So is parity the explicit goal? And can I then ask what is supposed to happen when parity is reached?
I guess I don't get it because in my field things are the opposite of what might be expected given the "men dominate the world" narrative that is common, to the point that an increase in men being awarded linguistics Ph.D.s
actually makes the news, because that is a manifestation of a more equal balance in the sex ratio in what has been for past several decades at least a clearly
female-dominated field (as you can read at the link).
I don't recall anyone being particularly excited about this either way, though, and I wouldn't assume that there is any more or less sexism in linguistics as part of academia than there would be anywhere else (NB: also as per the link, most full-time
professorships are awarded to men). I was certainly never told not to pursue it because I'm a man or anything like that, and that's despite the fact that it is indisputably female-dominated.
So I can't really see what is so inherently desirable about parity, if that is indeed the goal. It seems like it's simply a state at which a field exists or does not, and that things can be dominated by one sex at one level, but by the other at another (so how 'down' is this search for parity to go, and why?). Also, what about other fields, outside of academia or the sciences? Should nursing be equalized such that it is no longer female-dominated? Teaching? Secretarial work? Or should trash collection, lineman (lineperson?) work, kickboxing, etc. be aiming to be less male-dominated?