I've said similar in comments at Andrew's—there's a chance she right, but the article reports it badly so it's hard to judge (and I can't be arsed to dig deeper I'm working).

The problem is that she's talking in generalities and avarages, if you always judge by the avarage then you've real problems across the board, idiot employers might use it to discriminate "men's work/women's work" but that's daft as there will always be some from one gender as good if not better at stuff normally suited to the other gender, etc. But given a large number of people are idiots, anti-discrimination campaigners will dislike her message regardless of its veracity.