> The printing press, steam engine, cotton gin, combine tractor etc. all didn't kill traditional masculinity, so why should computers and robots?

This is an interesting space for discussion, and it's worth noting that I don't fully disagree with you here. However, I do think computers (and "robots", AKA machines with computers in them) are materially different than these other examples.

A combine harvester might allow one farmer to do the work of ten, but the thing that farmer is actually doing still shares a lot of similarities with what the farmer was doing before. Same with the cotton gin, the assembly line, or the table saw.

The printing press is special because it replaced what would today be a bunch of office jobs (scribes) with a single physical job. The latter would actually be more male coded in modern America.

On the other hand, something like the CNC lathe straight up replaces a large number if "machinist" jobs with some smaller number of programmers and CAD experts. These jobs are less masculine coded than machinist was. It also adds some computer knowledge to the requirements of the repair job. Even while we still approach true lights out manufacturing, the jobs "around" that machine are more supervisory in nature and less masculine coded.

It's not that the progression toward lights out manufacturing hasn't generated new jobs. It's generated plenty of them. It's just that a lot of these jobs are relatively gender neutral now, like product design and marketing. A lot of the masculine coded ones are driving based - delivery drivers, etc - which have already been undermined by the gig economy and are rife for further disruption by self driving cars once that gets good enough.

I agree that the solution needs to be a cultural shift of some kind. We aren't going to put computers back in the bottle. Executing a cultural shift is hard, but it's been done before: frankly, just look at all of the other (almost all positive) results of feminism since Susan B. Anthony's time.