I don't know that the specific ratio as it stands is natural and not worth challenging, but I do know that there are some natural differences that go a long way towards explaining why that ratio -- and other ratios -- aren't 50/50, as some would seem to naively expect. And I know that those natural differences are often papered over by people who seem to be uncomfortable with the facts.

Past that, I don't see how your points in general relate to mine at all... however:

In the year since I was laid off and become a consultant, I've observed (and had confirmed to me by many) that my social skills are one my greatest assets. I'm technically as good as anyone I'm competing against, but I'm far better at customer relations than most. That seems like a distinctly female strength.

Oho, a sample size of one. I, also, am far better at customer relations than most. Is that now a male strength? Or are self-imposed inferiority complexes now a female strength? Personally, I would argue for neither.

So your comment is proof that we don't all know this already, but some of us do, thanks, and and an article about that would be much more interesting than this better-career-choice food fight fare.

Yes, there are significant biological differences between the brains of men and women... different hormones, different development, different structure. Actually, the way a man's brain works is more like the way a computer works, because there is more localized processing taking place; the way a woman's brain works is more like the way a computer network would work, because there are more connections and communication between processing centers. Two different designs, two different results, and if there were more articles about that than about this garbage, then no one would be surprised.