I thought it was pretty well-established that the answer to the OP question is yes? 
Yes. The only people who disagree are Tea Party-types with their heads in the sand and Internet teenagers who've never lived in the real world.
And not that there's anything wrong with being type #2 per se. We've all been there.
Oh. Oh dear.
Perhaps we don't see as many females choosing "dangerous jobs" such as nuclear engineer (note to self: is nuclear engineer a dangerous job? Engineers are usually busy behind desks are they not? Maybe it's dangerous because it involves math?) because being in that field inevitably leads them to interacting with insufferably ignorant, sexist behavior perfectly exemplified by your comment. I had a job for six months working in the steel industry. It was bloody hot in the factory due to the furnaces, you were expected to do lots of heavy lifting, and every day you'd walk out covered in soot. As you might expect, there were basically no women there - and during the group interview process where they described the working conditions all of the girls walked out not wanting to even try. I don't blame them - there are only two results when a woman chooses to work in a factory like that. She's either automatically a lesbian and can expect to be treated with disdain or, if not, can expect to be constantly sexually demeaned behind her back. She'd also likely given the less difficult roles and resented by those of us expected to do the heavy lifting. Any advancement she made would have people questioning whether or not she deserved it or if she was doing something shady. But I'm sure none of that had anything to do with it. It was probably just icky and too hard (that is: her fault).
Anyway, that doesn't have much to do with your overall nonsensical point. These equal pay for equal work debates are built on the common understanding that we are talking about men and women doing the
same job with the
same experience and qualifications who still, nevertheless, get paid less. As jfern noted, this isn't as true when we're talking about women and men fresh out of university who are childless and inexperienced. It can, in fact, be the opposite. Great.
That's the starting point. As life goes on, women face considerably more disruptions than men because we expect them (and, of course, often they happily choose) to take time off from careers to focus on having children or caring for family members. When women return to the workforce, they've lost ground. Are you ready? I'm going to throw a graph at you.
Then there's the fun fact that, strictly because of often unintentional sexism (I hope), women who ask for raises are not given them as often as men (
cite). A man who asks for a raise is assertive and strong as men ought to be. Women? Not so much. That's (again, sometimes unintentionally) viewed as uncomely behavior for a lady.
Perhaps what you meant was that women are more likely to work at jobs that aren't professional or managerial and therefore pay less. This is true. Why this is so could be that these lower paying jobs offer women more flexibility with their busy schedules when they have to juggle caring duties at home. Most people, upon learning that, will breathe a sigh of relief.
It's their own fault! Phew! I knew it would be okay and we won't have to change anything. But the solution to that problem involves rather frightening things like requiring businesses and government to provide leave for women (and men) when they start to have families. Women shouldn't have to choose between caring for their children and keeping that high-salary, personally fulfilling job. We should be letting them take time off for a while and welcoming them back to the same work and pay as before.
But businesses wouldn't like that sort of inefficiency being introduced. You know what? Tough sh**t. When someone takes an extended leave from their job, someone has to fill in. That work either gets spread around or several people have to be hired to come in a fill in. That's good for the economy. Hurray! I'm glad I've changed your mind.
Poll
