In essence, your notion of leadership seems to imply that a man’s role is to “figure things out” by shouldering the burden of life’s most difficult, thankless, and stressful responsibilities, while a woman’s contribution is to show up and, as you say, "get on board" with her golden ticket. That's quite the arrangement - for one of the parties.
There is a reason why life expectancy of an average male is six years shorter than that of an average female. Stress is a killer. And what exactly do you get for putting yourself in an early grave? Mediocre sex that gradually tapers off after a few years? A relationship that, statistically speaking, is likely to end with the woman initiating divorce - something that happens in roughly 80% of cases? Modern women who can't stop talking about equal rights but recoil at the prospect of equal responsibility? Fvck all that.
The flip side of leadership is unquestioning obedience (and harsh punishment for those who disobey). You can't have one without the other. We used to have a society that recognized this balance. There was no shortage of male leaders in those days. We are now told that women didn't like it very much.
Ultimately, leaders are motivated by power. Modern society stripped away men's power over women. Without power, leadership is no longer attractive. This shouldn't be surprising.
