I wholeheartedly agree. Someone explained it once in the reverse, that it's not women moving into a profession, but men leaving it, so the value goes with the men seeking other places. Men used to be bank clerks. There are many examples of how that switches.
On occupational segregation, when you look at some of the background work done by the Ontario government in closing the gender wage gap and striking their committee that did consultations, they talked about the silos that are both horizontal and vertical. If you look at it horizontally, you are looking at who is in what occupation. So, just to use a different term to explain what you've just said, if you look at teachers, nurses, administrative assistants, and electricians, there is a gender skew in many occupations in that horizontal way.
Then when you go into different sectors in the vertical way and look at the pay grades.... I don't ascribe to pink and blue, and I actually believe in a gender continuum, but for simplicity's sake, if you just took that and put pink and blue stickers on things, you would see where people are concentrated by their gender. Again, I dispute whether or not that's by choice. I think employment equity deals with that somewhat. Even in terms of employers, when we've done employment equity, employers are actually surprised. I don't think it's a case of, “Nyah, nyah, nyah, we're going to stick all the women over here.” I don't think that's what the majority of employers think, but they are shocked at what happens. Women themselves are sometimes shocked. So, where we have opportunities.... The systems review, I think, takes on that element of it. You get a much larger diversity of where people are. You can go to other cultures to see that.
On the other hand, you can see that there's a commonality across the world in this day and age where women are concentrated. I think that's where pay equity comes in—work of equal value. Let's look at the value of the work that is contributed.