[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/