How many times does it need to be stated that less women in certain industries compared to different countries or time periods isn't necessarily down to the industries themselves having an environment or 'culture' that is less friendly to women.
Citing countries that generally have a quite poor recent history regarding actual gender equality (like India) and citing previous ratios in such industries in the UK (like in the 50's and 60's and 70's) which partly sit in times when it was legal to pay a woman less for exactly the same work as a man (equal pay act was 1970 in the uk and maternity leave was first brought into legislation by the employment protection act of 1975) as evidence that certain industries must have become less welcoming to women shows a massive ignorance of statistics and the causation/ correlation fallacy and in which direction cause and effect can take place.
Its a well observed phenomenon that more egalitarian states with more generous welfare and child care provisions seem to often result in less participation by women in certain fields!
Example
here: outside of positions where women get in on quotas Nordic counties show generally low progression of women to senior positions despite implemting policies that certain feminists tell us should increase female representation without direct discrimination (which then nordic countries also impose as well via quotas and the like) its notable from the link as well that quotas aren't seen as being that great by the actual companies their inflicted on with a number of companies moving away from being based in areas or run in ways where they would be obliged to hire based on gender and not merit by law.
Shouting about society being bad with regards to sexual equality (usually of outcome) in a few select jobs whilst insiting that more measures should be taken to 'rectify' this dissparity whilst fobbing of or ignoring disparities where men aren't the ones apparently benefiting is the sign of either an ideogue or a person who has not actually bothered to consider the facts.
Rambling on about diversity as being a universally good virtue (it appears above all others) is a rather modern and almost exclusively western affliction. Diversity of opinion may well be important for a company to succeed by ensuring that opportunities are not missed and that the varying and changing needs of customers are addressed. But I'm far from convinced that diversity of sexual organs or skin colour with a rather narrow range of opinions allowed is the way to cororate sucess. Especially if it's anti scientific and evidence in its nature....
The the 'average' person doesn't exist I'm sure you're aware of this... The concept of averages is however useful, in part, to explain actual outcomes of populations.......
Are you willing to consider that some of thoose the 'barriers' may be self imposed by women themselves as they choose not to go into or remain in certain industries for reasons of their own?
