can be just as shitty as the men.
I also don't really think it's about leadership per say. It's about who makes the most money. You don't necessarily need to be a good "leader" to do that, and being a leader has a very broad definition. People you make money for don't usually care how you treat people to do it. This goes back to capitalism at it's core. Are those good at capitalism just better at having psychopathic tendencies? This is obviously a broad generalization, but so are the ideas in the article.
An incompetent person (not restricted by gender) quite often has an inflated sense of confidence and competence, and no real sense of their own limitations. On the other hand, a truly competent person is acutely aware of his or her deficiencies and may have planned for meeting challenges, but find themselves left behind because it takes vision to see potential leadership, and those doing the choosing are often baffled by bullshit.
Yep pretty much what I was about to say. It’s called the dunning-kreuger effect. Dumbasses are generally the only ones audacious enough to think theyre a good candidate for a position or office. Educated people realize their own limitations. The types of brainpower that would allow you to competently do anything is ironically the exact same skillset that it would take to realize you arent doing well at it, so if you truly suck youre also incapable of realizing it.
As far as women not breaking through the glass ceiling, it could be that the most competent people of any gender can overthink and discourage themselves out of trying, with a realistic grasp of how unlikely it would be to break through. Theres also a common practice in corporate culture called the glass cliff. A corporation in decline will appoint a female executive to lead them; that way if she succeeds the company is lauded on its forward thinking to promote a woman, or if she fails theyre able to lay the blame on her.
Okay here's my rant for the day ! I think the last election spoke volumes as to where women are in our society. It's often said that a woman could be either loved or respected,
But she can never be both. Politics is a especially difficult field for a woman because you have to be tough,but not too tough. highly qualified and knowledgeable, however, you must not be too harsh or cold because these are unflattering qualities for a female. For all the Hillary haters out there, Hillary was investigated far more than Richard Nixon. apparently the dick bag hangers didn't find anything ,and no indictments were ever made. The orange asshat has been investigated for a relatively short period Of time ,and many indictments were made. the only thing people focused on in the last election was crooked Hillary! she can't be trusted ! she's a criminal! To all those people I would like to give a much heartfelt fuck you for helping elect the most incompetent / corrupt president the United States has ever seen.
I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make but I will say that Hillary couldn't carry her own demographic. 52% of white women voted AGAINST the first white female president while they voted FOR the most bigoted white male candidate to ever win a primary. This should have been a cake walk for her and she still couldn't take it.
Women weren't flocking to support her because she had one of the most beige platforms ever seen. She was a horrible candidate, and she lost to Trump because the Democratic party tried to push her down everyone's throats over a far more energizing candidate who was going to stir up politics too much for their liking. Many people voted either against Hillary by abstaining or for Trump just in spite of the Democratic party which Hillary's campaign ran when they took over the finances.
I voted for her because of how bad Trump was, but not because I wanted to. The only difference between her and every other corrupt politician was a chromosome.
@mattersauce most Americans feel just like you do. The operative word here is Americans. And Hillary Clinton has been voted the most admired woman in Gallup polls over 20 times.
@Kojaksmom Is that the same Gallup polling that ranked her favorability among Americans at a low point of 36% in December of 2017 while her more recent low favorability was 38%.
The fact that she was the first viable female presidential candidate is a big deal and nobody can take that away from her. I'm glad that a female was able to compete at that level and there were a lot of women I know that saw her as a great leader among women. Women I knew that didn't agree with all of her policies but still felt so incredibly under-represented in politics that they wanted her elected just because of her sex. All of that is a fair point and relates to why she would be so admired. Most admired woman as the first GE presidential candidate is kind of a lay-up. I think the issue she had was how she got there.
The problem is that she didn't capitalize on her departure from mainstream politics as a female, she instead embodied mainstream politics. The reason she was able to make it to the general is because she played the game so well that she looked like every other shit candidate in the race BUT she was female. That same group above that voted for her only because she was a woman, gave her that momentum and that wasn't enough in the long run. Barack Obama was a minority but he was respected and admired by the majority of Americans. Hillary was a minority and she was neither respected nor admired by the majority. She wouldn't even have won the popular vote if she was a male, she wouldn't even have made the primary.
