You'd think as beings capable of higher-level thinking we would be able to see past our own biology. Sure, it's difficult not to give into sometimes, but the asymptotic goal is to eliminate the use of instinct and promote purely critical thinking. Unreachable, yes, but still noble and worthwhile.
And you think that's a noble goal? I understand that the sentiment is positive in the context of feminism, but the implications of eliminating instinct in favor of purely critical thinking are chilling given a broader view. That's a theme in a good number of dystopian scifi works. And, unfortunately, it's hard to implement a mode of operation like that in select aspects of one's life. I sympathize with the feminist cause to an extent, but I think the movement would be best served if it focused on pragmatic, quantifiable issues. I don't think feminism fares well on anthropological and biological grounds, and the way to avoid that is to not make broad statements indicting human nature such as the one b_b referenced.
I think that the concept of patriarchy is almost purely sociological and is not necessarily relevant on biological grounds. We have the technology now to change nearly any 'superficial physical attribute', so it's not fair to classify something as simply biology when we actually have that degree of control over it. Take, for example, weight. Throughout history larger people were viewed as better because they clearly can afford to take care of themselves. Now, in many parts of the world, being thin is far more attractive. What I'm trying to say is at this point in time, things that are attractive and unattractive are much more based in social norms than in instinct.