Balance in the board room?

There are often calls for more women to be placed in high ranking positions in business. Back in 2011 a report suggested that the percentage of women on board tables to 25%. If they don't they will "be missing out on a vast array of talent at their disposal."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/12560121

Why are they missing out on talent? Surely the men that are there have the talent they need, that is why they are there? If not wouldn't they hire more women on their own?

I should state at this point I'm actually in favour of more women being on the boards of major companies. I'm playing devil's advocate.

Women should be at the board table, not to statisfy some quota or because women are the same as men, but rather the reverse. There should be women on company boards because women are different. They have different attributes that men won't have. They usually have a different way of looking at things, a different way of evaluating and processing risk and many other different attributes. It is this that makes a balanced board room so useful. If women were exactly the same as men then a board room with 25% women would be no different, no better than one with 0%. It appears that lefties tend to get this.

So if it is so obvious to those on the left that a balance of men and women can help an organisation a serious question raises its head: If a board room of all men (or presumably all women) isn't as balanced as a board room with a mix, if they don't have the same variety of skills, approaches, strengths and benefits, does the same apply to a family?

Lefties tend to think that homosexual marriage is fantastic. There was a bill on adoption that was passed years ago, some wanted there to be reference to the importance of male role models in an adopted childs life, but this was rejected. How does this make sense? A board room is argued to be better for a balance of men and women, but parents can be 100% male or 100% female and that is fine? How can these two opinions be reconciled? Surely the attributes that make it beneficial to have women at the table of FTSE 100 companies are the same attributes that make it beneficial to have them as parents, and likewise with men. Obviously there will be individual examples where two good men can raise a child better than an awful couple made up of a man and woman. Just like there will be times when a board room full of men will be better than a mixed one, but we are talking about averages here. Does it not make sense that two men cannot behave like a man and a women, because women bring unique characteristics that men alone will not  possess? Does not the same apply the other way around?

To deny that women bring their own skills and perspective to a company seems odd, to say they do not bring them to a family seems absurd. Why does the left on the one hand shout out the benefits of gender balance and then on the other hand pretend they do not exist?