> There is no reason the number shouldn't be near 50%. Women are as capable as men. It's nowhere near 50%. It's the year 2015 and Buddhist monks are still wide

> There is no reason the number shouldn't be near 50%. Women are as capable as men. It's nowhere near 50%. It's the year 2015 and Buddhist monks are still widely under-represented in the upper echelons of the job market. Is that likely to be about discrimination? That women are as capable as men isn't the only factor. That's very reductionist and simplistic. People also make choices, and many people don't want to invest time into becoming board members, musicians, or what have you. I'm NOT saying that this is only a matter of choice, and not about discrimination. I'm just saying that reducing it to one variable is too simplistic; just as simplistic as if I said that the gender ratios of the job market is purely about individual choices[1]. And your post only seems to be about representation argument, and makes no mention of any concrete, direct discrimination. [1] In the sense that people have reasonable freedom to compete and make choices based on their preferences. Not in the trivial sense that they just make the "choice" to give up on a system that is discriminatory.