Most of what she says is entirely self-evident, except for the anecdotes about pay/equity, for which she presents zero evidence.
Where is the substance? Why is this interesting?
Every dad in the world knows that a hobby is different from work, and that turning your hobby into work is not always ideal, because you lose your hobby, you lose your steady salary, and your dreams do not always work out. I postulate at least that every dad knows this inherently.
Most people have way more taxing jobs than IT. I've been in construction for 3 years, and that work is no joke. Outside in rain/snow/storms, lifting tons of material on a normal day, for little pay, and no "worker satisfaction" or "team building" events, etc. I only did it for 3 years - one of the people I worked with was over 70, and had done it since he was 13.
Is it because she postulates that companies are hiring more women because they think that they can pay them less?
And I'm not saying I think that's true/false (she presents no evidence), I'm just asking if that's the reason the blog post is interesting.