Debate: I Don't Understand Feminists... Men Are Dominant.
Side: Men Are Not

I think it is more than simply the gender ratio being the deterrent. It is what the gender ratio implies in the current social environment that women have to deal with.Women aren't saying "not enough women in there better not go" they are saying " lots of men, the situation is likely uncomfortable for many women." You seem to agree with this point even.I'm aware that certain men are directly responsible for making circumstances uncomfortable for certain women.Your method 1 puts this fixing of the environment solely on the women to fix. It is saying women need to address that men are sometimes systemically responsible for making circumstances uncomfortable for women.Your method 2 is saying men could back out but really there is more options. In context of the social environment method 2 should be "men could foster better working environments for all" rather than men not participating at all. Why wouldn't men want to change their detrimental social behaviors? Your number 3 makes sense with my revised version much more than your dichotomy. Of course both groups need to work towards the same goal, that should be obvious. But you seem to be only pushing for number 1 and that is my contention. "The underlying privilege and prejudice will eventually be dispelled over a couple of generations- but only if women get more involved with the field despite discomfort to serve as examples to the subsequent generation."Shouldn't men also serve as examples to the subsequent generation?Put this in context with your number 1 solution above.Your underlying statement says wait it out, sludge through the shit and things will get better later on. Only if women get more involved even. Again this absolves men of any hand in fixing inequalities today. If someone steps on your toe and then the response is "things will get better later", it certainly isn't taking action to work towards a better more common goal...like stop people from stepping on toes.What can I do, personally, to improve the gender ratio for the benefit of women? I could opt to just not attend that function. Or you could attend and if you see a situation that is detrimental towards equality you can call it out. This is part of serving as an example to the subsequent generation. If you see racism, sexism or homophobia why not call it out? But, why shouldn't I? What's my motivation for giving up the function for the sake of coddling women I don't even know?As stated already you don't need to not attend. But why wouldn't you act as I noted, serve as a example to subsequent generations? When you kick the can further down the road you are serving as an example aren't you? The message is different though when you do this action. When people call it out then someone gives the bootstrap argument followed by kicking the can further down the road is an argument for keeping the status quo.Why would we not want to remove hurdles that deter a populace from education, a populace that would greatly benefit from such education and in turn benefit everyone else? That is gatekeeping. It is keeping the power to permit the standards you deem worthy or fair in spite of not earning such a privilege. I kind of thought this would be self evident to you.The 3rd option you presented as a solution is obviously the best choice to make here.