The thing that jumps out at me as a question from this data is why some sub-topics/specialties of a subject have such a huge range? Some things make sense. Lots

The thing that jumps out at me as a question from this data is why some sub-topics/specialties of a subject have such a huge range? Some things make sense. Lots of women write papers on Sociology/Gender, and this doesn't shock me in the least since I think more women consider gender issues over men who have the privilege of not needing to think about it (which is part of the problem). Culturally, we push women to studying things that are family, children and fertility related as well (and push men away from them)- and these are present in the numbers. Yet under Law, you've got only 8% of papers on Antitrust by women, but 34.6% on legal oversight and regulation. It clear isn't that there are no women in law, but something has influenced them to study different things in the larger subject of law. Similarly- Mycology has 57.1% of the papers on Yeast with authorship, but 7.7% on Zygospores. What makes yeast more equitable than zygospores? Again, it isn't that women aren't in mycology, but for some reason are studying different things it seems. And for mathematics; 24.3% for Lie Algebras, and 4.5% for Oscillation Criteria. I honestly don't know what either of those are, but they don't appear to be particularly gendered sub-topics/specialities in math. I understand that culturally we push young women away from some subjects, but I've never heard someone intone that a woman shouldn't do oscillation criteria or automorphic forms in math, or encourage algebraic groups instead? (Numbers above looking at first author) Clearly, there is a gap. This is a problem. I'd just like to know more about the causation on more of the stranger gaps.