The blog is simmering with gender controversy anyway, so here, via Crooked Timber, is a chart of the percentage of women earning PhDs in various disciplines:
To my eye, this isn’t very compatible with a biologically deterministic view of the professions. What feature of life on the savannah explains why so many more women get Ph.Ds in statistics than in religion? Are men chromosomally undercapable at anthropology?
To forestall one obvious comment — of course it is plain from the chart that there is some loose correlation in these numbers between the “mathiness” of a field and its “maleness.” But surely it’s just as plain that this isn’t the only thing going on.