(I.e. it would be a lot more productive if you were to address my point instead of totally ignoring it.)
But yeah, I think these debates do tend to assume that STEM careers are desirable, which is why there is no similar hand-wringing about how few women get construction jobs (<10% women). Certainly they're well paid, which is probably the biggest reason STEM careers are seen as better than construction jobs, given that level of pay has become close to an exclusive measure of job desirability (e.g. we judge colleges and majors by average starting pay on graduation).
It was better when I started playing the game in the late '70s (people weren't parked in post-doc purgatory for hardly as long), but I was under no illusions that I was going to make much money (I pursued it because I had a calling, one I realized in 1st grade).
We ought to mention the elephant in the room: the NSF et. al. decided in the '80s? that they wanted to keep the cost of science low so they pumped the supply big time, resulting in part in the mess we see today. I would have just missed that if finances hadn't brought my budding career as a scientist to a brutal end in 1980.
This is a rather different argument than the more traditional one, that gender-bias/etc. is standing in the way of women who want to go into STEM careers but find themselves blocked. The focus these days seems to be more on women who don't want to go into STEM careers, to figure out why and how we can change that, which is more of a focus on social-engineering/good-for-society outcomes, as opposed to the more traditional feminist focus on personal autonomy / right to pursue your career of choice.