Several comments, not necessarily answers to your questions:
1) time-related notion is not a definite rule, it is an asmachta. There are more exception than the rules. People make philosophical conclusions from that, but this is not a neduaraita.
2) halakha has assumptions on women’s social behavior but then treats them with respect when they are in a different position. For example, a lot of halochos around ketuba presume that the woman is dependent on her husband and establishes rules that are fair to both. At the same time, when a woman has property (usual presumption – from the father), then her rights are protected. If she is in business (II did not learn this, but heard from a dayan) – if she has a business dispute, she is not supposed to come to beis din, but beis din comes to her.
3) I presume same applies to learning. Yes, R Eliezer says teaching daughters Torah is teaching them shtus. Now, it is “not learning gemora”. But this is about a social policy – making all little girls into a beis midrash. A particular individual lady who wants or did learn something deserves respect, as it is (mostly) shown here.
4) Read the viduy – how much of it is about men-specific mitzvos? Probably, none. We are all guilty of over-valuing public demonstration of “frumkeit” over decent human behavior, chesed, etc. This is not a new thing, see neviim talking about bringing karbonos while mistreating people, but nowadays are also a response to anti-religious movements, as “frumkeit” demonstrated how we are different from the “apikoirisim”. So, while men are competing who will have a more expensive esrog, women have a whole field to themselves to practice (and learn!) about chesed, raising children, ehrlichkeit – and hopefully transmit that to their husbands and children.