Here’s the thing, I do actually believe that there is a biological element to some gender roles, and there is evidence that gratuitous male violence is innate to some extent (it’s seen as a behaviour in all the great apes).
However, as I said above, whether or not women are more likely to be predisposed to nurturing roles is irrelevant. What’s important is the exploitation and the value accorded to those roles, whoever is doing them.
I also don’t throw my hands up and say “ugh, nature, what can you do?”. I studied evolution at university, I know it’s not as simple as biology, especially not in a thinking species like humans. We can change, we have changed. Our evolution is driven by cultural factors now, and male violence can be effectively bred out over time, if the incentives for dominant behaviour are reduced.
Look at dogs for example - genetically they are wolves, but thousands of years ago the friendlier wolves began to live alongside humans, eventually becoming domesticated companion animals. The unfriendlier wolves that didn’t interact were driven further from human groups, so now there’s a split from the original wolf that had a wide range of behaviour traits. We have dogs and wilder, more dangerous wolves. Genetically they’re the same animal, though.
Just because male violence may be innate, it doesn’t mean we have to accept it (bonobo females have structures that control it, as do humans), or that it can’t change.
Same goes for all the societal structures that exploit women for male advantage - the working week, marriage, the nuclear family etc.