Interesting argument, but I see a few flaws.

First, you have my respect for actually reading the cited study and applying critical thinking--as many emotionally biased reactions fail to do. As an analogy: if you search for studies on the impact of pornography on young people, you find a weak set of studies with simply terrible research methods: the conflation of sex and pornography, treatment of any sex on video as a monolithic body of work instead of diverse, etc. It smells to me a lot like religion inserting itself into research. In short, academics are as biased and flawed as anyone with preconceptions, and group-think bias (both conservative and progressive) taints academia with garbage that drowns out actual verifiable work (as I see it). So this single study is only an indicator, not yet an overhaul of the entire existing theory. Checkmark for you there from me.

That said, there are a few problems with your argument as I see it: the cited study covers the entirety of the Holocene epoch--from 120000 years ago to the present across the globe. You seem to be talking about Native American tribes in the Americas which represents only about 13,000 years of that epoch. Even then you are discounting anecdotal evidence to the contrary with broad statements and assumptive thinking. In addition to the *numerous* ones cited in the study, perhaps check out the story of Weetamoo of the Pocasset people in the 1600s (New England area) who not only hunted but led her people's warriors into battle. Your reinterpretation of the one example you've cited is just not convincing to me.

Perhaps worst of all, you make the further error of undercutting yourself with the language of bias and ignorance: "leftists" this, and "anyone paying attention to the real world" that. If I ended an argument with "the right-wingers are living in a superstitious world of bearded deities and pitchforked boogie men" you'd discount my entire argument, and would be right to do so.

Personally I don't have a problem with you making the argument that gender roles still exist--and I would love to read a good piece about that--but sharing a table of job roles by gender to me does more to prove the author's point than your own.

I don't mean this unkindly: but you can do better, and hope you do so going forward.