[sliverstorm]

My point has nothing to do with whether this particular board was established under discrimination, and everything to do with the author's notion that a company cannot be successful without women on the board. I have nothing against women on the board, but I think it is intuitively obvious that neither gender is a prerequisite for success.

[Tzunamitom]

Not wanting to challenge your intuition, but my notion was that company success is strongly correlated to women on the board and gender equality.

Hopefully the research linked in my email at the bottom of the original post might prompt you to reconsider your intuitive position (one that is unfortunately shared by many people).

[sliverstorm]

Tzunamitom, none of the text in the links at the bottom of your email prove that women are necessary for success. Even if having women on the board increases chances for success, or increases the magnitude of success, how can you say with a straight face that a company cannot be successful without women on the board? (Or without men on the board?) There are countless companies that have grown successful with only men on the board, and I am sure there are also companies that have grown to success with only women on the board. So, clearly, whether or not gender balance improves your chances for success, it is not a prerequisite to success.

[Tzunamitom]

Pat, I have better things to do than debate semantics with a bored undergrad who aggressively downvotes any opinion that dissents with his. Take what you can from the discussion on gender equality...or don't, you're the one missing out.

[selmnoo]

By being casually dismissive and rude like this, you only hurt your own platform.

If you were true and committed to your cause, you'd engage in a discussion with full intellectual honesty regardless of whether the person you're involved with happens to be a "bored undergrad" or not.