I agree, but it depends in which direction you're willing to push. It has historically been accepted that men should be in charge - but that was challenged by women (and some men) as an unfair system. I think we agree on that point.

Where it gets complicated is whether you want parity across the board. In which case there could be a legal mandate forcing governments and businesses to employ 50/50 male and female split on all jobs - but that must be across the board. Equality of outcome on all jobs across society. Not just selected jobs. There must be 50/50 gender split across lumberjacks and nursery nurses too.

Or whether you push for a meritocracy, which favours equality of opportunity. In which case, the best person gets the job regardless of their genitalia and chromosomal outlay. If that is the case, then it's acceptable to have all-female or all-male employment providing you can demonstrate there was an equality of opportunity during the application process. Though I would argue in a truly fair system those would be statistically more rare the larger the group gets.

I suspect that is what Conservatives are upset about - meddling figures to the female extreme does not make a meritocratic system. Annoying yes, as they overlook the inherent incompetence of males across the board as part of their cognitive bias - but also a valid rebuttal. You cannot claim to be against biased systems by replacing them with a biased system of your own, simply because it favours your political viewpoint.

Thanks for commentiing and continuing the discussion :o)