Like another comment stated about Germany, even in Italy medicine faculties have a majority of women today as well.
I agree that in general teacher jobs are not glamorous or high-paying, but it's still a very important role in society and we can still discuss how it's a problem that there is an effective (social, mostly) barrier for males accessing (lower level) education jobs.
I do believe that this is essentially another symptom of a wider problem related to gender roles.
Not OP, but positions like nurses or teachers are very female dominated. It's not like males cannot reach those positions, but there are social obstacles to that. To make an example from my country, in Italy primary school teachers are > 90% female. I believe in kindergarten they reach 97 or 98%. This is also partially the result of strict gender roles than discriminate both men and women in terms of caring for children (I.e., women are de facto forced to do that, men are pushed away), which then reinforces the social practice of women doing all the caring jobs.
This is IMHO a problem for both men and women, but probably it's not from the same perspective as what OP meant...
There is Brassic episode about stealing bull sperm (although from a farm, not a bank).
I think it's S3e01
Fyi for point 2, you can sign with SSH key stored on a hardware token (e.g., yubikey).
I actually disagree that a book is "problematic" because it touches, presents, includes etc. any topic that morally we disagree with. Not every book has to be a manifesto or a depiction for a moral and just society, which is why I find most of the arguments against HP to be weak (some points were listed in a sibling comment thread).
subjecting any popular series to close reading with an eye for affront is likely to show up its flaws
I am quite sure this is true for any book (especially fiction), in fact. Which is why I think it's an activity that makes sense only to justify the pre-existing opinion about the book, rather than having a value in itself.
if you have the chance to pick it up second-hand I'd encourage you to see if you can finish it.
To be clear, I know that Dan Brown stuff is garbage. I just have seen people who I think never read a book in the previous 10 years read that one (in translation though, so who knows...). So the book must at least be interesting and intriguing to keep the attention of people who are not used to read. For me this means not fitting in the "terrible writing" category, but maybe we mean different things by that.
The DaVinci code sold 80 millions copies. The first HP book alone sold 120 millions, and the whole series 600 millions, being the most sold series of books.
Not only they are one order of magnitude apart, but I think they sold for different reasons.
I haven't read Dan Brown's stuff, but I also doubt it's terribly written by the way. Books that capture the interest of a population more and more unused to read can be shallow, banal, inconsistent, whatever, but not terribly written. Casual readers can hardly finish a terribly written book. In any case, HP books are children's books. Children or teenagers are not literary critics, it's not about reading "great literature", however you define that.
I also can't help to notice the coincidence that all the HP critiques started appearing in the last years, when the author went bananas. A series this popular, which ended in 2007, and suddenly 15 years later people notice that it's "terribly written"? This smells more to me of a damnatio memoriae than genuine critique.
Honestly, I read the books translated + I could not and still cannot relate with the issues that I often see raised against the book (like the way diversity is represented). Especially when I was a kid, those issues were so not in my mind that I would never ever flag as issues.
To make an example: for me as a kid, slavery was something that mostly had to do with the roman empire. The whole debacle about house elves etc. is completely disconnected from real societal probelsm, recent history etc. I have always rooted for the elves because that's what I was pushed to do emotionally, but without really ever reflecting on slavery as a whole. I am picking this example because it's one of the most used ones to critique the book.
In general I also believe that authors can build worlds that do not represent their views, I find a lot of the critique I have read a stretch and I am especially suspicious that most of these critiques started appearing recently. I believe people started with the thesis (she is an asshole) and then backtracked the analysis trying to find anything at all in the books that could support the conclusion (rather than viceversa).
Either way, all of this is relatively irrelevant. People can like or dislike books - especially fiction - freely. For me the book is mostly associated with a vibe of being young, thinking about those stories, relating with the characters etc., not with the actual books content. So it's more about thinking back of childhood/past than appreciating the literary value.
I found it very fun, interesting and captivating when I read those books (that is, when I was maybe 13-16?). If it was "terribly written" it wouldn't have made the success it did, and also the target audience is generally not made of literary critics.
So I don't think there is much to judge, especially since many people's good opinion on the story is based on their lived experience with it, from when they were younger etc. And you can't erase that from your life because the author turned out to be an asshole 15 years later.
Plus, it implies that loneliness is just a matter of having a partner. While this is definitely an important aspect, loneliness is general intended (in the surveys etc.) as being literally alone a large percentage of time, including not having friends or acquaintances.
This is very deresponsibilizing though. I don't think you can explain mass phenomena with it. To me it seems more reasonable to conclude that gender is not that relevant here and that social conditions, education, family upbringing etc. are.
how much they have been manipulated since childhood to be against their own autonomy
And how do you explain poor people voting against their economic interests, immigrants voting for xenophobic parties etc.? I don't think that individual abuse can be used to explain every case, it feels as a way to rationalize something you can't justify otherwise (e.g., it's unimaginable how a woman would vote against her own autonomy). I do believe that everyone in a way is a victim of some kind of influence, marketing, societal pressure, class violence, different biases etc., but we need to draw a line at some point for people to be responsible for their shitty ideas.
To make an example, an immigrant who went through a tough immigration process, with all the anxiety and insecurity it caused, and finally managed to make it is probably going to suffer heavily of survivorship bias and it's not impossible they will be xenophobic against illegal immigrants and perhaps will even vote for whom proposes harsher immigration policies. You can argue that society abused them etc., but they are still responsible for their ideas.
So my point is that I don't disagree with you, but we can find exogenous reasons for why people have shitty ideas in all cases. Doing so though we deresponsibilize the individual from checking with themself and reflecting on their own positions. I think it's fair to consider that some people simply have shitty ideas, are greedy, selfish, racist, classist, or whatever else, without necessarily trying to trace back those ideas to some external factor.
Yes, I am quite sure that in most countries the distribution of women/men within those groups are not equal and unbalanced towards men.
That said, being a member of the actual group doesn't mean not being in those people social groups, accepting or even sharing some of their ideas etc.
There are 2 issues here that are being mixed.
One is women not being allowed to positions of power. The other is with women being underrepresented in certain fields (e.g., stem).
The second issue is what I am talking about and I don't think at all that men "choose" not to try certain careers in the same way women don't "choose" not to study stem and pursue stem careers. For both, social pressure and expectations, an existing field dominated by the other sex with all its implications are factors of discrimination. Strict gender roles are damaging for both men and women, and this is a perfect example.