She's a shit politician, and ultimately she was the leader during the largest defeat of the Democratic party in modern times. She made it to where she was with the backing of her last name, her sex, and her politics-as-usual style. That same style cost her the election and energized the populace against her. If you want to blame anyone for Trump, it should be her because like I said above, it should have been a cake walk.
@mattersauce well how is it that Trump came out of his whole life s* house smelling like a f** Rose? People chose to fall for the b***** that was being thrown around including pizzagate.
@Kojaksmom Nobody chooses to "fall" for anything, but too many did because like I said, Trump was NOT politics-as-usual and for many Americans "politics-as-usual" was the greatest enemy you could elect for most Americans. If you remember the coal miners that were so sure that a normal politician would not save their jobs but fell for Trump when he said he would. Other industries like manufacturing followed suit and thought the big successful business man would save them, while they knew Hillary wouldn't. They were half right, because Hillary never would have either.
"Not politics" drove the last election far more than anything else. Bernie Sanders & Donald Trump had that in common and their numbers were far higher than normal for outsider candidates. Hillary Clinton was literally a political dynasty and attached to one of the least trust-worthy presidents ever. Regardless of my opinion on her platform her biggest enemy was her affiliation to politics-as-usual. She sounded just like any other politician, she pandered and moved her position and tried to act cool and did everything else just to get elected. Trump did things that his campaign said would be the death of his campaign, Sanders spoke from his heart on platforms that would get most candidates laughed out of a room. Both did very well, but Clinton ran Sanders out of the Democratic party and he didn't really belong there in the first place. Sanders realized that the 2 party system was a lock, and realized that there was no path to the presidency outside them.
A minority will never reach the presidency with "politics-as-usual". No matter what anyone says Obama was a higher caliber man than you normally get into office and I disagreed with a lot of his moves while there. Hillary wasn't, she was your run-of-the-mill politician, but a woman. She didn't energize anyone, she bored them.
@mattersauce so I guess Trump was the more socialist of the two. Berniecrats typically swayed the end towards Trump. Either way it doesn't matter Trump is now president thanks to a lot of berniecrats. The younger generation seem to be the one Ben really wants massive change in our government but the only problem is the Little fucks never get out and vote. Election after election they have proven themselves to be extremely unreliable.
@Kojaksmom No to both. Trump is definitely not "more socialst" he's the least socialst president we've had at least since Herbert Hoover. Trump never stood against Sanders as all of the polling said Sanders would have won by a considerable margin.
Sanders didn't try to push his campaign into a third party and even backed Hillary Clinton after the primary. Hillary lost because of her weak campaign and inability to energize the Democratic party. Like I said, she's a shitty politician that only got as far as she did because she was a female. If she had left the Democratic primary process alone and not taken over their cash flow and routed the leaders into her support, Sanders would have won the primary and the GE.
Once again, Hillary is the single biggest reason you've got Trump as a president. She mandated that it be either Trump or her in the Oval Office. Blaming a fraction of the primary loser's party for her loss in the general election is naive at best and delusional at worst. She had more control over her campaign and her entire party than any candidate in history and still lost. Stop making excuses for her.
Because men are pigs that demand others to believe they know what they are talking about, while women are always right and we men forget that.
I think that the majority of men actually don't consciously demand that, but the way society is makes many men act that way without ever questioning it. Smash the patriarchy, folks - it's good for all of us.
The question seems malformed to me. With the descriptor of incompetent tethered to the question, it begs the question, can't we get some incompetent women up in here? The bigger question would be why are so many who are elected incompetent? To mix in the gender issue suggests we ought to be demanding fair representation of incompetent women electees. Personally, I prefer fewer overall.
I read it as "why are incompetent men coming ahead of competent women"?
Because competent men seem to be scarce right now. I'd just as soon let women run everything.
It's easier in our society for white men to become leaders than other groups because white men are currently leaders, it's that simple.
When people complain about too few east asian characters in the movies (stick with me here) the reason is that east asian people want more characters that they can relate too. This factor is the same for white men in leadership positions, trying to select leaders to promote beneath them.
