The only reason why it is useful to have a difference in general attitudes between women and men is because a different in temperaments can be useful in different situations. Males tend to be more violent and reactionary, giving them a prediliction to immediately seek out and eliminate threats. Females tend to be more conniving and vindictive, giving them a prediliction towards slowly and methodically eliminating threats or avenging long held grudges. Since there are situations in which one of these temperaments can enhance survival, and hence be selected for, we should encourage pairing of individuals in a fashion that ensures that both these two general temperaments are present. The easiest way of doing this would be to accentuation of the neurologic structures and brain chemistry that causes these two types of temperament in the respective sexes. Even if we were to give up sexual reproduction in favor of invitro fertilization or manufacturing of offspring, it would seem that the pairing of reproducing individuals with like-minded goals but different temperaments would be useful. Therefore more rigidly defined and unalterable gender specific behaviors may be far more useful than a more individualized behavior set, so that there is not pairing of individuals with similar temperaments.

Basically I am advocating the elimination of androgenic traits and accentuation of the gender specific behaviors into two end members one stereotypically male and one stereotypically female, since a continuum of androgenic behaviors between the two end members would not be as useful under conditions were either immediate threats need to be eliminated or long term threats need to be contained and mitigated. Conversely in situations where there are both long and short term threats any advantage the moderated androgynous behavior sets would have could just as easily be replicated by a pair or group of individuals with end member behaviors.

I want us to be heartless machines, but even heartless machines need to reproduce, so taking the successful duosexual reproductive system and modifying it seems both the easiest and most efficient way to reproduce while ensuring the survival of the offspring created. This way the two corresponding parent organisms always have one of each end member and can ensure the survival of their offspring in situations where parents that both display the same end member behaviors or androgynous behavior sets would fail.
Ultimately sexual activity that does not involve the fusion of two gametes is a waste. And by very likely being composed of two individuals with similar temperaments, whether both are androgynous or the usual for their gender, this creates a situation where both members of the pair will act the same even when they are not cooperating. This means that any selective pressure that eliminated one of the pair might very well eliminate the second. Thereby leaving the offspring to fend for themselves and reducing their chances for survival, or outright killing the offspring in the care of the parent.

We should work toward the elimination of the sex drive and replace it with a compulsion for reproduction. The desire for sex is a round-about way to get organisms to reproduce. So I say we cut out the middle man.