Ben Levi, read my comment again. You seem to have deliberately skipped over the second half of that sentence: “Part of feminism is understanding that there isn’t such a thing as “men’s jobs” and “women’s jobs”, because jobs should always be given to the most qualified candidate regardless of gender.”
That should be clear enough. But I’ll humor you and explain it anyway.
There is no such thing as “men’s jobs” and “women’s jobs” in that ANY QUALIFIED CANDIDATE, regardless of gender, should be considered for a job, EVEN IF a person of that gender does not typically apply for those jobs.
I am not in any way denying that trends exist, as far as who is typically a) interested in, and b) capable of, certain jobs. HOWEVER, the fact that those trends exist should NOT be used as an excuse not to hire a perfectly capable candidate who happens not to fit in with that trend.
In other words: Most construction workers are men, because most women don’t want construction jobs, and/or couldn’t do the work even if they wanted to. That is a fact. BUT, if Jane Smith is a woman who enjoys construction work and is strong enough to do it just as well as any man, the construction boss should NOT refuse to hire her just because “women don’t do that.”