Surely this is simply because the abortion issue has become partisan, and the Republicans have, for whatever reason, an institutional tendency to select fewer female candidates?  
Here in Britain, women are in general more right-wing than men and more likely to vote Conservative. But the Conservative party at the level of Members of Parliament is far more male-dominated than the Labour Party. Party machines do not necessarily turn out representatives as a microcosm of their support base - they tend to overrepresent the wealthiest, most powerful and most assertive elements within that base.

One point here: all the individuals you cite are very powerful. I imagine that a life of getting what they wanted all the time probably left very little room to develop the ability to critically examine their actions.  
I agree partially with your general point, but one way to understand religion that many atheists find helpful is to think of any belief or identity you were brought up with and had presented to you as profound and unchallenged truth throughout your formative years, whether it's a political outlook, a view of a prticular person or event or a national identity. Most people find such mental heirlooms very difficult to dispose of. For example, I had socialist values drummed into me throughout my childhood and I simply cannot get rid of the set of reflexes and prejudices this instilled in me, even though in terms of rational political thought I've moved away from socialism. Richard Dawkins suggested that the propensity for religion might be an extension of a natural, and evolutionarily highly beneficial, human trait to irreversibly accept any information presented to you as a child, and I think he may have a point.

Jason Malloy - perhaps this reflects that many tests show Jewish intelligence to be mainly verbal, and therefore presumably correlated with low testosterone? This would suggest that the most intelligent Jews will be those with least testosterone, and therefore highest anxiety and propensity for non-sociopathic mental disorders. High-testosterone Jews, meanwhile, will still be barely average on visuospatial IQ while their verbal IQ will be greatly lowered - but they'll worry about it a lot less. In white Gentiles, however, verbal and visuospatial IQ is usually roughly even, so that the level of testosterone would have no overall correlation with general intelligence - raising it raises visuospatial intelligence at the expense of verbal and vice versa. This would mean IQ wasn't noticably correlated with personality. Just a suggestion and I know focusing on testosterone level alone is a bit one-dimensional, but I think this could be partially correct.

Here's an interesting question: if EQ types/women are both more susceptible to peer group pressure and more instinctively drawn to the idea of consciousness existing in everything, what happens when they are raised and socialised as atheists? Does atheism function as if it were a religion, with women locked into it socially and more likely to stay and men more likely to drift away to somewhere else, either actual religion or apathetic apathy? Or is the EQ "theory of mind" factor so strong that they tend to drift towards theism? 
If the latter, is there any hope for an atheist world?

I expect that female sexual preference tends to be a fairly steady force pushing away in the background, rarely a sole or major cause of speciation or reproductive isolation. 
 
"Would an example of sexual selection be a man who looks like Usain Bolt preferring a woman who looks like Veronica Campbell Brown, and creating more children who can run like....lightning bolts?" 
More an example of assortative mating.

So, supposing Flynn is right there, what we should ask ourselves is whether the apparently greater East Asian efficiency in using what they've got is genetic or cultural. If it's genetic, then they might as well have higher IQs - but of course, this isn't quite as true at the higher levels. If whites really are even a couple of IQ points ahead naturally at the mean, that will translate into a significant discrepancy in their favour further up the bell curve which no amount of culture can erase. 
 
Anyway, I can't help thinking that all this concern about East Asian vs White IQ is a little bit misplaced given that the gap is clearly not greater than 5 IQ points either way. It's obsessing over the size of the cat when there's an elephant in the room - sub-saharan Africans, australian aborigines and certain other groups reliably scoring as much as 30 points less.

It looks, however, like they're data on class IQ, not occupational IQ specifically - what I'd really like to see is whether I'm right about certain sectors of the middle economic class having an IQ more comparable to the upper class. I think, and I could be wrong, that the average academic or engineer probably has a higher IQ than the average building site foreman or real estate agent - despite them earning comparable amounts and belonging to the same economic class.

Bruce Charlton: While I'm not disputing that the "lower" class generally has a lower IQ than their economic superiors, I'm far from convinced that the upper class of financiers, landowners, and managers has a higher IQ than certain sectors of the middle class, especially doctors, academics, and engineers. Do you know of any concrete data on average IQ by occupation? 
 
bioIgnoramus: "I ask because I have often wondered why the generation now approaching retirement, many of them from state Grammar schools, and the children of schoolteachers, minor civil servants and the like, should be assumed to be interested in being snobbish about the youngsters they admit." 
I wouldn't say it's down to snobbery at all - it's down to the fact that public schooling really does produce students with better grades and better presentational skills relative to their innate ability. 
 
