We seem upset when Catalyst Inc. or another women's advocacy network informs us that "there are only" 15% or 16% or 17% women among some top leadership group: boards of directors, CEOs, CFOs, or some other C-level position.

The advocates too often allege that "it's all their fault" -- those pale, stale males who are keeping all the women out of the top leadership opportunities. But what about that great level playing field, the American political marketplace? If women are not taking on leadership positions, following the political path, then isn't that more a reflection of the society and the culture (the voter marketplace) in which we live rather than the domination of only half of the economy?

If women wanted other women to be in political leadership, wouldn't they be likely to support other women who pursue and achieve positions of leadership? If women control or influence 80 to 90% of our discretionary income, don't they also have the power to channel funds in support of their half of the marketplace?

Ah, but, not all women vote for women. Which is why today there are only 8 women serving among the 50 possible gubernatorial positions in the U.S. That turns out to be 16%. Altogether, there have been 29 women Governors of U.S. states since the first one held office in 1924. Most of today's current crop came into office after 1967/1968.

Today, there are 74 Congresswomen sitting in the U.S. House of Representatives (or 17% of the total of 435 seats). The first one held office in 1924.

Today, we have 16 women Senators out of 100 (which translates into 16%) with most of the current crop arriving after 1978. The first one held office in 1922. There have been a whopping 35 women Senators out of the total of 1,897 (which means only 1.85%).

There have been about 20 women candidates for the U.S. Presidency. Most of them represented marginal or non-major parties such as: the People's Party, Right to Life, Peace and Freedom, Socialist, Social Equity, Socialist Workers, Workers' World, American, Looking Back, Independent, Equal Rights, National Equal Rights, New Alliance, Citizens, Green and the Communist Party. Only 8 women were serious contenders from one of the two majority parties: 2 were Republican and 6 were Democratic candidates. All of these women ran only since 1964 when Margaret Chase Smith led the way.

Looking at our political landscape, it appears that women are only just beginning to take political leadership seriously enough to campaign on an equal footing with their peers. As much as women might "emotionally" identify with fringe party issues, the likelihood of getting into office following that route is somewhere between small and none.

Being a woman in leadership is an exceptional undertaking which only about 15 to 17% of the marketplace (women) appear willing to pursue. Rather than focus on all of those "old boys" whom some women argue are keeping women out of leadership positions, perhaps it really is time we started to look at two other far more important factors:

1. who ARE the women who constitute that 15 to 17% of leadership in contemporary society and culture? how did they pursue it? how did they achieve it? how could other women emulate them?

2. why is it that society and culture failed so miserably at keeping those women back, behind and out of leadership positions when those two deamons have been so successful at keeping the other 83 to 85% "in their place"?

Maybe we should focus on the top tier a little more, and stop listening to the bottom tier altogether.