I swear, mental sarcasm and bait detectors are terrible on the internet. The amount of false positives and false negatives you get are crazy.
Here's the problem. A lot of what you are talking about is due to the choices of people. That's where the main issue arises. You can't force people to change what they want. But, considering that you're talking about percentage of women in law school as an example, you are fully aware of the fact that the 77 cent figure (which is what I am assuming what Eviora is talking about till she says otherwise) is a general median figure. Any scientist would look at the lack of accounting for external variables and laugh.
In the end, there are a ton of external factors that lead to that figure including total hours, overtime pay, frequency of men vs women in each field, and job tenure, each of which are all generally individual choices. I'd site the CONSAD report, done by the US Department of Labor, which pretty much did a meta analysis and concluded "The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
It's a long report though the Foreword does a nice job of summing up the findings.
Long story short, the 77 cent figure is used as a tool to generate fear of some patriarchy while at the same time hiding the meaning of the figure. The choices of an individual play a huge role in that figure. It's something that can really only be fixed by changing individual choices and frankly, I would rather see an individual making their own choices. If someone focuses on that 77 cent figure, then I should say that fatal workplace injury is also a matter of inequality because of the 92-8 men-women ratio.