That's kind of the opposite of the conclusion of the article. Now, the conclusions of the article (cultural, social and political differences have a huge impact

That's kind of the opposite of the conclusion of the article. Now, the conclusions of the article (cultural, social and political differences have a huge impact on what what men and women do) may be incorrect, and you may be more correct, but it's a little incongruent to say (I'm paraphrasing here) "Biological differences explain the differences in career outcomes between men and women." Outside of some very specific situations (aka muscle mass dependent jobs like carrying heavy loads on your back) I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that supports a biological cause of career outcome divergence in women vs men, but if you have some literature or other information I'm always willing to admit that I'm wrong in light of new information. On the other hand, there is an ocean of scientific data that cultural, social and political conditions have a huge impact on what jobs men and women do. EDIT: there is actually one argument for biological differences explaining divergent outcomes that I find convincing: for the vast majority of human history, the state's monopoly on the use of violence has been either nonexistent or far weaker as compared to today. Men have had an advantage on the use of violence due to average muscle mass and bone density being higher than women. Technology (firearms, surveillance, etc) has made this disparity of power in capacity for violence less and less relevant.