[ranran876]

> Blaming it on biology is basically a creative way of giving up on the problem, though

I think you're missing the point. If we acknowledge that there are differences then we can come to terms with the fact statistically men will always be more likely to be CEOs - that doesn't mean we should stop fighting sexism or whatever other issues we have culturally producing prejudice - but it does mean that we may not need to strive for some kind of ... statistical parity.

In another comment you say:

> What I am saying is that women and men are equally capable at being great business leaders

You have no way of knowing that. That's a pure guess on your part. We know that women and men have different brains on the biological and chemical level so, all things being equal, surely it would lead to a least SOME difference statistically on which gender ends up being CEO. The question after that is of degree and does our current gender ratio predominantly represent a biological or cultural phenomena.

Since we historically have a lot of different cultures, and all seem to produce significantly more male leaders than females on, I'd say the biological argument has a lot of weight. I could be wrong!

[judk]

It's almost as though you have no idea that emergent effects and networks effects exist in complex systems, and interpersonal relations have no bearing on sociology.

I suppose you also believe that viability for US presidency is largely a genetic biological trait, since so many Bushes and other White Anglo-Saxons Protestants have gravitated toward it.