So then explain to me how two equal things would have different outcomes? If I have two cars, they both are equally good at driving, but one wins 80% of races, then I can assume something is slowing down the other one. A perfectly level race track would mean each car would win 50% of the time (well, actually I guess they would tie, but that's not the point). If I offer a bunch of people a choice between two $5 bills, and people tend to pick the one in my right hand over the one in my left 80% of the time, then I can assume something is influencing them to pick the bill in my right hand.

That's where I'm coming from. I don't understand how you can think men and women are equal and then be OK with men "winning" 80% of positions in a board room. The only way a meritocracy could put more men than women in a board room would be if men were better than women at the job. But neither of us agree with that.

You also seem to think that requiring a certain portion of women in executive positions means that men would be unfairly discriminated against. I see it the other way around, that men who would have been unfairly promoted would be replaced by women who should have been promoted in the first place.

>I_can't_change_your mind

Do you see how that can go two ways?