It does have to do with sex. There are of course exceptions, but women are naturally more equipped and inclined to be nurturers and caregivers, and men providers, especially for young children. It is also why women are disproportionate in early childhood care and education jobs (it gets somewhat more even with older kids; e.g there is a much higher proportion of male teachers at most high schools compared to elementary schools or preschool/daycare).

Do you realize how hard it would be to disentangle nature from nurture on a gender-wide, cross-cultural study? You have some unchecked assumptions about biology - there may be indicators at a very crude level, but I don’t even know how you could design a real world study that would support conclusions you take as assumptions.

It is sad to see the most logical comment out there is getting downvoted given the logical aptitudes of this community.

Statistics show you are right, evolutionary biology says you are right.

Evolutionary bio makes psychology look like Newtonian physics, in terms of objectivity and generalizability.

Statistics show the combined result of nature and nurture. How would you even begin to design an ethical study that could prove causation?

Stats and evolutionary biology converge on this topic. On the opposite side, we have politically loaded opinions.

And in the middle are most people, who are skeptical about the value from evo bio. Again, the statistics are only descriptive - it is not easy to tease apart nurture from nature.

There's very little reason to think "statistics and evolutionary biology convergence" reveals any truths in this case. The only conclusion to draw here is that confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.