I think everyone can get behind the idea that true equality of opportunity is the keystone of an egalitarian society.
I guess the question in my mind really is:
Across the 2 biological genders, we have 2 distributions of psychological dispositions that are overlapping but do not share a mean. Is it better, on balance, to recognize this and attempt to design around it, or is a completely gender-blind society a worthy goal? To what degree are dispositional differences a result of culture, and not of biochemistry? Is "utility" in some pareto optimized sense even what society should value, or are higher principles (equality of opportunity) more important, even if they result in lower mean happiness?
And actually, when I look it up:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
A more liberal definition of gender roles, at least in coupled women, seems to help somewhat. Interestingly, though teen depression rates are up, rates of teen sex are down, which runs counter to the hook-up culture rhetoric (largely driven by improvements from minority populations; flat for whites).
So, I guess there's my answer - at least compared to current US cultural norms, a further move away from traditional gender norms should result in positive happiness/utility.