Although if things continue like they are with women getting 60% of the degrees over a generation or two, that might become more of a valid observation.
Let me describe some stats about women's vs men's wages and show the double standard about preponderence of evidence:
Women without kids under 30 outearn similarly aged single men by a full 8%.One retort to this (an actual one I observed) was that this isn't "everywhere" so it's bullshit. Sure, it's "merely" in the largest 147 out of 150 cities in the USA. Right? So it's not
exactly everywhere so at least one feminist commentor dismissed it. What you have there is a clear closed mind to new information that might upset a worldview. Which is
way more conservative than liberal in actual thought patterns. It's like arguing with a creationist.
Another retort was that when you adjust for level of education, and job sector etc, then the 8% bonus to women goes away. So it's actually completely fair. But think about it, the female wage gap people usually get angry when commentators do those exact same "adjustments" to show that the female wage gap is much smaller than the headline stats suggest. And they would get angry if someone was to point out that, and say "see, men earning more is
fair". In other words, you can use an argument but you have to be willing to apply it with universality, it can never be a double-standard. Either we take the raw wage figures to compare group vs group or we allow all the same adjustments on each side, not one and the other.
But that is also posited on it being
fair that women get more degrees than men. When men were getting more degrees, this was taken as proof itself that the system was biased, therefore any benefits earned by men were not really earned. But as soon as women get an overwhelmingly larger share of the pie, they want to point to hard work, and that they earned it, and it's completely fair. Again, you can't have that both ways. If there's a systemic bias then it's either rigged or not rigged, you can't only claim it's rigged when your team is losing.
Another example is IQ testing. Now that women have 0.5 IQ point lead on men they want to say it's biological, but when men were ahead they wanted to say it was social. Jesus, either stick with one or the other, don't flip-flop on nature/nurture depending on who's "team" is ahead. And of course if someone said "blacks low IQ is genetic" then that would be a killing offense, but if you said ... "black women have better genes for IQ than black men" then of course, you're the new hero of the cause. My view is that the new-found female lead in IQ is purely due to the little extra schooling they are getting on average - the Flynn Effect, and no need to assumed gendered IQ genes whatsoever.