I don't think either of these is particularly strong evidence, but including and then dismissing them would have been more convincing than pretending they don't exist.
More that women like other things more?
"Many women simply aren’t cut out for the corporate rat race, so to speak, and that’s not because of ‘the patriarchy,’ it’s because men and women aren’t identical, and women are much more inclined to gain fulfillment elsewhere."
and:
"men and women think very differently from each other, and the specific types of thought process and problem solving required for engineering of all kinds (software or otherwise) are simply less prevalent among women."
Source: https://qz.com/1598345/microsoft-staff-are-openly-questionin...
People always try to soften the blow with "preferences" but it's really a non-argument that doesn't stand up to even the most casual scrutiny.
And then, the exact same data that refutes the "women aren't suited" argument also refutes the "maybe women are on average incapable of deriving satisfaction from this work."
"Women like other things more" because fewer men are in those fields to tell them "this is a job for men." There is no overall gender-based bias towards or away from any intellectual interests.
If a field is full of asshole men, it is not indicative of a lack of interest in that field from women. It is a lack of interest in putting up with those asshole men that will keep most women away.
Do you have evidence for this?
The evidence I've seen, say, comparing Scandinavian women to Eastern European women, indicates that there are sex-correlated trends in life choices, eg about career.
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/the-ge...
Just note for a moment that Peterson's argument seems to hinge on proving there are sex-differences. I'm not sure how much I believe him (he's not very trustworthy and he mis-cites things a lot in my experience), but let's proceed as if I do not dispute this point. Fine: "There are sex differences on a variety of scales."
This concession is easy, because no one really disputes this![0] What's disputed is what the impact and interpretation of these should be. If a dislike of computer programming is universal under this hypothesis, then we should not find such trivial counter-examples as the article has. Software can be about people. Design can be about things. The outrageous claim is that the minds women possess are unsuited to the task at hand, not that women might be different. And this is the claim Peterson dances around continually. He'd much rather talk about what post-scarcity people in a semi-socialist nation focus on doing than ask the question, "How good is anyone at a given job?"
You know what? If I wasn't living the Bay Area where expenses are so high; I wouldn't work for a tech company either. It's not a friendly place to be, and it's a place that reviles personal growth.
[0]: Not even trans people suggest there are "no sex differences." If they did, then why would so many go to such difficulty to do HRT and even surgical modification? The argument is that there is more to the story of what it means to be a woman or a man, and we should recognize that.