Without teachers, we cannot uphold our civilization, and clearly from the pandemic, teachers are absolutely considered essential workers to parents. However, society is still unwilling to pay for that because it's women doing the work
A more plausible explanation is that men prioritize earnings more than women. The reality is that most women still expect to marry a man that outearns them. Men are keenly aware of this understand that their marriage prospects are reduced if they don't get a well paying job. Hence why men tend to take riskier jobs, and jobs with longer hours.
If 80% of your farming community is mexican, why shouldn't their values be more highly reflected?
This is completely natural, it's reality and the way of the world. It's like arguing that a dog shouldn't be a pack animal. Maybe, but they are.
Dogs aren’t pack animals. They’re social animals. The pack animal theory it outdated and based on incorrect science+observations.
Here’s just one post on the matter https://www.lecaacademy.com/post/the-myth-of-pack-training-f...
That a particular field has a high majority, may intuitively seem like it’s a better field for that majority if you’re just casually observing, but deeper studies often show that there are tons of systemic factors that go into it.
Are most farm hands Mexican because they’re drawn to it culturally? That may be the repeated observation of the person looking at it without much to gain from being part of it.
However once you start looking into it, you’d see the systemic issues that led to it like ethnic discrimination at higher level jobs and the network effect of hiring.
Similarly for women trying to enter tech. There may be systemic issues keeping them out, but going by “90% of software engineers are men, so it must be because they’re more drawn to it” really doesn’t allow for women trying to enter the field to make changes to policies etc that disadvantage them unfairly.
This is the danger of majority rule. It’s why it took so long for many rights to be won by disenfranchised minorities.
The rest of your post is just trashy thinking. If you believe the ratio of men to women is not due to personal choice, that's a claim YOU need to back up. I don't have to back up the assumption that it's personal choice, especially against someone who is, when you boil it all down, saying that it _IS_ personal choice, but that they were manipulated into that personal choice.
Where is all the angst over the lack of female loggers?
This exists for all trades. Logging just isn’t that visible to most people so it’s not one that’s brought up as often.
You’re conflating many many points in your arguments. You also have yet to say why you think people are drawn to certain trades but keep expecting others to put up more and more evidence.