Of course I support England and hoped we'd win the Women's Football Cup but I didn't watch it (preferred to watch brilliant woman Judi Dench in Borneo on ITV). I just don't enjoy many sports that women play not as well as men. Likewise - when the BBC trumpets that three women are now earning as much as men in the BBC Top Ten payments - all three of those women are not very good and I think all TV presenters simply do not deserve huge salaries. Note how overpaid and talentless Chris Evans (male) gets virtually no radio listeners on Virgin whilst his replacement on the BBC (Zoe Ball) - a nice lady but likewise talentless - gets millions of listeners simply because we Radio Two listeners like the station as a habit (Ken Bruce, after her, is a far better broadcaster). Employing and paying people for gender reasons is stupid. Except when gender attributes makes someone better suited to some jobs (like giving birth). In most jobs and careers gender makes no difference. Great singers and performers can be of either gender (Roy Orbison and Aretha Franklin - who is better? Answer - neither; both are the best). Likewise writers (Carole King and Diane Warren are as good as Lennon and McCartney). JK Rowling deserves every penny she earns as does Stephen King.

Your post makes me think of the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

The former tends to produce generally beneficial results, whereas the latter quickly leads to a race to the bottom.