> Which sure sounds to me like "employers try to fill low-status, low-pay, often-crappy female-dominated jobs with yet more females". What an absurd interpreta

> Which sure sounds to me like "employers try to fill low-status, low-pay, often-crappy female-dominated jobs with yet more females". What an absurd interpretation. It takes a certain sort of mindset to react as if women having an advantage in certain jobs is somehow a downside, just because these jobs are "low status." It's not as if a man who gets rejected as a cleaner is going to instead become a FAANG engineer.