Thanks for that, Whirly. I agree with pretty much everything you said - I forgot to mention in my last post that this profession is one of the worst you can enter if you'd like to maintain a stable family life, and that may be becoming understood amongst those still in the 'just looking' stage. In my experience, women at 18-23 are far more long-term minded than men of the same age, and the effect on a potential family life is more likely to discourage women than men. I wish I'd understood that back then!
There is much to be said for the nature vs nurture thing. As I'm sure we've all noticed in sportswomen, for instance, there have always been those that buck the trend and will give the lie to their gender stereotypes. That doesn't mean that the stereotypes are wrong; it just means that they are what they are: generalisations. Generalisations can never be applied to individuals, but they can (if they are well-founded) fairly reliably be applied to populations.
The 'nurture' bit can be overcome, as we found. Gaps in education and experience are fairly easy to fill in young people and, as long as the 'nature' is there, anyone can be taught to fly. Whether their subsequent experiences satisfy their ambitions, however, is another matter! I wish there were more women in this field, but it seems it's not to be.
As for the teacher question, it was really rhetorical - and to point out that the gender employment imbalance can work the other way.
Scroggs