Whenever thinking of gender equality, I like to go back to Beauvoir. plato.stanford.edu's page [1] is fantastic, here's an extract:
"Before The Second Sex, the sexed/gendered body was not an object of phenomenological investigation. Beauvoir changed that. Her argument for sexual equality takes two directions. First, it exposes the ways that masculine ideology exploits the sexual difference to create systems of inequality. Second, it identifies the ways that arguments for equality erase the sexual difference in order to establish the masculine subject as the absolute human type. Here Plato is her target. Plato, beginning with the premise that sex is an accidental quality, concludes that women and men are equally qualified to become members of the guardian class. The price of women’s admission to this privileged class, however, is that they must train and live like men. Thus the discriminatory sexual difference remains in play. Only men or those who emulate them may rule. Beauvoir’s argument for equality does not fall into this trap. She insists that women and men treat each other as equals and that such treatment requires that their sexual differences be validated. Equality is not a synonym for sameness." (emphasis mine)
I find this paragraph particularly well written, but watch out, I've had an american writer read it and he understood the opposite of what is written. I had to make him read it again ^^
I don't know if it applies to this particular statistics. My personal interpretation of Beauvoir is that yes, this stat does make sense. In a gender equal society, you shouldn't find equal ratios everywhere because du-hu, we're actually not the same. But we should be equal.
That being said, I don't like talking about these things because I generalize to much, and the question is way too complex for me to approach. I like reading other people's take on it though. Anyway, I just wanted to share Beauvoir's thoughts and my rough interpretation of it in this context.
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauvoir/