As we dug deeper into this relationship, we found that these women often attempted to make accommodations at work in order to meet their care-giving responsibilities only to be met with resistance from the work environment.
When you have different inputs and different outputs, that's not discrimination.
2. There is no contradiction (II)
The point I was making was about what gets published. It didn't get published.
3. There is no contradiction (III)
Please look again at the introductory sentence of the report: men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving
"Roughly the same rates for the same reasons".
I repeat: "roughly the same rates for the same reasons".
That it isn't exactly the same rates and not exactly the same reasons is not a contradiction, because "exactly" wasn't claimed. It is added nuance and details that does not in any way shape or form contradict the original finding.
And it isn't "my narrative", it is what the researchers found. So it ain't a "narrative", it is the empirical data, and it isn't "mine", it is the reality as found by those researchers.
Perhaps you are unaware of the legal concept of "disparate impact": https://www.britannica.com/topic/disparate-impact
disparate impact, judicial theory developed in the United States that allows challenges to employment or educational practices that are nondiscriminatory on their face but have a disproportionately negative effect on members of legally protected groups.
For example, if a company's policy is "No employee is allowed to pump breast milk anywhere on premises, even behind closed doors, regardless of gender," it disproportionately impacts women even if men are also banned from the same activity.
However, civil rights advocates have been disappointed as federal courts have increasingly limited how and when plaintiffs may file disparate-impact claims. As a result, disparate-impact suits have become less successful over time.
So it's a fairly fringe legal theory with little impact.
There are lots of fringe theories, for example some claim that the earth is flat. I don't have to accommodate all of them.
If you don't see anything wrong with my example of disparate impact, how about a hypothetical company policy that has a dress code of short hair for all engineers regardless of gender? More women than men would quit, seeing the policy as draconian and controlling (or be fired for non-compliance), while men who already have short hair wouldn't find the policy onerous or difficult.
1. It is a legal theory
"judicial theory". -- your source
2. Fringe
"federal courts have increasingly limited how and when plaintiffs may file disparate-impact claims. As a result, disparate-impact suits have become less successful over time."
Also your source.
3. Off topic
a) The research I cited was not about fringe legal theories but about reality in the world.
b) I am not interested in your hypotheticals that have nothing to do with that research, nothing to do with the publishing bias against research showing no bias against women or bias against men, and probably also nothing to do with the actual legal theory of disparate impact.
That turns out not to be the case.
1. It wasn't "implied"
There were no implications, things were said straight out.
2. It wasn't "the comment" that didn't imply this
This was a statement by the researchers quoted verbatim.
3. It wasn't "the" reason
As the researchers stated: men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving
So wanting to take care of children wasn't "the" reasons, and it wasn't even the main reason. It was one where men and women actually diverged, whereas for the most part they gave the same reasons.
4. Non-accomodation was a factor
> The context is that they wanted to choose both, but their work didn't allow it.
That is also not true as written. First, the researchers write "often", which you leave out. Second the researchers write "resistance", you write "didn't allow". Those are not the same thing.
Third, the report clearly states "women wanted to leave the workforce to spend time with family". Wanted. Not "were forced to by societal pressures".
And of course those pressures are identical for men and women, if not stronger for men. When I started working part time in order to have time for my daughter, there was an almost immediate attempt to push me out, stopped only by my team revolting, and it was made clear to me that I would not be advancing, that my career was if not over than at least dead in the water.
And at some level that is actually correct. Once I had my daughter, my job was not just not my #1 priority, I physically did not have the same amount of time to give. This is not some evil discriminatory society, it is physics. The day has so many hours. So companies that often demand total dedication from their employees (especially in the US) simply won't get it from a caregiver.
Now I don't agree that that is a legitimate demand. But it is a common one that is made equally of all employees, non-discriminatorily.
Choosing family over career is a legitimate choice. It happens to be my choice. But it is a choice, and one I personally would make again and again, even though the punishment society doles out to men for that choice is much, much harsher.