My opinion , it is due to propaganda, population ignorance, acceptance of authority, tribalism, us v them mentality, fear, refusal to think for oneself.

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.

Glass is sharp and it hurts

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

The Peter Principle
[investopedia.com]

Because ruthlessness trumps smart and nice all too often. In this country women vote for these dicks too. It was suburban housewives who put his Orangeness over the top.

Most people fake it till they make it, or they achieve sucess through friendship not merit. Its not about what you know, its who you know.

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.

I think it may be due to the fact that the non incompetent men and most women can see what an absolute circus it is and can't be arsed to get involved.

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.

They have set up clubs and those clubs feed the bigger clubs with members ... Posh schools ,posh universites = posh jobs which are bigger boys clubs

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.

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.

Read the book on Psychopaths.

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?

Cause they're driven by their little heads..as to that glass ceiling..I know, right?

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.