Except that he made the good point that there are several female dominated fields that have no such push. So it's fair to ask why are we seeing such a selective

Except that he made the good point that there are several female dominated fields that have no such push. So it's fair to ask why are we seeing such a selective focus? If you accept there is a certain one-sidedness, can "awkward manual corrections like quotas" ever result in "real equality of opportunity"? Because equality of outcome is a great way to demotivate people. I went to university in the UK where more woman than men attend. And while there's a real drive for more women in e.g. STEM (about 80% m/20% f), there isn't anything like that for e.g. psychology (roughly 90% f/10% m). The distribution of lecturers in gender studies is also hilarious. You'd think that's the one field you'd want to keep very even. So this striving for equality does seem inconsistently followed at best. I guess you could argue that you've got to start somewhere, but I find that a bit naive. > A man who earned his status through merit has nothing to fear. If the selection is based on merit, then quotas would be unthinkable and this argument would also apply to women, no? So somewhere along the line we're admitting it isn't based on merit.