I'd say what for-profit companies do is the best indicator we have of the value of gender balance vs. just-making-something-people-want [to buy]--there's an imbalance in those too. Apple, for example, has an all male executive team. Microsoft has one woman (hr). Google has a few women (pr, hr/lobbying and marketing).

http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/

http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/exec/slt.aspx

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/programming-and-development...

I expect an objection that assumes for-profit businesses don't act rationally to maximize profit, I won't pursue that.

"I expect an objection that assumes for-profit businesses don't act rationally to maximize profit, I won't pursue that."

Why not? Sounds like a valid objection that undermines your entire argument.

It would be, if it was provably or probably true. I don't think it is. But I wasn't (and I'm not) going to spend an hour arguing the point.

Further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order

Well I do think it is, and I've provided as much argument as you, so I suppose we'll just have to accept that we'll never know.