But why are most women worried about how they naturally are?
Well I'm mostly worried about the amount of stereotypisation and overgeneralisation going on in this forum.
What the heck is wrong with you guys and gals?
I know this is kind of humorous, but still....
speculative said:
I know this it tongue and cheek, but this becomes a big problem in the workplace. It is hard to correct performance deficiencies in women because they overreact so much to criticism. Due to the litigious nature of our society and the prevalence of discrimination myths, management rarely effectively deals with an under performing woman and it causes extra work for the rest of us to cover up for her mistakes or lack of input to the work product.
Two things come to my mind in this context.
One thing is that women in average suffer from a lower self confidence (that's no stereotypisation, there's empirical evidence for that difference). There's a number of possible explanations for that difference, most of which are related to how women are still being treated differently than men, even in places where gender doesn't matter (e.g. most modern workplaces).
And people with a low self confidence can't take criticism very well. Even if the criticism is justified and unrelated to gender.
The other side is that even though some of the "discrimination myths" are true (and not just an excuse) equality in rights and opportunities comes with equality in duties. Women want an equal share of the big cake, that also means they will have to carry an equal part of its weight. We can't just hope to get the equal loans and share power by just looking hot and being female.
So it's actually against the interest of feminism to treat women "special". Treating a woman like something special is for flirting, but not for working. Underperforming women should be dealt with like underperforming men. I suppose if it's really a performance issue, and not discrimination, an employer should have little trouble to proof that claim.