[q2]

If you plot based on blood types of CEO's rather than gender, you may get other type of results. So should we take blood type as another type of parameter like gender?

Point I want to make is, people are different starting from blood type, height, weight to "n" number of parameters and we can get different graphs for different parameters but that won't conclude anything.

Each person is different and just because some one belongs to a category does not make that person any extra attractive for any job.

In my personal opinion, this type of validation rather than competence,track record,experience is not beneficial to organization or society and completely shortsighted. So please stop these generalizations like "women are so and so", "men are so and so" ...etc. There are good and bad elements in every category.

[dunster]

I think you're looking at the trees, and you should step back and look at the forest.

The fraction of CEOs that are women is dramatically smaller than the fraction of the population that are women. There is no qualitative explanation as to why that should be true. So long as that remains true, it's worth looking into why it is true. The relative performance of the group is fair game for investigation.

[refurb]

There is no qualitative explanation as to why that should be true.

I think there are plenty of qualitative explanations especially if look back a few decades (since most CEOs are in their 50s).

Women didn't obtain the name number of university degrees as men until recently. Women often step out of the workforce in order to care for family, etc, etc.

All of these would explain where there would be a smaller pool of qualified women to take a CEO role.

[ryanmarsh]

It's obvious, women are better than men at certain things, such as running companies. That's what we're all trying to say here isn't it? Oh, wait, we want EQUALITY for both sexes. Well, then in that case why differentiate one sex as potentially better than the other? Why create that competition?