there is an argument to be made that a more diverse board could lead to more inclusive decision making ... more diverse customers ... more money This argument

there is an argument to be made that a more diverse board could lead to more inclusive decision making ... more diverse customers ... more money This argument is the core intellectual justification for this kind of anti-western-male discrimination but it's unsound. If we handwave away the uncertain definitions of "diverse" and "inclusive" then it boils down to women should be on corporate boards because they will force decisions to be made that are better for women. Is this legitimate? If there was widespread unfair discrimination against women by corporations then you could argue this would tip the balance back to equality, assuming you could precisely measure the appointees pro-women/anti-man decisions and figure out when there was 'enough' such decision making. But as we can see from this story the reality is the opposite: there's widespread discrimination against men in our society, not women. I don't remember ever reading about women being denied jobs outside of special cases with physical strength requirements like the military, and even then, not anymore. So what is more inclusive decision making meant to mean, exactly? Corporations are not refusing to sell products to women today, or refusing to promote women. Quite the opposite. Unfortunately my experience of 'inclusive' decision making in corporations is that it's a double-speak inversion. It really means excluding and discouraging people based on how they were born. If appointing women to boards is meant to create more of this then we can assume it's not really "female/diverse" they're going for but rather people with a specific ideological bent. Goldman Sachs, enforcing leftist wokeism on the world via financial discrimination. What kind of a topsy turvy world are our sons being born into?