[mustacheemperor]

Every HN thread including any discussion of demographics eventually reaches a man insisting women are biologically programmed for certain roles. When specified those roles are invariably service based ones and never engineering innovative products, leading teams, or conducting research.

Relative to the breadth of human history with little to no gender equality, there is no country with a long history of gender equality. And throughout the history of gradually increasing gender equality in human society, there are numerous examples of men structuring the rules of engagement to restrict access for the women attempting to break in. When the Royal Society commissioned a bust of mathematician Mary Somerville, they still refused to admit her.[0]

If women are biologically ill suited to compete with men in these fields, it seems it would be unnecessary to prevent them from trying, like med schools rigging their exams.[1]

[0]https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2010.004...

[1]https://apnews.com/general-news-1c2a635e9faa44daa1225a804288...

Aside, I think this is it for me, I’m changing my HN password to something I can’t guess or remember. This is one part of tech culture I am just sick of responding to. There is more than enough of it in real life and I will always feel obliged to respond. Especially on HN where so many voices are leaders in the real world, the disappointment of seeing it over and over again is just crushing.

Please…if you won’t alter this attitude, don’t bring it to work. For the sake of the women in this field.

[SturgeonsLaw]

Previous commenter mentioned career choices, not biological programming and certainly not anything about anyone being ill suited for a job. Men and women in aggregate often have different career preferences - is that controversial?

Guessing you had that comment loaded in the chamber ready to pull the trigger at the first mention of any gender differences, because it doesn't seem relevant to the claims in that comment and it seems like it's not giving the previous commenter a fair go.

[ruszki]

You should go to a play store. Also if you ever saw parents interacting with their kids, you should know that there is no point in almost every kids life when they are not affected by gender inequality which parents learned the same way as they teach to their kids.

Stating that there are inherent career preferences by gender is not controversial in scientific sense, it’s in the same realm as god existence. It’s untestable at large in the current society, and there are a ton of things indicating otherwise. Like a single exception who chose against the perceived career preference by gender is more than what can be shown for the inherent nature of it, because we know that that’s the status quo everywhere. It’s controversial because some people politically make it so.

[famouswaffles]

>Previous commenter mentioned career choices, not biological programming and certainly not anything about anyone being ill suited for a job. Men and women in aggregate often have different career preferences - is that controversial?

The OP commenter seemed to be implying that Men and Women have natural career choices because even countries with long histories of "gender equality" see women and men aggregate in different careers.

The real reasons for much of these discrepancies, legal and social pressures/conditioning (If a father won't buy his daughter(s) computers to tinker with at a young age like he might his sons, how much less interest do you imagine daughters would have in CS?) are not natural.

[Rodeoclash]

Great comment. I'll bet the the poster you replied to likely also works in software engineering (based on them being on this site) - a role dominated by women only a few decades ago.

I sometimes feel that Hacker News embodies the idea of having an 18 in INT and about a 4 in WIS.

[kjqgqkejbfefn]

>insisting women are biologically programmed for certain role

Not what he said.