Yeah. The article made me kind of irritated and uncomfortable; it seemed to me to be saying or include a number of people saying: 'hey! We [partially, vaguely] mitigated one factor affecting why girls don't do as well as boys in science/math, and there were still a lot more boys who were really good at it -- so that must mean it's biologically built in!' And my thought was: while you're trying to mitigate that one factor, which did make some difference, those girls are still getting all the other crap from society about what they're supposed to be or not supposed to be interested in, and that crap about what they're supposed to value and how they're supposed to act from everyone, including their friends and their families, and you think that all factors are now compensated for so if girls really can be as good as boys at this, they would now demonstrate it with the numbers?

I also thoroughly agree with you on the massive effect of assumptions about women's role with regard to raising children. Even if you are super-progressive, fighting against that is really hard.