You can't compare a physical phenomenon to a social one, especially when the existence and magnitude of the latter is heavily contested by people with agendas that rely on the phenomenon's existence and magnitude.
Just like the utility of heat engines is heavily contested by us making sure heat sink never averages with the heat source. That's why you have a radiator in your car.
My point is, that a) that campaign didn't foster a myth, it used a real, existing potential gradient and b) it is very much pro-feminist as long as they're letting things equalize and not actively trying to maintain that gender gradient.
ETA: of course I can compare a physical phenomenon to a social one, mathematical models don't differentiate between those. Still, I chose that example only to highlight that calling facts a "mythology" is weird.
My point is, that a) that campaign didn't foster a myth, it used a real, existing potential gradient and b) it is very much pro-feminist as long as they're letting things equalize and not actively trying to maintain that gender gradient.
ETA: of course I can compare a physical phenomenon to a social one, mathematical models don't differentiate between those. Still, I chose that example only to highlight that calling facts a "mythology" is weird.