I'm in no way defending them, but the reality is that it's much easier for a white male in a leadership role to see another white male and relate them to a leadership position. "If I did it and I'm great at it that guy who seems like me can do it too". The real problem here is that just because you're the very capable and successful VP of Marketing doesn't mean you know shit about judging leadership capabilities but the task to assign your new Director of Marketing is still yours.
Sometimes they're not trying to be evil or keep women or minorities down, they just aren't fucking any good at selecting great leaders and they're selecting what they think are mirror images of themselves.
We tend to get what we deserve, let me expand that. Firstly ask yourself who would want the job? Could you or anyone that you know survive the rigorous public scrutiny that a modern politician has to endure? Trump and Johnson aside, (they seem to be Teflon) most of us have some form of skeletons in or cupboard that we would be loath to see all over the tabloids. Think of all the great leaders from Pitt the younger though Lloyd George up to FDR and JFK who would be crucified in the press now. Hence we have as our leader (Teressa May), a woman whos worst sin was running through a wheat field. She is no Merkel and I would rate her level of competence as assistant area manager to a chain of charity shops.
Secondly as in CEOs, to be top dog requires intelligence, ambition, assertiveness and the ability to put in very long hours of 70+ a week. Whilst many women have the first two. Some may have the third but few will have the fourth. This is market forces and don't cry about that because women make 80% of all purchases. You can do all the studies you like on how women might be better at the top jobs but until women significantly out perform men as managers. Shareholders will tend to choose men.
Thirdly we have to look at the demographics. Why are all the top chess players men? Because it is a 98% mans pastime (women have better things to do). So what size pool are you drawing from? As in politicians you can only pick from who wants to do it. Take Sweden for example. No one would say that women lack equality of opportunity there. Yet 60% of women will choose the caring professions such as medicine. Take away home makers and academics and thats a very small pond.
Now I will deal with the article. It tries to make the point that assertiveness is counter productive "the best leaders are usually humble" What tosh is that really? name one? Gandhi was far from humble in his own way, (What he showed in public humility was more than offset by being great self publicist.)
I once wrote an academic essay on the republic on Plato's questioning of democracy "Who is best to govern the ship? The captain or the crew?" I used an historical incident to illustrate this question. ie. the mutiny on the Bounty. For those not familiar with the story there are two versions. The Hollywood and the real one. The Hollywood version had its roots in Fletcher Christians family connections to the intelligentsia such as Wordsworth and Keats and has him fleeing a tyrannical madman. The real version has Blythe taking an open boat (with most of his crew and only one fatality) over 2,500 miles to civilization. Whereas the mutineers ripped themselves apart and most were killed by each other.
In short we do not crave humble people to represent us. In a crisis we need a captain not a debate. In negotiations (politics aside) we want Joe Stalin or Mrs Thatcher not Pollyanna. Put it this way. who would you choose as your union rep to get you the best deal?
no. sorry . you mean you have to have the stomach to have your opponent murdered. Stalin ruined what would have been a workable economic system. Your posture it pro dictator. a certain personality. Women in general still most of the childcare
@squiggy_70 When they were drawing up the new map of Europe in 1945. There was an oil refinery that Stalin wanted but it was on the western side of the line. Uncle Joe stuck his thumb on the map and refused to move it. They had to draw around it, giving him the refinery. Morals and politics aside, thats the mentality that you want on your side of the negotiating table not theirs. Assertiveness is IMHO is a prerequisite for good leadership whichever gender.
As for women being in childcare. If the vast majority of applicants are women by their choice. I cannot argue with their decision. Equality of opportunity should be a right. Equality of outcome is not.
Extract from an online conversation:
Why are so few women choosing stem subjects in college?
I take it by your question that you have a background in gender politics?
I do have an MA in gender issues but I fail to see what that has to do with it?
Why didnt you choose a stem subject?
Fuck off.
Because one thing incompetent men seem to be gifted at is talking a big game. Some are even good at using and manipulating others to cover up for their litany of serious flaws and failures.
But once you get past all of the big talk, conniving and manipulation, what you are left with is a loser who contributes nothing to the world and leaves only damage and heart break in their wake.
And why have too few women broken through the glass ceiling? Because too many of the above mentioned type of men are in charge of things. Stop putting these douche bags in charge and stop dating them and marrying them and allowing them to reproduce. Then more women will break through the glass ceiling.