No. It's for the fact that in order to climb the corporate ladder, one must sacrifice "empathy-potential" because one becomes conditioned to hypercompetitive behavior. Think of this as "learned winning"; it's cheaper to win because one is in "win-mode" than to actually always win through exhaustion of relevant skill (so, too, winning by "luck" or succeeding through luck, is better than succeeding through hard work — so being conditioned to a hypercompetitive attitude is like being on "luck mode" because others who are not in that attitudinal predisposition will essentially fail to maximize their relevant skills whereas someone in "win-mode" will already be in a conditioned skill-optimal (total maximalization) state.). The asymmetry here is that if you stress yourself out well before your menopausal stage, now you've risked it all only to sacrifice yourself — and you lose out on having a healthy body to support childbirth physiologically and psychologically.

Men do not have the opportunity to give birth, so they can weigh in more heavily on self-sacrifice without the contingency that their body could be used as a medium for life-production.

Basically, men are more like prototypal inheritance whereas women are more like classical inheritance, or at least we like to think that men are more "existential" while women are conservative in their "recreate the self".

Most men advance in careers that are inherently lethal; so naturally women are going to be less driven to advance themselves in careers that compromise their total contract not only as financial agents but as well as genetic agents.