Gender equality is still illusive at the top, according to a recent article in the LA Times. (9/9/2011)
Since when have we found any value, or gained any insight, in evaluating the opportunities of higher business administration exclusively by numbers.
A greater percentage of women have lost their jobs in the corporate world, perhaps. But what kind of work were they doing? How many of the employees compiled in the statistic were part-time, contracted, or full-time?
Though a fraction of the CEOs in corporate America are women, does that speak necessarily to business discrimination? The nation must take into account that women enter the workforce with different interests, and different needs. Women choose to go on maternity leave if choosing to start a family, a limitation which does not effect men, which in turn does not risk the company's bottom line with a sudden departure by their chief officer.
More women than men, for example, may be inclined to invest in a different type of work. How many women have become self-employed instead of fighting for a promotion in the upper eschelon of their respective companies?
Is it education? More women then men are entering college, yet the statistics are still unclear as to how many women versus men are enrolled in Graduate Business programs.
With a number of factors which warrant greater scrutiny, it would appear that the lesser number of female CEOs is at best a spurious correlation, one which prevents any meaningful theories supporting gender discrimination in the corporate world of the United States.