[Mezzie]

I'm a woman and it's correct as a data point though their assumptions about how the women feel about it are less accurate. In most cases, the male earns more and/or it would be a bigger hit to his career to be the primary caregiver, so from a household composed of a het couple and their kids perspective it makes sense for her to be the primary caregiver.

Usually someone has to step back/make compromises once children are had, because even good childcare won't take your kid if they're sick, and things like pandemic/staffing school shutdowns can leave people without childcare. For example, my boss's kid's school just shut down 3 hours early because too many of their staff were out sick. So the parents were just kind of stuck.

[feet]

Thank you, I appreciate your detailed input.

[cutemonster]

Silly question, and I hope you don't mind, but Feet, about how old are you? I'm curious, that's all.

At some point in your life, things like these will be "of course" to you. (Eg women more often wanting to be with their kids, or choosing jobs where they get to take care of others. And men, looking at large numbers, caring less, and more about themselves. För evolutionary reasons...).

[feet]

My age is in the range of 35-45. I'm also a scientist, nothing is "of course"

[cutemonster]

Ok :-)

[Mezzie]

I'd be wary of assuming the women's (and men's) choices are evolutionary - or at least nature versus nurture. It needs to be remembered both that having a choice at all is a fairly recent decision - 99.99+% of humans who ever lived didn't really get to 'choose' in the way we do now - and that choices are really hard to separate from societies in which we live.

When you live in a small group like most humans, you do what needs doing because if you don't, it doesn't get done. Think a nuclear family unit: If mom is out of the house, of course dad changes the diaper because otherwise it doesn't get changed. But all the time. There are some tasks that only can be done by one sex, but very few. Turning down a competent hunter or caregiver because they had the wrong genitals is suboptimal for group survival. Overspecialization in general is only possible after a certain number threshold has been reached.

The social part is important because it's also important to remember that evolutionary history =/= written history. We don't have records from most human societies. Limiting our data set to written records on gender/sex cuts out all pre-literate societies and also introduces substantial bias. (e.g. just because cuniform exists doesn't mean that any average person can use it or that their writing would survive or be accurate).

Modern societies have, up until recently, been fairly restrictive on the basis of sex. My mother wasn't allowed to go to college and her interest in electronics wasn't acceptable. This in turn impacts what I (and my sister) were told: Most parents will give their children advice that they think will help the children survive and flourish, so girls are told to lean in to their communication skills while boys are told to lean in to other things (I'm not a boy, I'm not going to speak on y'all's experience). Likewise, I've heard from men that a fair amount of them had to discard the part of them that would want to care for others/go into a caring profession.

There's also how we categorize professions as caring or not. Doctors vs. nurses are a good example as are college professors vs. high school teachers. A high school AP Calc teacher is in a 'caring' profession, but an adjunct teaching algebra in a community college is not.

And that's without even getting into 'is the average human aware of why they make choices'? The majority of what I've been told/seen has suggested that the couples make the decisions on the basis of finances, but I don't know if that's true or if it's just the most comfortable story for everybody. Humans are great at lying to ourselves, particularly if it helps us fit into a group.

[cutemonster]

For sure the social part plays a role, I agree about that.

And if that part was eliminated, afterwards, there would be more female doctors than male, and more male software developers than female, from what I've understood about this monkey species.

And it's important that everyone gets the same chances and encouragement to do whatever s/he likes :-) Teaching both ones boy and girl how to code (if one has kids) and build mechano spaceships.

You might find it interesting to read about what jobs people choose, in countries with higher equality and social safety nets, compared to more dangerous countries where you're left on your own. There was an article here on HN a while about that, maybe I can find it

[Mezzie]

I've read them and they're interesting, I just take most/all social science research with a giant pillar of salt, that included. For example, I have major doubts about how countries are evaluated for sex equality and I don't think you can meaningfully disentangle the fact that those nations have social safety nets from the decision making. If we are taking those metrics and studies at face value, one also has to consider things like the higher number of childless women/very small families in wealthier countries: There are lots of women who seem to opt out of the family game altogether and basing one's idea of what women and men do naturally on parents ignores childless humans. If women were naturally inclined to making our decisions based on family planning, then what's up with those of us without kids?

I agree that it makes sense for women with newborns/infants to choose less intense professions due to the material reality of nursing and childbirth (you need a job that at the least lets you stop what you're doing every couple of hours) and there are some biological indicators that would suggest on average you'd see more male software developers in a vacuum (e.g. a greater prevalence of autism causing a greater affiliation for the type of systems thinking that's helpful, particularly in lower level programming, greater variance in IQ and ability due to the single X chromosome meaning males are more likely to do most things at the highest and lowest levels). And there are definitely biological factors at play - almost all recorded societies have an exponentially greater female prostitute class than male for a reason.

It'd be brilliant if we could try to disentangle those variables but it's difficult given we are all apes who want to fit in with one another and it's difficult to discuss outliers without judging them in some way. At this point, I agree with the observations based on sex because I'm not into denying reality, but the ascribed motivations tend to be illogical and quite silly. (On all ends: bad evo psych about how women don't want status is up there with 'all men are inherently prone to violence' from radfems).

[cutemonster]

What's the bad ev psych about women not wanting status? (I think everyone wants status, to various extents)

The X thing -- yes I've seen that before. Found some research articles about it now when I websearched.

> basing one's idea of what women and men do naturally on parents ignores childless humans. If women were naturally inclined to making our decisions based on family planning, then what's up with those of us without kids?

Not sure about that. Evolution didn't take contraceptives into account. (If there had been no contraceptives, maybe the childless people in today's society instead would have had kids? I mean, the lifes they're living, works for making kids ... If there had been no contraceptives)

(This: "naturally inclined to making our decisions based on family planning" Im unsure what it means -- hmm what decisions? Like, what job to have?)

[cutemonster]

s/monkey/great ape/

[goldenchrome]

Yeah in most cases the men earn more because they’re more driven towards their careers and how much they earn.