No, it wouldn’t, because as I already stated “careers” and “financial well being” do not have natural definitions, only culturally imposed ones. The inherent effect only exists in response to the culturally defined thing. Why do careers have to start at particular ages and run for “X” number of years and earn out in particular ways and demand “X” number of hours during certain hours of the day? Because we say so. It is not THAT simple to actually institute change (that’s why it’s a struggle and requires many conversations and many potential solutions to select between). But philosophically, this is the plain jane reality: we can make these things anything we’d like, all that’s missing is making sure that what we decide makes sense. This is not (as sprocket seems to think I think below) a total “blank slate”. But its more fungible than we admit it to being.
Generally speaking social change always has economic costs - when slavery was ended the South US economy tanked completely, because it had relied so heavily on slave labor. But quickly a new system was put in place after the Civil War and this system has surged with relative speed. The Southern US workforce never required slavery. It simply decided to lean on it to the point where it became difficult to extricate itself from it later down the line.
Less extreme examples exist with women in the work force, the end of segregation, affirmative action, regulations, etc. These things do have consequences, but they never harm the system in apocalyptic ways that detractors say they will unless we don’t change with it. They system is what we make of it, within our abilities at any given time.
A good example are the recent studies that have shown that automation and productivity has risen so much, so quickly, that we could theoretically reduce everyone to 4 hour work days and productivity would neither suffer nor cease to rise. This is obviously theoretical, but the primary reason no one is looking deeper into it is because it goes too much against the current cultural definition of work - no one is going to pay the same amount for 4 hours of work, likely they wouldn’t even if we could prove that productivity didn’t go down or cease to rise. Because our cultural definitions demand certain learned concepts of what is acceptable - 8 hours is a work day, because we say so, but does it have to be? At one point in time, maybe yes, but why balk if the situation has changed? It sounds ludicrous to most people because they aren’t demanding an 8 hour workday due to circumstances. They’re demanding it due to engrained definitions and habit.
There are always a confusing mix of reasons, however they virtually all boil down to the fact that the disparity (inequality) only exists due to the entire system being optimized for men in the first place. All the many reasons are largely if not entirely because the things women might have to think about…men don’t. I can give you examples of fictional workplaces wherein the set-up can be disadvantageous to men (the retirement age being one I’ve already given). Women also mature quicker than men so if the workplace was set up to demand that careers started earlier in life (maybe say 15 or 16) it could prove disastrous with men performing well under their female counterparts in terms of punctuality, focus, and productivity, causing them to find it difficult to hold careers of any value later in life. That’s two examples. This would of course demand a culture that has a history of valuing women in the workplace (and in schools) but if such a fictional workplace existed it probably would.
