Agreed. I mentioned this inconvenient truth (a real one) to two of my sisters one time. They both vehemently disagreed (naturally) and insisted that male managers would rather run their businesses into the ground than promote and pay equal rates to equally competent women. I scoffed knowing that both sisters make considerably more than me. They simply don't want to accept the fact that by nature men are for more likely to accept unpleasant tasks and take more risks to make money. Plus men have ON AVERAGE an aptitude for certain lucrative professions that most women don't have. That's human nature, and it can't be changed by government edicts.
If this is the case, then all companies would be staffed completely by women at the upper ranks, because all of the male-run companies would be out of business.
Now...100 years ago this would not have been the case, but there are enough female-run companies, and they've been in business long enough, for the Darwinistic laws of Capitalism to take over. For instance, when you go to WalMart and buy something, do you know whether or not the thing was made by a male-run, or a female-run company? Generally, I would think not. And WalMart doesn't care, they only want to get you that thing for the lowest price and highest markup possible.
In this real-world scenario, poorly run businesses fail quickly.
Feminists with no understanding of economics irritate the heck out of me. :-)