You have trouble understanding the meaning of the word "we".

So you count all professorships in STEM, across College, as one field?  Slightly odd, but ok.

As far as the reasons for why men would hire women who take longer maternity, no clue, but you missed the part where women wouldn't, as in, the women doing the hiring would choose a different candidate if they showed a willingness to take longer maternity, you can theorize many things, could be sexism, but then, that'd also include the women who were choosing different candidates, would it not?  Also missed?  The part where neither female or male faculty members cared about male paternity leave.  Now...that would be sexist, would it not?  When you're using it as a criteria for women, it's supposed to be good enough for men, correct?  Equality and all?

And yes, fewer women enter the field.  Now, why is that?  Sexism?  Or, could women when given the choice, simply choose different paths?  Or, could the absurd levels of 'THAR BE MISOGYNY THERE", that's hammered into the brains of every female growing up, turns them off?  I dunno, I suppose if I were in their shoes, and every day the only thing I heard about science was how it's all men, they objectify women and treat them like shit...might make me choose a different path.

The studies do suggest that the entire story is not being told, however.  And that there's quite clearly some bias in hiring among College faculty.

So if someone says "we, as people, are a pretty stupid species"... you honestly think they're refering to 100% of the population? lol

I definitely don't see why talking about problems facing men and boys every once in a while is a notion to laugh at. We've been justifiably making an effort to reform society in a way that does not unfairly restrict women for years in the hope of leveling the playing field for everyone, but it should not come as a surprise that these changes might adversely and inadvertently impact men and boys at times.

It seems to me this is meant to be an ongoing process in pursuit of something equitable, not a war one one gender for the betterment of another.

I suppose what bothers me is this knowledge that men are beginning to fall behind is nothing new. I'm 27 and in elementary school we were told that girls were trending towards outperforming boys, getting into college more often, and leading better lives in general. This trend has sustained itself for a few decades now. The problem, of course, is they always cited that reality as being indicative of women being superior in some fashion or another, never speaking in a tone that suggested they felt concern was warranted, which is strange as this is often the same group that always points out there's nothing physically different between the male and female brain. The only women I've heard express real concern over this in my experience are those with sons.

The problem seems to be rooted in the polemic attitudes adherents to both views tend to take. If I were to suggest that (these numbers are made up) 75% of girls going to college while only 65% of boys do is something to be concerned about, many would get angry for fear that I'd favor changes that drag women back down. To the contrary, I'd just like us to look at the problem and see if we can find solutions to help boys catch up.

Both genders still face many problems. Women are often overlooked for promotions or managerial positions (though that's changed drastically), are paid less than their male counterparts, are far more frequently victims of sexual harassment within and without the workplace, and carry the burden that often comes with raising children while working (sometimes alone). That does not mean men have a rosey life ahead of them, though. They're far more likely to die as children and teenagers, their performance in elementary school and college continues to decline compared to women, they feel increasingly despondent about their roles in society and this is reflected, it would seem, in a disturbingly high suicide rate.

The job of legislators is to look after the rights and well being of all citizens. It seems to me the growing list of maladies the male gender currency suffers from as a whole is sufficient to warrant a single day of discussion on occasion.

"We run everything."

Well that's funny, because I don't personally run anything or have any power. Maybe you can explain exactly how you received some kind of collective benefit from the fact that OTHER men run most things. Cos I'd like to get in on that if I could! 

If the fact that most of the people in charge are men transferred some kind of ambient benefit to ALL men, why would issues that affect just men be so hard to get discussed? They'd surely be the first things society addressed?

They wouldn't mean  100% but they wouldn't say "we" when refering to 0.1% of the population which is what you did.      

I did? Funny, cause I thought that when I said the word "we", I was simply refering the men. But ok, if you say so.

They are both biased. She doesn't think men need an international mens day and he doesn't believe in gay marriage.

Yep you said "We" men run everything when leading males in buissness and politics make up less than 0'1 % of all men.

And the word "everything" is figuritive... hence your lack of basic reading comprehension. Next time, instead of trolling/harassing someone, slow down and figure out what they're attempting to convey. It'll save you and whoever else you're bothering a lot of trouble.