Hacker News Reader

But this possible explanation, even if true (which I don't know), is still a refutation of Damore's argument: there is no biological or inherent basis for having fewer women in engineering. If women, when they see the need (e.g. for economic reasons) or are otherwise encouraged, can successfully tackle engineering fields, then surely the difference is societal and not inherent, unlike what Damore seemed to claim?

View on HN

This is how I read the idea in the comment you replied to: external factors (namely, needing money to satisfy even the most basic life needs), not biological ones, are the ones that drive some places to have a more evenly split men/women ratio. When the environment is "safe" enough that you don't need to worry about how you're going to survive, that's when the biological predispositions come to light, and you get women going to what they inherently prefer, and move away from the things they don't.

I don't think the point is that women can't successfully tackle engineering, they can. But that doesn't mean that they have a predisposition towards it. If you encourage (or even force) someone into a particular profession, they might excel at it, but that doesn't imply that they would've picked it on their own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com