> As certain structural barriers that used to hinder women have been removed, women have proven their “natural advantage” in several areas, including in our col

> As certain structural barriers that used to hinder women have been removed, women have proven their “natural advantage” in several areas, including in our colleges and universities. This is part of the problem. You always hear of things that supposedly women are naturally better at than men, but nobody would dare say that the opposite might be true in some aspects. Also it's completely lacking what those "natural advantages" are are supposed to be. After all, men still make up most of graduates in MINT as opposed to women who mainly graduate in humanities, except for medicine. Looking at it that way you might as well say women are better at obediently reading and learning by heart and men are better at actually thinking and figuring things out. I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, just pointing out how the point the article makes is generally considered acceptable, while framing it differently would be considered sexist. > Reeves presents a cocktail of public policies that include longer and more generous paid leave for new dads, a reformed child-support system that no longer makes excessive demands of mothers, and more father-friendly employment opportunities (working from home, working part-time, or working flexible hours). This would help alleviate the gender-wage gap while also promoting a healthier model of fatherhood. As always, the solution is government-mandated social change. And why, all of a sudden, when presenting solutions, is nature completely disregarded?