@NQD Most women in leasership acheive far more than blokes during an 18 hour day. Most of us - especially those with families - work much smarter. We need to keep on top of our jobs but also keep the home front humming, the children happy and be available to our husbands. Most successful men do not have to worry about anything other than themselves. For women to be more successful they need stay-at-home wives.

579,
if there were a Darwin award for ignorance you'd be the proud owner of the perpetual trophy. Fancy giving Julia Gillard so much credit. Bill Heffernan's was still the best assessment of her. That female belittles the office for Prime Minister of Australia. No wonder the monarchists are still ahead in numbers.

individual, please don't feed the troll

Love women have a problem.

To get to the top, first you have to figure out which way is up. This is a problem for most women, present company included I'm afraid. Most are too busy concentrating on the product of their loins to give enough attention to leadership.

Masters in leadership, what twaddle. As if you can teach leadership. That is something you either have, or do not have, it can't be taught.

Yes you had Maggy to aspire to, but more women than men knock her.

Leaders float to the top, without some damn fool masters in it. Of course, scum floats to the top too, so be careful what you wish for. Just think how many people were killed by bad leadership last century, & try another line of work.

If you don't believe me about scum, just have a glance at Canberra, & any argument is destroyed.

I suggest you go back to doing things that give you warm & fussy feelings, a nice picture of your own humanity, & stay out of such nasty things as leadership.

Normally you would think that if there were less women in leadership positions then it might indicate women didn't make as good leaders. But then in this new feminised age, facts are just so...male.

I don't buy this article either. If anything women have an advantage in male dominated areas because they enjoy favourable discrimination policies, which means they're too often employed based on gender rather than merit. I've already been told, not in so many words, that I should forget any aspirations I might have at my workplace because the senior position I'm qualified for is earmarked for a young female. No glass ceiling for me, I'm not even in the running, no matter how good my CV. I don't resent this in the least, but I don't buy the guff that women are held back or that men block the way.
It's long been a gripe of mine that women are just not sufficiently engaged, in political spheres in particular. They don't seem to like rolling their sleeves up and getting dirty or getting angry. They too commonly just sit back passively (no doubt thinking of England) and grumble about inequality without offering a compelling alternative. Even the women who do enter the arena have generally modelled themselves on men--androgynous corporate minions, certainly nothing radical. But then that's just what corporations and governments prefer; politically correct servility.
Men are discriminated against on many fronts too