The fact that most women are driven to be mothers and to take care of their family, even when that desire impedes their career advancement, is something that goes overlooked by feminist advocates all too often.

Obviously not the main thrust of your post, Coro, but on this point, I think the more thoughtful feminist advocates would argue that (i) the fact that women are more likely than men to choose family over career is itself the result of sexist social conditioning, and (ii) one of the main reasons our work culture and policies aren't more conducive to balancing family needs (e.g., limited parental leave and flex time options, professional disdain for people who take a break from their career to have kids, etc.) is that such culture and policies developed in a patriarchal context that presumed there was a woman at home to raise the family, so there was no need for such balancing.

Obviously not the main thrust of your post, Coro, but on this point, I think the more thoughtful feminist advocates would argue that (i) the fact that women are more likely than men to choose family over career is itself the result of sexist social conditioning, and (ii) one of the main reasons our work culture and policies aren't more conducive to balancing family needs (e.g., limited parental leave and flex time options, professional disdain for people who take a break from their career to have kids, etc.) is that such culture and policies developed in a patriarchal context that presumed there was a woman at home to raise the family, so there was no need for such balancing.

I so much wish I could have been a stay-at-home mom. "Careers" are a bullshit waste of a life. I won't want to spend all my time working for other people. The economics of the situation, though, dictate that I have to. I have nothing but disdain for the entire culture of careers defining people - be it men or women who focus on it.

Our social conditioning is what it is because of our biology.

Furthermore, the fact that women have the option to choose family over career makes that argument absurd on its face. Men do not, for the most part, have any option to be the stay-at-home; it's socially unacceptable, and if there's a divorce, the male will rarely get the kids. Even if he was a stay-at-home he'll be seen as a deadbeat if he does not go get a job and pay child support, and a leech if he somehow manages to get the kids and child support from the woman.

Second, there is nothing "patriarchal" about "women staying home to care for children"; it has to do with the fact that males in societies until pretty much the last 50 years needed males to go out and do the work because so much of it was manual labor. If no one stays at home and both work, child care becomes a major drain on resources.

That's a massive overstatement, DE. Of course biology plays a role, but exactly how much in any given aspect of life is nothing more than a question mark at this point.

Yes, that is the flip-side of the coin. Women face pressure to prioritize family over career, and men face pressure to prioritize their career. Sexist social expectations hurt both men and women.

Well, first of all, just because there was an allegedly legitimate reason for gendered roles doesn't change the fact the male role involved controlling the power and resources (i.e., patriarchy).

And secondly, the manual labor excuse was never as true as you suggest. Women always performed manual labor; it was the white collar roles (medicine, law, business, government, etc.) that were closed to them the longest based on bullshit prejudice about women being too stupid, flighty, emotional, or whatever. And thirdly, whatever validity the manual labor thing once had is largely irrelevant now outside of a handful of occupations where raw strength is a significant contributor to productivity.

Our social conditioning is driven by our social evolution from the past, dating to before our invention of basic language, hunter gatherer societies, etc. Our biology is still tailored to that and our social evolution has proceeded along a path driven by that origin. It's not an overstatement at all. The only question is how much is driven by our biology directly, right now, as opposed to past habits driven by previous biological imperatives. Either way, it all starts with how we're put together. Feminists are notoriously unable to explain where all this "patriarchy" came from in the first place, except to appeal to it in the past, without explaining how it came about to begin with - it's always just treated as if it just magically happened because penis

because penis.

This is true, but by overstating this you're ignoring the best method for separating our societal structure from raw biology. Social activism splits society from tradition. In this case, the social activists trying to change our society's traditions are the feminists. So in a way you are agreeing with them - we are what we are based on traditional influences. They are trying to change that.

Many practices that are considered evil today have roots in biology. It falls to activists to pull society away from these practices (examples include slavery, rape, abuse against women, child labor, chewing with your mouth open)

This looks like a useful phrase.

Obviously not the main thrust of your post, Coro, but on this point, I think the more thoughtful feminist advocates would argue that (i) the fact that women are more likely than men to choose family over career is itself the result of sexist social conditioning, and (ii) one of the main reasons our work culture and policies aren't more conducive to balancing family needs (e.g., limited parental leave and flex time options, professional disdain for people who take a break from their career to have kids, etc.) is that such culture and policies developed in a patriarchal context that presumed there was a woman at home to raise the family, so there was no need for such balancing.

Feminists should go take Biology and learn how sexually reproducing species work. Prioritizing reproduction is not the result of a misogynistic patriarchy.

If that were the case, DE, there would never be outliers or cultures with different social structures because we all share the same biology.

Furthermore, natural does not necessarily equal 'just' or 'desirable'. (appeal to nature fallacy)

Humanity removed itself from the natural selection pool when we started changing our environments to suit us.

Humanity removed itself from the natural selection pool when we started changing our environments to suit us.