edit : corrected a typo
You can make a reasonable argument that the causation goes the other way, with men giving higher priority to money when choosing a career. This makes sense, because a male's career has a huge impact on dating success.
This conspiracy theory has been given a name, which is widely use in feminist circles: the Patriarchy.
The reality is that there are many factors that determine how much you are individually paid. Two people of the same gender, role and title can have vastly different compensation because of negotiations.
> In tech, some people are concerned that increasing diversity will "lower the bar", but in sports, which has a more competitive hiring market than tech, we saw the opposite, increasing diversity raised the level instead of lowering it because it means hiring people on their qualifications instead of on what they look like. I don't disagree with people who say that it would be absurd for tech companies to leave money on the table by not hiring qualified minorities. But this is exactly what we saw in the sports we looked at, where that's even more absurd due to the relative ease of quantifying performance. And yet, for decades, teams left huge amounts of money on the table by favoring white players (and, in the case of hockey, non-French Canadian players) who were, quite simply, less qualified than their peers. The world is an absurd place.
It would be absolutely wonderful if everything was a meritocracy like this, and it's what most people ask for.
Unfortunately in the tech industries and modern media, "diversity" initiatives are the exact opposite and only want people based on what they look like.
Sexism exists (and perhaps it would be more productive if you stopped only believing in binary extremes) but it's not a widespread conspiracy. Did you skip the line about the same gender/title/role still being paid differently?
When is the last time you read a nursing magazine, or did a web search for information about increasing the numbers of male nurses?
People do complain about these things.
But how do they complain? Compared to the tech situation, where you don't dare think it might be anything but sexism and oppression.
Here's an article in the Guardian about the topic.
https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2017/mar/01/w...
Some choice excerpts:
“Nursing is all about the empathy and caring that people show, but those traits are not exclusively female [..]”
Let's see, "Tech is all about logic, but those traits are not exclusively male".
“Men might find it harder to put into words their caring and compassionate qualities, but can demonstrate them more easily.”
-> "Women find it harder to express their technical chops, but they can demonstrate them more easily"
"When I was a ward manager, or sister, I did get some people saying: “Shouldn’t you be a brother?” But, actually, no one has ever commented on the fact that I’m a matron and a man."
-> Tech language is sexist and must be changed.
"Davies questions whether it is the work itself that doesn’t attract men, or whether other factors are to blame"
-> If you even dare to suggest that something other than horrible sexism is to blame for the imbalance in tech, no matter the overwhelming evidence, you are censured or fired.