I don’t agree that gender roles should be enforced or expected. The core role in a society is the individual, and people should be free and supported to take the roles they like.
But there are a few fair points that often get wilfully ignored in this debate I think:
i) there are genuine differences in trait and preference distributions, so in a truly free and equal society we should not expect gender parity in everything.
ii) many (not all) people who argue for women seem to reflexively adopt the male pattern as the ‘correct’ one. The jobs where men predominate are the ones women ‘should’ be doing. Men’s pattern of assertiveness is what women ‘should’ be like, etc. It often feels that men are the only ones humaning right it their view.
iii) there is definitely a pressure on women who end up expected to do it all (career and family), in a way that doesn’t happen to men. So that’s one cost that gets paid.
iv) there is certainly also comfort in defined societal roles (but at a cost that I, as a liberal, am not willing to pay if it means curtailing rights and possibilities). And individual is not the only important unit in society. A philosopher king whose only goal were harmony and cohesion (not also, say, freedom) would probably opt for somewhat defined gender roles. It’s an interesting question what a philosopher king only concerned about sum happiness would choose.
So I don’t agree with OP but I do think there’s a better version of the argument that can be made. Mary Harrington is interesting on this kind of stuff.