No. There are core differences that push individuals towards different leadership styles.

E.g.: "Replicating previous findings, women reported higher Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scores than men." -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

"Full stop" here would mean that there are no other variables at play.

My answer was "here is a study that shows there are variables at play."

I fail to see why this anger you.

There's more to the article than the headline. Reading through, you see this part:

"Neuroticism describes the tendency to experience negative emotion and related processes in response to perceived threat and punishment; these include anxiety, depression, anger, self-consciousness, and emotional lability. Women have been found to score higher than men on Neuroticism [...] The one facet of Neuroticism in which women do not always exhibit higher scores than men is Anger, or Angry Hostility".

So no. Neuroticism is as unrelated as a guy on spectrum throwing autistic temper tamtrum, because both types are failures at getting into leaderahip position, politics and anything where you make decisions under pressure.

B) I answered: "Here are some variables".

That's all. I did not write anything else. You are building your own straw man, having a fight with it and ending up angry.

If you would like to back way, way off of your outright dismissive position, we can try to bridge the communication gap here. But if not, I don't see any point in continuing the discussion.

The kind of work women did in the past periods is paid now too. Households were making own candles, cloth, raised animals for food, killed them, bed sheets, soap and so on and so forth. A lot of stuff you buy now would be crafted by women. Outside of 1950 homemaker or rich people, women in the past could not afford to be only nice and gentle. Women sold on local markets (based on local museums) while men went to sell away. Nannies and servants were paid (poorly). Women even worked in mines based on mining museum - they were separating rocks which is not as hard as mining (they were paid less then men obviously). Kids worked too. Also, still in mining areas, male miners tensed to die young while women and kids continued to live and continued to need money. Which practically meant, making things and selling them.

Same after wars. Men died, at periods a lot, women continued to live and needed to feed themselves and rest of family. That is the thing about male protectors and conquerors stereotype - they die or get disabled and remaining men can't replace them so easily.

There was patriarchy but also a very real need to negotiate well on market. A lot of those expectations is rich upper class thing - behavior you can afford only when you are rich enough not to be economically productive.

My first comment was about primate research, specifically bonobos. You are projecting an awful lot that is in none of my comments here.

> Historically, men were in charge of certain kinds of work, the kind that is now paid, and women were in charge of other kinds. These complemented each other.

Seems pretty similar to idealized nuclear families of the mid 20th century

> As we move away from traditional family and tribe or community based social organization towards more paid work, our male leadership patterns seem to have become more dominant and we have lost that balance.

Now we're even talking about "traditional family" organization.

I'm not making any statement about whether this view is right or wrong, and I know plenty of families in traditional roles that lead fulfilling and financially stable lives - my parents among them. That said, these comments absolutely do describe "traditional" families where men and women's work are largely segregated. The above commenter is absolutely not "projecting an awful lot".