And there is also the problem of women being paid less to do the same job.
To paint a picture that says the current landscape is "normal" is to overlook a lot of broken things.
How many times does the "wage gap" need to be debunked before people stop spreading it?
Imo, the smoking gun should include a gun and it should probably be smoking.
The GP statement "If there is no gender parity, there is a problem" is strictly false, even in an ideal world managed by fairies where all these problems are totally fixed, we would not observe gender parity - it would for most professions be much closer to 50/50 than nowadays, that's true, but it would not be at 50/50.
even if all of those problems would be fixed, there would
be a gender disparity in choice of occupations.
it would for most professions be much closer to 50/50 than
nowadays, that's true, but it would not be at 50/50.
2. On what basis are you assuming there would be a gender disparity, all other things being equal? (There isn't.) Can all other things be equal? Probably not perfectly, which is why most would consider "close enough" parity to be a win, but we're certainly not close now.
That men and women might be biologically predisposed to find certain pursuits more attractive than others should not be controversial.
But even if we cast biology aside, and assume (against all evidence) that differences in preferences are due solely to socialization, is that bad? Is it bad that women feel more drawn to caregiving careers and men to analytical ones? Even if, which I do not for a moment believe, these differences in behaviour and preference were due solely to socialization, so what? As long as people are happy and fulfilled, why would that socialization be a wrong that needs righting?
Why don't you go into the toy business with androgynous products and let's see how you do ?