Well, money doesn't buy happiness, but it does go a pretty long way toward facilitating it. So I'd say it's unlikely that the status quo of leaving a huge imbal

Well, money doesn't buy happiness, but it does go a pretty long way toward facilitating it. So I'd say it's unlikely that the status quo of leaving a huge imbalance in some of the most lucrative fields available today wouldn't be worse for women than addressing that imbalance. I can't think of any high paying fields that are dominated by women. And there is a notable difference in average pay between men and women. I'd agree with your second paragraph, for the most part. It is easy for a program with the right intentions to fall into that trap. It would bear a more in-depth analysis. I think, once started, it would be fairly easy to determine if it is working. If a more equal workforce can't be maintained without an increase in efforts, it probably isn't working. In fact, a sign of it working would be a gradual decrease in the need for it. In other words, if the workforce began to skew the other way, then the program would need to be scaled back to bring things back in line. So, if it worked, it would be self-terminating, and should be designed as such.