> Things-oriented occupations are those that involve extensive work with machines, such as computer programming, repairing machines (e.g., cars), or tailoring

> Things-oriented occupations are those that involve extensive work with machines, such as computer programming, repairing machines (e.g., cars), or tailoring Most computer programming jobs have very little to do with machines as such. Code in high-level languages works mostly with abstract representations of business requirements, and the fact that it's executed on machines is incidental. And if abstract concepts count as "things," then you've stretched an already ridiculously broad category to the point of uselessness. You might as well say "I repair cars for people, so my job is actually about people." I am a woman, and one of the things I find appealing about programming is the very immateriality of it. It's distinctly unlike something like "repairing machines." You don't have to get dirty, or crawl under anything, or climb a ladder, or carry heavy stuff around. I can see how women might be less interested in "things" when it comes to all that, but not computer programming. It's pretty clear that these dichotomy is over-generalized to the point that you can build whatever narrative you want. Also, why is it that it only seems to apply when the people-related jobs are low-status? Politicians and executives are mostly men and mostly deal with people. Food-preparation workers deal with things and are about equally men and women, except for head chefs, who are mostly men.