> I thought the three alternatives were "women are bad at it", "women don't enjoy it", "women are being actively put off it by the men being even more sexist than the sexism baseline of men in other career options".
It seemed like it was "women don't enjoy it" was largely the point. That even if women are just as good at math and science as men, that they are even better at other things, and that in societies with greater equality of opportunity women prefer to work at those other things.
> If this is claiming they're actually better skilled than the men, then it opens up more space for the comparative sexism option I would have thought?
Again, it the article emphasizes that women are better at other things, not necessarily science or mathematics (in some countries they are, but not all).
> Just the fact that it contradicts the common wisdom that "women aren't capable of STEM" seems to lend some support to sexism clouding people's objective evaluations.
Perhaps people are misreading a lack of interest as a lack of ability. In any case, it weakens the notion of sexism as a causal factor in the employment gap.