To give a concrete example: Dame Caroline Haslett who was the President of the Women's Engineering Society in Britain created objectively the safest electrical outlet and plugging mechanism ever conceived (as long as you don't step on one). There was no such mandate for it to be so safe, you could argue that a man could have done exactly the same but I'd rather consider that she was being extremely empathetic as to how the device would be used and that safety in this area would quite literally save the lives of men, women and children.
A world without her contribution would be a lesser one, but I would argue that it was made with her femininity, not with how much she filled a man-shaped role.
Believing science is one thing, but that sounds like exactly the sort of "gendered narrative building" that feminists are trying to fight against. When they say stuff like "gender roles are fictional," a large part of it is due to people inventing stories in their heads about gender roles that aren't true. I think that it's fair to not try to add anything beyond what's demonstrably there.
Why? If peoples' experiences and psychology (in my layman's understanding of agreeableness) show that women tend to be more empathetic than men, it seems perfectly reasonable for them to suggest that that may have benefited an inventor in a fantastic discovery they made. People have no obligation to buy into others' narratives. Groups can claim whatever they want is fictional, it doesn't mean everyone else has to censor their speech accordingly.
I thought the person you were responding to was making a very thoughtful point, and one that was very respectful of women and the valuable insight some of them have that is often overlooked.
The problem is his comment can very easily be read as "Women should do what they are good at". This implies "taking care of kids and home" for many invested in this narrative. On contested topic like this, we should try to phrase our comments very clearly.
> People have no obligation to buy into others' narratives.
Our society seems to work best if we agree on fundamental "narratives". Equal opportunity being good is one of them. Actually, not really, since perfect equal opportunity would require us to not be able to help our own children more than others can help theirs. But let's not get into capitalism/class stuff but back to gender. A talking point the other side likes to make is "wanting equal outcomes". Nope, that would be stupid. But significantly unequal outcomes are a good indicator we'll find unequal opportunities when we look into it. Or some other reason. But the other side very quickly likes to accept "men and women are just different" as other reason and prefers to disregard e.g. fixing societal feedback loops via affirmative action. That finally brings me to your first part:
> If peoples' experiences and psychology (in my layman's understanding of agreeableness) show that women tend to be more empathetic than me
I don't think we have hard scientific research data showing to what degree this is based on nature or nurture. The latter would be problematic since against the spirit of equal opportunity. Of cause that question is hard to answer, since randomized controlled trials are impossible and understanding the physics and it's emergent properties is still beyond us.
Also, I am under the impression that rolling ones eyes at a choice to stay at home is a continued devaluation of women’s work. The upkeep of a living location and the caring of any little humans is a significant labor, such that upon outsourcing is often equivalent to a median yearly salary of a single person. However because there isn’t a common framework to evaluate worth beyond money in the society I live in, unpaid labor isn’t valued.
People who are driven by money, no matter gender, skin color, etc shouldn't be held back from it because of preconceptions about their ability. Only their actual ability should matter.
Or were there are other factors e.g. stimulating, flexible, empowering, creative etc.
Because pretty sure women are selecting roles for a range of different factors as well. You know because all women aren't the same. Just like all men aren't the same.
But you said it yourself: "several career paths would likely have made me happier".
What's the point in living if not to be happy? Money is just a means to avoid unhappiness. It's been proven time and time again that after a decent income money does not increase happiness.
I'm (reasonably) good at it. I don't like it much. But be slightly good and have a little experience in programming and if you're not careful pretty soon it's way better than most other options you've got, by every measure except "enjoy and am proud of what I do".
I also do not have a trust fund, actually the contrary, I grew up as poor as you can possibly be in the UK. Mother didn't work, had various vices including drinking and smoking which did not jive with our financial situation (living on benefits).
Due to that my mother put more worth into immaterial things, and that rubbed off on me I think.
Additionally; I've only been employed in a self-sustaining fashion for 8 years now. Perhaps I've lost what it feels like to be destitute- but I don't think I'd trade happiness for money because outside of not worrying about bills and food money doesn't actually buy me anything. Just a little more ease of mind.
I think there's also some pretty big cultural differences between the US and western Europe when it comes to decisions to pursue money or not.
There is evidence that women are judged by appearance and men by financial success. Even a mild effect would be more than enough to skew the outcomes; it would impact the more competitive representatives of each gender.
I think this is the most important question to solve if we want more equal outcome in worklife.
When I was young the highest paying job direct out of high school was underwater welder. Not many teenage girls are signing up for that program, nor are there much political interest to get 50/50 gender ration for jobs that work in the dark, dangerous, on rusty oil rigs far away from land.
In a bit of irony, the same can be said for professions dominated by women. Hired midwifes during the summer vacation months here in Sweden are getting salaries up to 9k a month. Very few people here in Sweden has a monthly pay that high. Demand can skyrocket when you only recruit from half the population, at which point the employer will pay what the market demands.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/04/20/the-worst-jo...
1. Taxi Driver: Uber and Lyft have significantly increased the number of women, and there are lots of efforts to get more women involved. https://www.gosafr.com/ is one example.
2. Logger: This is probably the kind of job you were thinking of. Logging is completely male dominated, but there are some small efforts at change: https://www.pressherald.com/2019/03/17/the-axe-women-loggers... and https://www.tigercat.com/between-the-branches/logger-girl/
3. Newspaper reporter: Majority male, but not overwhelmingly. Definitely a big push to equalize the field: http://www.womensmediacenter.com/reports/the-status-of-women...
4. Retail salesperson: Majority women.
5. Enlisted military personnel: Hard to summarize here, but issues around women in the US military come up quite frequently in Congress and elsewhere, and the history of increasing participation and equality is long.
6. Corrections officer: Women were 37% of adult officers and 51% of juvenile officers in 2007 (http://www.corrections.com/articles/21703-women-as-correctio...). There is a push to increase equality: https://www.correctionsone.com/women-in-corrections/
7. Disc jockey: Hard to find exact stats, but it's the same story as everywhere else in modern society. Used to be completely male dominated, now women are increasingly entering the industry and fighting against entrenched stereotypes. A random article: https://www.laweekly.com/music/women-djs-are-out-there-clubs...
8. Broadcaster: Feel like I'm starting to repeat myself. It's the same story as everywhere else in the media. Look at the Women's Media Center and other organizations for evidence of a push.
9. Advertising salesperson: Is this the kind of job you thought was on this list? Majority women, apparently: https://datausa.io/profile/soc/112011/#demographics
10. Painter: Seems to be similar to logging. I honestly don't know why. Presumably it's historically male (like everything), and it's not a particularly desirable career for anyone.
etc.
Industries like logging and painting are outliers. There are some jobs that are so physically demanding that men have a significant innate advantage, but there's no natural reason for any industry to be 95+% male.