Thing is, there is nothing wrong about a sector’s under-represented group wanting to break into itr: we positively encourage men to go into mostly-female environment (eg. nursing or primary schools) because we see it
as a good, progressive move that ultimately benefits the workforce in that system.
We do not have to be male or female to do most jobs, indeed in a service-base economy there are very few jobs,
from bus-driver to cafe’ barista to train operator, that men or women cannot do interchangeably and equally well:
gone are the heavy-plant industries that fed entire communities in Western Europe in the day of the railways or
industrialisation, where men’s obviously superior upper-body strength was instrumental in working down coal mines,
or excavating tunnels for new train routes, or ship-building, etc. So men’s traditional jobs requiring their strength have
been reduced and women have become direct competitors in areas that do not require such physical attributes to get
the job done.
This poses a problem for men, not women, and it is they who must adapt to the new reality of being no longer sole
providers but sharing more equally in the household economy, which also means doing what working women have done for decades, that is, being both at work outside the home and inside it, by which I do not mean fixing the odd lightbulb but actually taking an active interest in planning things for the family, for the children, and cooking, washing, cleaning, etc. Given that, in spite of automation in homes, those chores still need to be done whatever the century, men and women should share it equally if they have more-or-less equal jobs outwith the home: if one person is earning ten times what the other earns, to take an extreme and theoretical example, then it is more black-and-white who should prioritise spending more time pursuing work away from home and who should take more care of the running of the household, but again that should not be a choice imposed by society.
Think about the years of education that we put girls through: is it all for nothing once they get a man to live with? Are they expected to just become house-bound cleaners? Is that not a terrible waste of ambition? I would be sad if we regressed to those days, it would be terrible for everyone. Instead of making women who want a career AND children feel like terrible mothers and inadequate at everything, we should make men who don’t lift a finger at home or don’t demand more time with their children feel as terrible fathers and inadequate, because only then will things change.
We, the men, must make that change from workhorses of the industrial age to people who are all-rounded individuals, able to work more on healthier lives with better/longer time in the home and with family and less spent feeding an employer’s needs. This is what a better society would look like: less suited men full of their own importance at the top of boardrooms and more of them actually cleaning their own homes and wiping their kids’ dirty bums to realise that if you can do all that and still be in a boardroom position you can then look at women who do that in the eye as equals, rather than doubt their ability to hold down that job.
Our male work logic is so screwed up and it is time to really review if what we are about is just making money and take it to our deathbed alone, or to be at our deathbed surrounded by less money and more family and loved ones to whom we are not strangers and with whom we have dedicated time that no job, however valuable, can pay us back for when we retire and it has gone.