I'm not sure the claims of the article really stand up to scrutiny. For example: They [women] aspire to different goals — relationships over status; they communicate differently — collaborative over top-down; and thrive in different work environments — open-air over individual cubicles.

If true, women should flock to tech startups and academia and avoid big banks/corporates/government. In reality, the opposite occurs.

Similarly, consider the "routine and structure" that men supposedly require. It seems that stereotypically female professions (teaching, HR) have lots of structure and thrive on enforcing it, while stereotypically male professions (programming, sales) are characterized by an individualistic "get shit done" attitude. The article more or less agrees with this - it's women, not men, who work hard at squashing changes and making the system remain as rigid as a 1900's factory.

Overall, this is a fairly weakly reasoned article that should at least acknowledge where it differs from reality.