News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Nevertheless, She Coded by sebastos on Thursday March 09, 2017 @02:46AM (#13827779)
You're treating it like well-established fact that people's career choices are based on gender identities which are fabricated by the environment they're raised in. Where is the evidence for this? Where are the oddball societies with female construction workers and all-male nurse workforces? If this is just an "accident" of the memetic evolution of societal gender tropes, then why is it so unilaterally consistent across cultures that have developed separately?

The biological explanation is, by far, the Occam's razor null hypothesis here. To be convincing, you would need to supply compelling evidence that children who have unusually low contact with traditional societal influence early in life make less predictable employment choices. Otherwise, this is a just-so story like all the rest of them.

Re:Nevertheless, She Coded by sanswork on Thursday March 09, 2017 @03:04AM (#13827848)
Actually to prove otherwise you just need to find traditionally "male" roles that are no longer male dominated roles. Like teachers, lawyers, or doctors. All had centuries of being male jobs.

Or find 'male' roles in some cultures that aren't in others like programming.

Re:Nevertheless, She Coded by microcolonel on Thursday March 09, 2017 @08:48AM (#13829174)
You assume that careers are immutable in terms of the work involved, and the returns for the employee, through the ages. I don't think that's true.
Re:Nevertheless, She Coded by sanswork on Thursday March 09, 2017 @04:58PM (#13834148)
I picked 3 examples where it is true though. The exception being teaching in the US specifically pays awfully but it pays pretty well/has good benefits in other western countries.