I read a claim at one point (I believe it was in responce to a comment similar to yours, Wherin the person who corresponds to you in the analogy gave the specific example of coal mining as a dangerous field)

And the claim was that women HAVE had harder times entering coal mining jobs, and for some time in some places were forebidden from doing so. (and that recently at the time of the claim in a certain area they were allowed to have that job.

However, I don't have a source for this, only a vague memory of what someone else said. As such, my memory may be faulty, and what they said might not have been entirely true. I don't know.

This is just something I thought could be potentially relevant.

You know, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

This argument is ridiculous. Who wants a dangerous job if they can have a cushy 9-5 office job instead? Gender has nothing to do with this.

Unless you consider, homelessness, suicides, social stigma regarding being sexually assulted, mancession, acceptance of physical abuse in public.

I mean no one is advocating we get the sucide rate to 50%. If you want parity, you can't cherry pick and that means recalibrating society as a whole.

Which means questioning bad ideas like an equal. There are way to many people intresting in thought stopping for the sake of PR.

While I agree with your larger point, invoking a systematic trend to support a specific issue in a specific context is a logical fallacy [1].

The parent's comment, while crudely phrased, did actually highlight some legitimate counterexamples to the "only women are discriminated against" narrative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

Nice strawman.

>Pay gap

>Women are just as capable

choose one, otherwise companies would pay the lowest price for labor. The "problem" (not even sure why a difference in what fields people like to go into is a problem) is reflected in open source statistics; women just don't like to code as much as men do.

Try teaching to kids or nursing.