First, I would say it’s dangerous to assign women a broad range of categories they are deemed to be better at, when our understanding of who’s better at what (across all sorts of criteria) are pretty bad and constantly being revised. Second, a divide that cuts the entire population approximately in half is a very coarse category to be making any sweepnig generalizations over. It’s important to include metastatistics in this. Let’s say women are better than men at nursing, because we have determined that, inline with all our cultural stereotypes, they are more nuturing. They are 3% more nurturing. But let’s say, on the same test, the standard deviation among men participants was 10 pts by this same nuturing aptitude scale. Then nothing you’ve said is wrong, we look at an industry dominated by women, and conclude that it’s probably because they are genetically predisposed to it — they are on average better at it. Yet, by the numbers, we’ve probably read it entirely incorrectly, and if aptitude correlated well to occupation, you’d have expected a much less skewed gender divide in nursing (the actual divide as mention earlier was something like 20% male IIRC). Things like that. But I'm really not going to even begin to touch trying to decide what non-physical occupations men/women are better/less suited to, as I think the science behind it is quite poor.