I think the following is an excellent comparison that demonstrates the pervasive feminist dogma in society that can contribute to the end of a career from a slight suggestion that biological difference could make females inferior in any way to men (and thus possibly justify a dominant role of men in society), but that the reverse suggestion can be (and is often) preached from the mountain top (Ted Talks) and responded to with applause and encouragement.

“What we know from cross cultural studies is that females on average (not every one) are more inclined to be more attentive to complex social relations and basically people who are basically vulnerable within the group – There might be something feminine about feminism. That is to say, there might be something, on average, different about female brains from male brains that makes us more attentive to deeply complex social relationships and more attentive to taking care of the vulnerable. So whereas the [founding] fathers were extremely attentive to figuring out how to protect individuals from the state, it's possible that if we injected more mothers into this concept, what we would have is more of a concept of not just how to protect but how to care for each other.”

-Alice Dreger on Ted Talks Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine

VS

“Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty that resulted in large part from Summers's conflict with Cornel West, financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer, and a 2005 speech in which he suggested that the under-representation of women in science and engineering could be due to a 'different availability of aptitude at the high end,' and less to patterns of discrimination and socialization.”

-Lawrence Summers Wikipedia Page

Lawrence didn't even state that he thought this was actually true, but as one of multiple hypothesis worth examining.

"Summers had prefaced his talk, saying he was adopting an "entirely positive, rather than normative approach" and that his remarks were intended to be an "attempt at provocation."[39]

Summers then began by identifying three hypotheses for the higher proportion of men in high-end science and engineering positions:

1 The high-powered job hypothesis 2 Different availability of aptitude at the high end 3 Different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search[39] "

Edit: some formatting Edit 2: I mentioned this in the comments but to clarify, I'm not making an argument for or against either of these theories. For all I know they are both possibly true. The point I intended was that it is socially acceptable to explore the possibility that women are superior in some things while it is not as acceptable to suggest men are superior at things. Men and women are clearly different biologically so it makes sense that we will not see exact gender parity reflected in all skills, strengths and fields.
Edit 3: Thank you for the upvotes! Apparently it is ALSO controversial to point out that the hypothesis of male superiority is controversial.. haha..