DavidB: Theology is not necessarily an easy course to succeed in, merely an easy course to get into due to its unpopularity and in particular the lack of interest from state-schooled pupils. As regards Geography - it does have that reputation, hence the Porterhouse Blues line "We haven't had a first here for ten years! Even counting Geography!"

Perhaps I was being a little harsh: most of the students pushed into Oxbridge by public schools are probably above well average by national standards. Without public education they'd probably still manage to get into a half-decent university. But Oxford/Cambridge/LSE? I doubt it. I realise that tutors often try to see potential in students from disadvantaged schools, but, being realistic, it's not at all easy to judge potential without judgement being swayed by the prospective student's prior knowledge and presentation skills. Add to that the intimidation factor of an Oxbridge interview, which is much greater for someone outside the "system" and who hasn't had practice interviews, and it becomes really quite unfair to expect tutors to be able to judge fundamental ability in a twenty-minute conversation.

In practice, however, the British higher education system also serves the same purpose as the French grandes ecoles entrance system in basically picking out those who are destined for high-level managerial and professional roles. The original and rational guiding principle of selection may have been "how far an individual can benefit from the course of study concerned", but employers assume, probably correctly, that people who were allowed entrance to the most demanding courses at the most demanding universities are the most able. There is also a (probably quite accurate) perception that students at the older and more prestigious universities have to do substantially more and more difficult work to get the same degree level. My uncle, a graduate recruitment manager for a large software firm, refuses to interview anyone who went to a university without a good reputation, and I'd assume he's pretty typical in that respect. The result is that, from the point of those being selected, getting a place at a good university is an early form of job competition. 
The British upper class, who are desperate to get their children into these universities, are a little too proud to go in for blatant American-style donations in return for "legacy" places. Instead they rely on public (in the UK, this means private and prestigious) schools to shoehorn little Arthur, who's jolly good at rugby but always found Maths and English rather confusing, into Oxford or Cambridge or LSE by any means possible. And - here's the hole in Mr Charlton's argument - these schools are very, very good at doing so. Some of the people on my undergraduate course at one of the aforementioned universities were given practice interviews twice a week for the better part of a year by their schools. Most hired private tutors to cram in all the knowledge they were too uninterested or slow to pick up class. Most of the more unpopular and obscure courses are filled with public school alumni, because the schools know the system well enough to predict which course will be undersubscribed and their parents are so desperate to get their children into the right university that they don't mind what they study. Material Engineering and Theology are particular favourites.  
The British higher education system is really pretty far from ideal either as a meritocracy or a public education service.

France's demographic history has been incredibly atypical of a European nation. At the time of the French Revolution, France's population was 25 million. For some comparison, England's population was just 7 million. It wasn't because of some incredible long-forgotten martial prowess that the French were able to take on the whole of Europe in the wars of the Revolution and Napoleon's Empire, it was because it was actually a pretty even fight in numerical terms. During the course of the 19th century, however, while the rest of western Europe saw an enormous growth in population and the USA saw a growth in population unprecedented in human history, France's population stagnated. It became one of the most sparsely populated nations in Europe, which is one reason why the French countryside today has so much scenic forestry and grazing land. In 1930, England's population was 35 million, five times its size in 1790. France's was 41 million, less than twice its size in 1790. After the Second World War, France experienced the baby boom to end all baby booms, and, although the sixties hit fertility as they did everywhere in Europe, the modest rebound in recent years has been enough to keep it as the most fertile country in the EU - although it's still one the most sparsely populated of all the four great Western European powers. 
 
Inscrutable bunch, the French.

Well, that would make sense if you believe in the whole "folkways-surviving-in-the-New-World" hypothesis. The flatter, fertile parts of England are still the heartland of traditional small-scale ale brewing in the UK. The Scots-Irish prefer whisky/whiskey and Germans mainly drink lager of a style readily available in cans. African Americans had any Old World alcoholic patrimony knocked out of them under slavery.