[CalRobert]

I don't quite follow - you're saying it's easier for a woman to have a child than a man?

From a purely biological perspective this seems backwards to me. A desirable man could conceivably produce many children over the course of nine months, while a woman can have only one pregnancy.

Edit - I do recognize that in many species (humans included) females are more likely to reproduce than males. Given that the sorts of males who found companies are probably relatively high-status individuals, though, I would suggest that the likelihood of either being able to reproduce is pretty decent, and relates to choice rather than mate availability.

[Lawtonfogle]

A man cannot have a child by himself, he requires someone to be a surrogate mother, which is expensive, rare, and in many cases legally and ethically grey. A single woman can (due to certain medical procedures where the needed biological material is already in stock), and while a pregnancy is not cheap, there are no where near the significant legal and moral issues.

Of course either could adopt a child if they really wanted to. So really we need to determine are we comparing extremes to extremes, or are we comparing what actually happens in the population (and at what point do we disagree and thus need to begin supporting our ideas).

[CalRobert]

I see what you mean. I misinterpreted your original comment, thanks for clarifying.