I hate to say it but that bit of Greenspun's argument alone is a horrible argument. Then why are smart men chosing science? It seems you would have to add that

I hate to say it but that bit of Greenspun's argument alone is a horrible argument. Then why are smart men chosing science? It seems you would have to add that women tend to choose higher paying jobs when given a choice more often than men or something to that effect. It seems to be more like naysaying against science professions anyway. :) It's not very politically correct but it seems plausible that, on the whole, women are just less likely to find a deeply technical field more appealing than something less technical. Or there really are social norms driving women away from technical professions. Or something like that. I think those less popular arguments are more of an honest assesment devoid of ulterior motives. To me that makes more sense than trying to argue that women don't go into technical fields because adjusting for IQ and working hours, it doesn't pay very much. I mean, the more I think about that, that sounds totally ridiculous. How many women are really actively caclulating their IQ and quantitative skills into some vague formula when making job decisions, particularly very early in their academic careers? It sounds nice but as a serious explanation of real phenomena, it seems to fall down.