>yeh well my friend is the CEO of a company and its evaluated at millions of dollars but shes salaried less than an entry level engineer and has a tight budget.

Ah, so you're doing the silly thing called "equivocation". I never said all business owners were horrible people; it should be pretty obvious that I'm railing against mega-millionaire/billionaire CEOs of large and highly valued companies. It's just like complaining about politicians; most of the ones in Washington can be assumed to be evil sociopaths, with a few notable exceptions, but that doesn't mean that every local mayor or city councilman across the nation is a bad person (quite likely the opposite). Power corrupts absolutely, and the more power people have, generally the worse those people are. I've known plenty of small-business owners who were very decent people; I'm not complaining about them at all. These people are nothing like Carly Fiorina or Travis Kalanick.

>not all multilmillion dollar companies mean the ceos are millionaries

I'm quite aware of this. A $1M company is not even remotely a big company. One engineer can easily cost $150-250k in fully-loaded costs, more in SV. So of course a CEO isn't going to be ultra-rich here, in fact such a company is likely to not even have a "CEO", but rather simply an "owner". It's the companies valued in tens of billions of dollars and up where you have the horrible CEOs with $200M golden parachutes. This is elementary economics. Giant companies have far higher revenues and profits which their executives can skim.

>I understand you have observations but the top 5 CEOs advertised on tech crunch everyday are not neessarily reflective of the literally hundreds of thousands of CEOs in this country.

I apologize that I over-generalized and didn't cite a valuation or something, but I thought it was pretty obvious that I'm not complaining about business owners across the board, just the richest, most powerful ones. They're the ones I see with the worst behavior. Of course, with their greater size comes greater visibility, but you'd think that as a class maybe they'd take this into account and act better, but apparently not.

>I think your idea that all CEOs are sociopaths who run companies into the ground

I think at the upper end, and in American companies in particular, this is very often the case. No, I don't believe it to necessarily be the case for some person with a little $1M company with a handful of employees; that's a totally different situation. Now there are some real jerks even at that level, but there's jerks everywhere, but at least the small company execs/owners can't hurt that many people with their actions the way someone like Carly can with massive layoffs and totally ruining the culture of a formerly-great company (ask any old-time HP engineer what they think of her), or worse getting involved in politics or influencing politicians to pass bad laws and policies which favor his billionaire buddies and screw the lower classes.

>I think CEOs are the easy bad guys. Everyone needs someone to point to and say hey its all your fault.

CEOs (again, the very rich ones, not some small businessperson), combined with their politician cronies, are at the top of our socioeconomic hierarchy. They basically run our society, they write the laws, the control the enforcers, and they have all the power, and benefit the most from their positions in society. So yes, it really IS all their fault. In any hierarchal organization, the failure of the organization is always the fault of the leaders and those who control all the power.

>and criticise everyone in leadership positions.

Why shouldn't we? Again, they have all the power. The people at the bottom have nearly none.

As for why women are lacking in this profession, that's another discussion from our little argument here but personally I think it comes down to culture: American culture does not assign much prestige to STEM workers (like it does for doctors and lawyers and executives), parents and society steer young girls away from it ("math is hard!"), and recently it's gotten a rotten reputation for poor treatment of women (thank CEO Kalanick and his cronies for part of this, plus plenty of other tech companies). Smart young women in college have a lot of options available to them these days, such as in medicine, so perhaps they're steering clear. Has anyone tried interviewing a bunch of college women who are in other "hard" majors/career tracks, and asking them if they ever considered STEM/tech and why they didn't go that route, and instead chose medicine/law/finance/etc.? I've worked with a fair number of female engineers, and one thing I'll point out is that in my experience, most of them were not white American women, they were Asians of some sort (some East Asian, some Indian/Bangladesh/Pakistani). So why is it that those Asian cultures seem to have more women interested in these jobs than the supposedly "more liberal" American and European cultures? I'm not a sociologist, but I think it's definitely a cultural problem, and that's not something you're going to fix by encouraging girls to major in CS; by that age, you're already too late.

>female CEOs DO objectively (google analytics man) get it worse than men and gets far more personal jabs about their bodies and sexual comments I've never seen male CEOs publicly endure.

Unfortunately I'm sure that's true, but it's not just female execs, it's women everywhere. You just see it a lot with CEOs because they're high-profile. There's a lot of shitty men out there.