This is a canard frequently thrown out by MRAs. It's not true. Nursing and childcare specifically seek more men, as does teaching in general and primary school teaching in particular. It's an utter myth that the gender imbalance in those fields are ignored.
I dropped out of a teaching track to switch to hard math and CS because of the cliquish behavior and their constant negative comments about men creating a hostile environment - much the same complaints women make about the tech sector.
Saying that the fields are recruiting men is no more to the point than saying CS departments are recruiting women: it doesn't matter if you don't address the toxic social environment as well.
It does, however, counter the parent, who said "No problem, women are better at these jobs anyway". People do think it's a problem, and there are efforts trying to counter that problem, same as with women in technical fields.
I can't say I have ever heard of a male conference or affirmative action ever being suggested to solve the gender distribution in the therapists profession. No one is creating male-only therapists schools. No feminist politician is dedicating budgets in order to fix it.
Yes, people do think its a problem, but the efforts to counter that problem is not even close as with women in technical fields. It easier to just put the blame on men, claiming that they do not want to do those jobs.
Well, therapy is an absolute minnow compared to 'tech', 'teaching', or 'nursing'. It's not a very visible profession, and most people outside that profession can't relate to it (and are even a little scared by it)
Speaking of minnows, I can't say I have ever heard of a female conference or affirmative action ever being suggested to solve the gender distribution in the commercial fishing industry. No-one is creating female-only commercial fishing licences. No politician is dedicating budgets in order to fix it. Commercial fishing is a bigger and more lucrative profession than therapy, yet there's no work towards affirmative action there.
So what does it mean that we can find specific, small industries here and there that don't have explicit action in these areas? Shall we continue to base arguments on the minnows, avoiding the larger stories about the bigger fish?
An unequal gender ratio in, say, therapy is a problem, but it's much less of a problem than the one in engineering. The reason that's the case -- and should by no means make you crazy -- is that not all inequalities are equal. When people study gender and race biases, the first thing you should consider is the question of power: is there a group that is under-represented in certain seats of power?
The tech industry is considered a much more significant source of power than psychotherapy (this is probably objectively true, but even if it weren't, being considered to hold more power makes it so), and so the underrepresentation of women in blacks in that industry is much more concerning and much more important. It's also the reason why the under-representation of whites in basketball is less concerning than that of blacks in Congress. Whites aren't marginalized away from power by being mostly absent from basketball, but the same cannot be said about blacks in politics.
Its actually a much large problem in therapy or nursing, since the patient may be considerably more comfortable with a same-sex service provider. Postgres doesn't care.
But I guess actual consumers don't count.
Further, your talk of power is silly. As obamacare demonstrates ("mental health parity"), therapists and such do have power.
OK, then, a different kind of problem. One is a problem for many separate individuals, while another is a problem for society (or large groups within it) as a whole.
And I wasn't saying therapists don't have any power. But I think even you will agree that Google, Apple and Facebook have a lot more power over the world than a psychiatrist. Note how in tech, power can be concentrated in a few corporations, while in therapy, power is a lot more distributed. Also, in therapy, teaching, and nursing, most central authorities are often democratically elected, and in any case are a lot more open than private corporations. It's a more diffuse kind of power.
Also, the mention of nursing, education and even psychotherapy (though the last may be different) is a little disingenuous because a major reason for the under-representation of men in those fields is also sexism -- Those professions aren't considered "manly" -- rather than any discrimination against men.
Finally, my talk of power isn't silly, but in line with the humongous body of research done on the subject. In other words, it's informed.
...while another is a problem for society (or large groups within it) as a whole.
Unless you can articulate why something is actually bad for human beings, as opposed to "society" or "large groups", it'll be pretty hard to convince thinking people that there is any reason to care.
Note that the political theory that society should unify and govern to benefit the "corporates" (power groups) and that the individual is irrelevant went out of fashion a long time ago. I'm deliberately not using the name of this theory since it provokes strong emotional reactions in people.
For any reasonable definition of power (which you haven't provided), Google has more power than an individual therapist. So what? You might as well say that any individual Google engineer has less power than than the AMA or other medical lobbying groups. That's also a true statement.
If you really believe tech companies have power comparable to the medical establishment, can you name the last time tech orchestrated a giveaway of other people's money comparable in scale to "mental health parity" (to name one example coming out of medicine)?
I'm sorry, but as much as I'd want to, I can't give a whole course in history here in a couple of HN comments, but I think you should at least try to understand what I'm actually saying. E.g., I'm not saying that "the individual is irrelevant"; where in God's name did you get that? And I most certainly wasn't comparing the power of Google to that of an individual therapist. But the APA's (or the AMA's) power is, in fact, a lot less concentrated than Google's, it's a democratically elected body, and happens to be headed by men.
And I don't understand what your personal political opinions about taxes and private property have to do with sociology. The discussion about access to central power in a democratic nation is an interesting one, but irrelevant here.