Putting aside the sheer absurdity of that argument -- women pursue biology PhDs because they expect to be supported by a man? -- it still wouldn't explain why women are under represented in higher paying fields.
If a person is expected to only choose a high paying field, but has two options open:
1. High paying field they don't really like.
2. Low paying field they'd love to do.
Then if there are social expectations that someone must make a lot of money, they will generally be forced to choose option 1.
The argument that men are forced by social expectations to choose option 1, and women are more freely able to choose option 2 is not 'absurd'. It may be correct or incorrect and would need some evidence to back it up, but please don't go around labeling positions you don't like as 'absurd'.
[1] see for example Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing (MIT Press) http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-Pr...
You added the idea of conscious planning. Replace "plan on supporting them" with "higher probability of getting support".
> tons of evidence around sexist cultures in engineering and CS
This has no bearing on the above claim though, does it? That men have a higher risk of being able to find a partner capable and willing on supporting them financially.
Not at all what I said. Rather, women have the freedom to pursue their interests because they know that their ability to have children will not be determined by whether they can support a spouse.
Could we once do without it?
invariably makes these discussions fall off a cliff
Alas it's difficult to defend against.