"Women's ability to bear children does not automatically determine that they are the primary rearers of children." I do understand the point that Nancy Holstrom is trying to make in the paragraph on page 296 including this sentence, but I do not think she proves her point well. She is trying to state that although the women does bear a child for nine months inside of her, this does not automatically make her the primary rearer for the child, the father has a much to do with the biological aspect of it as the mother does. I firmly disagree.
Women are the primary child rearers. Throughout history, mothers have been the primary caretakers of their children, while the men went off to hunt, work, etc. In this day and age, mothers are having jobs of their own, but the majority of them are still coming home to take care of their children at the end of the day. There are a few exceptions, but I think that statistics would show that this is true. .
As far as the biological part of it goes, it is very true that biologically, the man and woman both play equal parts in the reproduction of a child. The difference comes in when the man has planted his seed. When a man has sex, he can do it, and get up and leave as if nothing ever happened. He is not the one that will be as heavily affected by the possible outcome. According to what kind of person he is, it is possible to say that the woman may never see him again. When a woman has sex, there could always be the repercussion of getting pregnant. If this is not something the woman wants she has to be the one to make sure that it doesn't happen. It is her life that is going to be more affected by the pregnancy.
In the case of a woman getting pregnant, she is definitely closer to her child than a man would be. She is the one who has this human being inside of her for the first nine months of its life, she is the one who experiences childbirth.