I'm not sure these numbers show anything but that men are more violent (hormones and culture, maybe?) and women are more "attached" to their children (a side effect for carrying one on her belly for 9 months, perhaps?)
• Women can't do maths (like at all, their brains are tiny and incabable of abstract thought) It's in the nature!
• Men can't look after babies, they'd probably hold them by their heads or something! It's in their nature!
• Jews are only concerned with money, it's in their nature!
• Women lack the mental capabilites for politics and shouldn't be allowed to vote, it's in their nature.
• Women are very emotional, and hence are unsuitable for high pressure jobs (high level political leader, CEO, doctor, military commander), they'd just have some sort of emotional break down when the going gets tough, it's in their nature.
• etc. etc. (I haven't even touched on non-noble people, black people, LGBT people, catholics, prodestands, muslims, etc. etc.)
All of these things have been said about natural differences between various groups, mostly due to what we now realise as massive biases. When one says "men are naturally violent" or "women are naturally caring", the burden is on you to show how this time it's different, rather than it being just another (false) statement born out of bias. All these claims had some sort of evidence behind them. The burden is on you to come up with a standard of evidence that supports your biased claim, but doesn't show that women are incable of high office (say).
BAN WOMEN CEOS
Gender is a construct. It is /tethered/, but not mapped, to sex. They are in no way identical, and often, in so many ways, orthogonal. Sex (ie, sex difference) has a finite number of dimensions, and the ones we can identify with confidence are physiological (currently, we understand neither the connection between neural function and behavior, nor the mechanics of culture, in enough detail enough to draw clear conclusions about what might really be "male" vs "female" characteristics in the realm of culture or behavior). Gender, OTOH, has unlimited, fluid dimensions. The prospect of discovering or creating a simple mapping between sex and gender, begets a vain project. [Similar to the project of mapping Jewishness to thrift, ethnicity to ability, sexual orientation to morality, etc.]
Moreover, the process of peeling away the layers of what may be constructed / learned, or may be more-or-less dictated by genetics -- to varying degrees depending on an individual and a set of circumstance -- is /exactly/ the process of dismantling gender, which we can also hope will lead to a more equitable distribution of power.
So if one is sincerely curious about the underlying realities, keeping at chipping away the presumptions, is the way to go.
But sure, keep guessing.
The fact that one partner can literally walk away has nothing to do with it?
(Hint: statistical data has the answer...)
Volume one of Simone de B's epic "Second Sex" covers your points in depth. Worth reading - some of its 1953 English translation is online at : http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir...