[Frazmatazz]

These don't contradict each other at all, unless you don't understand the fundamental idea of a team or organization.

Let's say I have ten people with experience A. I add an 11th person with experience A. My team still just has experience A.

I have ten people with experience A, and I add an 11th person with experience B. Now my team has experiences A & B.

Breadth of knowledge and perspective is the heart of innovation. Adding a wider variety of experiences to an organization improves its ability to solve problems.

Now, this is so obvious, I'm left wondering why you're so desperate to maintain the illusion that women are inferior in some way?

[quacked]

You have misconstrued my point in a very silly way. Is there some reason that a woman can gain experience A that a man can't? Or a way that a man can gain experience B that a woman can't? Is the optimal ratio in an organization 50/50 men-to-women? If I turn $200M profit a year but my board is 80/20 men to women, can I get $270M a year with some gender-based replacements?

I don't care about any illusion about inferiority or superiority; what I am desperate to do is stop other people from fallingunder the influence of fools who change their ideas as soon as it becomes politically expedient. Either adding women is a performance benefit, making them superior or at the very least different in a completely inaccessible way to men, or it has no result because men and women are interchangeable.