It's not being snarky it's questioning whether the parent is interested in equality of opportunity or discrimination in favour of women. That's an important question in my view.
You're dancing dangerously close to a straw man argument here. Nobody has taken a position either way on childcare or nursing.
>"It's not being snarky it's questioning whether the parent is interested in equality of opportunity or discrimination in favour of women. That's an important question in my view."
It's an important question in everyone's view. My point is that it's rarely a valid point that $A should not be addressed because $B is also a problem; especially when $B is a rhetorical fringe case.
When I get in these discussions, invariably someone tries to boil it down to the following false dichotomy: Helping/encouraging/assisting $GROUP_A is discriminating/violating/hurting $GROUP_B. This is never necessarily the case.
I'm confused with what you mean by this.
>It's a problem that should be fixed for everyone.
So because it's not being fixed for someone, it shouldn't be fixed for anyone?