The second to last paragraph missed the point entirely, in that the problem with the "glass cliff" is that dying companies tend to die, so associating women wit

The second to last paragraph missed the point entirely, in that the problem with the "glass cliff" is that dying companies tend to die, so associating women with dying companies will naturally associate them with epic failure that isn't really their fault individually or their fault as women, as the whole point of the earlier studies was decision making ability was about equal most of the time. Yahoo isn't basically dead man walking because they have a female leader, the have a female leader because they're dead man walking and that inaccurately associates female leadership with epic failure. Think HP for a historical example (sentence cut off by web interface? edited to: for a historical example of a terminally ill company where the female leader at least in folk terms became the "fall girl" for the companies implosion and irrelevancy, which isn't the fault of that woman or women in general) That paragraph of the article instead ran off on a tangent about more women leaders would help before the crash, which isn't really very important for feminism (beyond mere metrics) and again misses the point that when times are good there was no particular difference in skill, such that a woman would drive the company off the road just as well as a man if given the chance, which is not perhaps the most politically correct thing to say, but...