Would you want to work somewhere that nobody shared any interests? Maybe a language barrier? Perhaps a place where you would be bullied? or be talked down to constantly? If you had to choose between a place like that, or a place that you would "fit in" better, which would you choose?

It stands to reason that the "best" candidates are going to have a choice in where they work. Hell, even "slightly above average" candidates can often have a choice between multiple offers. So when you are looking for talented individuals, you are going to either need to pay more, offer some other benefits, or will need to ensure your workplace doesn't make them feel unwelcome.

Personally I think of diversifying your employees like buying a pingpong table for the break room, or paying for lunch a day or 2 a week. It's a small price to pay, that can pay off big time when hiring. And that seems like a big enough "reason" for me to want to do it.

Can you back that "surely" up with data or even anecdata, like a straw poll of things women are/aren't worried about when accepting offers? Anecdotally, I've heard numerous women say that they're worried about being the first woman hired on a team (and sometimes even the second) and they've made decisions to reject jobs based on that.

> A company's goal, in a capitalistic country, is to maximize profits, if you can prove that a 50/50 split does this (and getting there should be included in the cost), then great.

There's the classic story of Alan Greenspan's economic research firm, which prioritized hiring women because they were equally qualified but undervalued in the market, and they did pretty well (and in general I think that Alan Greenspan successfully doing a strategy is a sign that a capitalistic company should consider the strategy potentially valid).