Originally Posted by
Stumplicker
And across 100% of people, theoretically 50% of women should be the best fit for the job given their equal mental capacity. It's not totally cut and dry because you see more women drop out of the pool than men for things like child rearing still, but theoretically speaking, as women are equal in mental capacity to men, they should be the best fit for 50% of those available jobs assuming an equal amount in the workforce in a given field.
If the ratio is something stupidly low, which I don't know if it is or not, and that was the cause for a stupid law to be put into place, then yes, all other things equal, something was wrong to prompt a stupid law.
It's murkier water when you get into fields that are male dominated to start with. STEM fields come to mind. If there are 20% females in a field and 80% male, then logic dictates that 20% of the board would be female, assuming equal mental capacity and drive for the work.
Again, I don't know what the actual ratios were to prompt the stupid law, but historically men have risen higher in most fields. It would not surprise me if the ratio was 90% men to women or worse to prompt the law.
I don't agree with the "quota" implementation of the law, which is why I consider it stupid, but it is an issue that should be addressed in some way. In my opinion that way is an improvement to education, but that's neither here nor there.