I don't know if people have to be pressured into having more time for their family, though. I think it is more having the option vs not having the option. I'd love to have the option as a man, but in general it is a privilege of women or rich people (not having to work).
Income is just one measurement, health and life satisfactions are others. Are men really so well off if you consider those?
Also, don't know about the US, but in my country women automatically get half of what their husbands earn. So they can go to Yoga class every day and still have a good income. Are they really so bad off? (edit: yoga class sounds snarky, what I mean is: women live longer than men, priorizing health over income might play a part).
Also, if you say "pressured into bad jobs", what is the punishment for not choosing a bad job?
It wasn't an oppressive culture or dongle jokes that kept her out of programming, it was just the assumption by everyone around her that girls generally are not interested in computers.
I don't want to make too many assumptions about someone I've never met, but from here it seems likely that it wasn't an oppressive culture that kept her out, it was the lack of enough innate interest to kick over into actively learning more about it.
Not offering someone a potential carrer path just because of their gender seems a bit opressive to me.
Sexualised content at tech events just reenforced the idea that "programming isn't for women". Imagine a woman at a tech event where ther'es a lot of straight male locaker room jokes, and the organisers do nothing ans say there's nothing wrong going on, she'll come out of it thinking tech is for men.
I don't know that having all that societal pressure to make money is really a benefit for men. Women have far more options with career paths these days, and very rarely have to worry about money. It's totally socially acceptable to let their family or boyfriend support their existence. This is why you can easily find "professional artists" who write in their little blog that they "make their living" off of etsy when you can easily see they've made a total of a whopping $150 from their shop this month.
I don't think it's fair at all to blame men for women making less money than men. Most women have the luxury of being able to afford not making much (or any) money and still do whatever they feel like/not have to worry about starving/housing/etc.
> Women have far more options with career paths these days, and very rarely have to worry about money.
That's some first class trolling there.
So any man choosing higher discomfort for more pay isn't just getting more money he's also improving his chance of finding a mate.
Meanwhile women have a smaller incentive to take discomfort since they will not get the compensation of enhanced attractiveness.
So your theory doesn't match reality.
Women do not in my experience value pay as highly and consider the (non-monetary) costs more carefully than men.
If the 77% discussion makes more women reflect and choose professions with higher pay, fine. I just reject the notion of female victimhood and male oppression.
However, it might really be a bit complicated. For example to get a degree costs the same no matter if you are going to work part time or full time. So investing into higher education already is a bigger gamble for women, if they expect they might have kids at some point. I suspect women are not stupid but chose their jobs smartly.
But why do they choose other professions? Do people pressure them into not choosing better paid jobs? Isn't that a symptom.
Most feminists don't "blame men", but "blame gender roles". It's just most gender roles significantly benefit a lot of men (and harm a small amount of other men).