I commented on the article to say that blaming men is not the answer and it's odd how feminists, who allegedly seek equality, only ever look at half the issue (women's side) and ignore men's issues.

Diverse Members? Why?
Diversity in WHAT? Competence? Genitalia? Unintended consequence potential? Integrity?
One would think a focused resume, and proved results, might be a more productive use of resources.
Of course, I could be wrong about how progressively "complicated" such things need to be made.
Did I forget how easy it would be for such complaints to be addressed by successfully competitive ventures?
Oh, wait...you mean WITHOUT "other peoples money", and pre-established "logistics"?
Isn't the "diverse" DNA of each person enough?

I've been on "boards" where "new" folks, with "big" ideas, that somehow cite "progress".
After ensuring that all my previous (unglamorous) responsibilities were to be assumed by someone "promoted" to the
slot-I bailed. I STILL get calls asking me to please return and "fix" the consequences of the "big idea" folk, who, faced with their incompetence,tend to simply quit cold, to um..."spend more time with their family."
Apparently "credentials" are mere signature decorations on someone elses rolodex without the gonadinal(sic) fortitude to actually "git 'er done".

Sadly, "assignees" to the current um...diverse...US Executive Branch desperately cling to the trappings of the criminally delusional.

"Too few women putting in enough hours over years at their careers, to make their way onto corporate boards, REALISM survey finds"...............................

Quote from byslexic_danana

"Too few women putting in enough hours over years at their careers, to make their way onto corporate boards, REALISM survey finds"...............................

Bingo!

Or in the words of Rush Limbaugh (from the book The Way Things Ought to Be), "It's spelled C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N".

So the diversity 'survey' (no more empirical validity than a pop quiz. It also seems to be inherently biased) concludes women have greater representation in the public sphere (charities) than in the private domain where silly ideas about making profits and appeasing shareholders come into play!

Why would the greedy cunts within the corporate world put in place people that might diminish their profits? These soulless cretins care nothing about the sex of their employees if only they can maximize their investments. Feminists whining on about a mythical patriarchy don't fully understand that the ruthlessness of elitism (perverse classism) is why more men are CEOs, because they prove to be the most dedicated, pliable and disposable of assets (ironically due to 'duty' regarding family commitments).

Almost right, CD. As a former Director of a few Companies I can say that profits are sought at a reasonable level but rarely 'maximum'. One needs a return on investment commensurate with risk and difficulty. Profits are made within a complex environment of legal and ethical strictures. Anyone can 'maximise' simply by using a club or a gun, as most Casinos show.

Some Not-for-Profit organisations also aim to make a profit which is used to increase ability to provide a service, but far too many are nowadays soley concerned with spending monies not earned. Many NGO's are simply arms of Government using taxpayers money without regard for efficiency or effectiveness. These seem to be heavily populated by 'jobs-for-the-girls' people who would otherwise be unemployable. Double-entry book-keeping and an ability to follow the Grant-seeking script is all the skill needed.

Wanting more women = wanting fewer men.

Companies want to diversify their corporate boards for PR reasons.

That's just too damn bad.