On my soap box

In light of the gender course I'm taking this semester, I found the Rivers/Barnett article in the Post quite interesting. These women essentially want to deny (like many feminists) the gender difference. I found their method to be somewhat unpersuassive, especially given the mocking tone used in regards to even neurophysiological differences, such as brain structure. I don't see that they adequately address single sex academic achievement vs. coed in any significant way. It's amazing to me how afraid these women are to admit to the sexual difference; they are so caught up in their egalitarian obsession that they would advance their agenda to the detriment society. It's seems as though there's almost a sort of self-loathing and envy in the final analysis. Egalitarian feminists such as these perceive male attributes (competitiveness, power, publicity) as being more desirable than traditional feminine attributes (interiority, tenderness, nurturing). Am I saying that these attributes are mutually exclusive? NO!!! Is there some crossover? DEFINITELY! But aren't these egalitarian types essentially trying to eliminate the feminine category for all practical purposes (I mean, perhaps they could be relegated to the realm of private relationships) in favor of masculine attributes? The thing is, egalitarian feminists don't want to make this distinction (even though there is physiological basis for it in the very shape of maleness & femaleness); rather, they want to say that these are merely "human" characteristics. What they are, effectively, promoting here is a kind of masculine superiority ~ how ironic!! Anyway, I could go on about this for days, but I'll stop here. Doesn't anyone want to pick a bone with me over this? I know many would totally disagree with me...
Cheers.