Young women (ages 12-24) out-buy all other age groups when it comes to haircare, skincare, cosmetics, and fragrances (Source: “Junior League” by Kelley Donahue. American Salon , January 2000).

Feel free to provide statistics that men are the majority customer for those products. You assume incorrectly that incentives has no role in how people behave. That is terrible flawed, both as a predictor in how society look like today and as a explanation in how we got there. By ignoring it you are doing anti-science and arguing out of belief. If you are just going to continue then this is a waste of time.

The focus by men on physical appearance, and the focus by women on wealth is a dominating factor in dating. It is the single strongest correlating variable out there (A worth reading are the OkCupid blog on the subject). In a separate survey done in china, over 90% of the women responded that they would not date a man earning less than average income (which eliminate more than half the male population), and a majority of responses thought that men should not be outside when they earn below average income. They should instead be inside working and try become marriageable. That is about as strong social pressure that you can get, similar to how certain countries think about women that are not married.

If you want to present how some mythical barriers to entry shaped the industry rather than plain incentives, then you got to actually bring some data. Not empty theories, but data and experiments that show how barriers to entry is the best explanation to explain gender segregation in the work force. Bloomberg is not attempting to do that, and only present it as their theory with some chosen quotes by a few people in order to support it.

Nope. There are two predictive models, one that men were "forced" to take higher paying programming jobs, for which you've offered no support, and the other is that they worked to exclude women and recast it as "men's work", which is thoroughly detailed in the article with interviews, studies and specific mechanisms.

You attempted to discount the latter theory by citing the beauty industry, where you said it "would sound exceptional" if women were putting up barriers to men. This assumption is fatally flawed, as it is men who dominate the higher-paying jobs in the beauty industry. Thus it carries no weight as a counterexample, and we are again left to contemplate the total lack of support for your preferred predictive model.

You now seem to have regressed to talking about consumer preferences, a non-sequitur. This in no way contradicts the "men's work" theory, since the work here is running companies, not purchasing their products. You also again claim that no data or experiments have been offered to support the theory, when in fact the article cited data and studies, as I called your attention to. This smacks of willful ignorance.

Finally you state that men face pressure to make money. However you must admit that this does not in any way refute the theory that men place obstacles to women's access to higher-paying jobs. Thus it remains possible that our positions are compatible: that men face greater pressure to earn income, and thus have a strong incentive to exclude women from competition.

It clear that you won't admit that consumer preference exist, as it would shows a clear link between gender specific incentives and behavior. You can try to play ignorant, but it won't change the data. Incentives has a real impact on human behavior, and it is trivial fact in psychology.

Finally you admit that men, just maybe, just possible, just as a theory perhaps, might face a unique pressure to make money. Funny that. And yes there is a strong possibility that gender segregation has a multitude of factors (a fact that was well written in a government issued report on gender segregation in the field of education). The problem statement then changes at this point to define which factor has the bigger impact, and we get back again to look at experimental data to see what has a strong impact and what has a small impact.

Let for example guess there exist a study on what jobs children want to do when they grow up. What will the average income of those jobs be when comparing boys vs girls preferences?

Or let say a study at a bit later time in life, and look at when people enter the work force. Will we see men entering the work force earlier and with greater haste than women, and what incentives is there for young unmarried men to get an income around the ages of 18-25?

We can look at studies that survey what teens want in a job, and how they select which profession to study. We can continue by looking at whom and what impacts behavior during this crucial time period in a person life.

We can also look at the primary cause of gender segregation as highlighted in that government report I mentioned earlier. Do people feel more confident when entering a group that they belong? do they feel more self-doubt when they are a local minority (such as in a class room or work place). Does ingroup and outgroup exist as theories, what is the scientific proof for it, and does herd behavior exist in human psychology.

I will note that in the government report, no where does it even entertain the idea that women are crowding out men from the education system. Similar to bloomberg it does record a historical change where men used to be the dominating gender in education, but is no longer. Instead it gives other explanations, such as the government cutting funds and thus the social status of teachers dropped. When money disperse from a profession it also caused the gender ratio to favor more women. When money increase, the opposite happens. Fairly simple statement to prove or disprove by data. Here is your golden opportunity: convince someone on the Internet of your theory by disproving that a influx of money has an impact on gender segregation.