Essentially, despite various attempts to get to 'equal' gender outcomes in the most 'equitable' societies in the world, participation in jobs and industries associated with men and women remains stubbornly unmoved towards 50:50 (or whatever proportion is considered desirable). The suggestion is that it's precisely the relatively equitable and liberal norms of those societies that have provided the conditions for women to make use of their agency and choose roles according to their preferences. Whereas women in societies less predisposed towards liberal norms may be motivated by other considerations, such as the need to maximise their earning potential, familial expectations of success or a stronger sense of needing to prove one's potential and achievement (including perceptions of gender in their own societies). In the instance of the anecdote about your Greek colleagues, I wondered if the financial crisis was a catalyst for greater participation, along with the current trend of Greeks' tendency towards staying in HE for longer?
I've probably made mistakes or mischaracterised aspects of this idea, but that's broadly how I understand it. It doesn't answer the why of 'systems/things' vs 'people' (which has more accessible academic discourse than this does), although I think it offers a different perspective on biases that may be in play.
Admittedly, I'm yet to read it (Pocketed it for later).
I assume I agree with your sentiment about what equality means and what its relationships with freedom and liberty are - it's just not something that can easily be said in the open without running the risk of having to defend it or attracting pariah status. I don't really want to say much more on the matter here beyond that (it's mostly a draining experience).
What this tells us is the opposite of what the article concludes. If women in more equal countries, with an absent "glass ceiling" that keeps them from attaining the top-paying positions, choose non-technical careers, that is because (they expect that) those careers pay better than technical careers.
This choice however, does not allow us to conclude a lack of interest in technical subjects. It merely suggests an interest in a better paid job.
Note that we also can't conclude that women in less equal countries are more interested in technical positions. However, this is not what I'm claiming. My point is that it's not safe to infer "interest in X" fom "works in X".
P.S. I see below you say you didn't read the article. It basically says what you say in your comment.
_______________
[1] This comes from my personal experience, but I don't expect it to be controversial. In many companies I've worked, men and women, even if they started out as technical workers, jumped on to a managerial track as soon as they got the chance. In one particular multinational financial company I worked, this was so common that the company had very few technical employees and had to outsource most of its technical work to contractors- which should also not come as any news to anyone who's worked in the financial sector.
Tut tut. You should always read the article before commenting, the manual before turning it on and the contract before signing it.
But, you know- no pressure :P
Nooooo! It's not a good board gaming session unless you spend 90 minutes poring over the rulebook and 19 minutes in gaming, well known fact. How can you do that if you don't have the rulebook with you!