I don't think anything you're saying contradicts the article? I don't see anything in the article claiming that the preferences aren't a result of history? So

I don't think anything you're saying contradicts the article? I don't see anything in the article claiming that the preferences aren't a result of history? So I don't see what merits the "wtf". In any case, "a result of history" doesn't seem very useful or specific as an explanation. If we're talking about the history of our entire species, then perhaps a more specific explanation is "a result of our evolutionary history". For example, you say "societies raised women to take care" -- maybe as a result of this, women who liked to "take care" were the women who passed on their genes, and therefore modern women have genes that cause them to like "taking care", on average. That could explain this result. If you're referring to recent history, you'd have to explain why the preference difference seems to hold all across the world, given that different countries have different recent histories. You'd also have to explain the mechanism by which recent history (e.g. past decades where being a secretary was a top female career) is exerting such a large influence on the present.