[gehant]

This is what's scary: women still face a very thick glass ceiling in business (not men - the flip scenario comparisons are baseless and for the most part insulting to women, including those who smoke).

More importantly, is it OK that women make up less than 5% of Fortune 500 CEO positions? That's not sad?

To clarify, there's a huge difference between unqualified and less qualified. I would never say men/women are unqualified to do anything...

Fact: There are women who are qualified to be CEO of Fortune 500s.

Assuming selection from the above, she would be more qualified since she would be more likely to 1) be passionate about the product, 2) be an actual consumer of the product, 3) be able to empathize with users of the product, 4) better understand internal value tied to the product...the list goes on.

[randallsquared]

More importantly, is it OK that women make up less than 5% of Fortune 500 CEO positions? That's not sad?

Your feelings about whether this is sad, in the absence of further information about why it's so, signals mostly whether you care about equality of outcome or equality of opportunity.

[aristus]

I wasn't trying to be insulting; I would give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not being insulting to men who wear makeup, are passionate about it, etc. I picked the cigar and manmag examples for exactly that reason: the customers are overwhelmingly one gender but it is not at all exclusive.

There are very few women in executive positions, that is a fact. But it does not follow that a white, middle-aged gentleman is less qualified because he's a man. He was unqualified because he was a finance wonk who didn't understand makeup and fashion.