If people are allowed to make their own life choices, you are unlikely to get equal representation of various demographic groups.
For example, conservatives tend to prioritize wages and stability when making career choices. Liberals are more likely to choose jobs that are inherently interesting but don't pay that well relative to the risk. If you let people make their own choices, liberals are more likely to try to become professors. And once a profession becomes associated with a particular group, people outside the dominant group may be reluctant to enter it, as they may be afraid they wouldn't fit in.
If you find that problematic, you could try to fight it with regulation. For example, you could institute quotas. Maybe 40% of all software engineers in every company must be female and 40% of all nurses in every hospital must be male. That may even work if there are enough qualified candidates available. But if the pool of candidates is already skewed, quotas can be a recipe for disaster.
If regulation is a too blunt tool, you may get better results with programs that encourage underrepresented groups to enter a field. You could have support networks for conservative professors, female software engineers and male nurses. You could have outreach programs targeting kids in those groups. And you could prioritize them in education and recruitment.