Oh FFS Scrap, did you really imply here women should do the caring for kids, because biology made them more capable to do so?
Yes, because there's suficient evidence to back that up.
Bollocks, utter bollocks. Yes, biologically, women give birth, biologically, women will lactate with less hassle than men. But being a caring parent, capable to give loving and healthy care to an infant has nothing to do with what is between the legs of a parent.
The majority of evolutionary psychologists I've spoken with would disagree with you on that and have considerable evidence to back that up.
Some women are not fit to be a parent, no matter of having given birth, plenty of men are great fathers.
The exceptions don't disprove the general rule.
Your biology reason is as valid as me telling you people are meant to travel by foot, because biology.
Do you have wings on your back??
Your biology reason is validating mothers having kids after divorce, and men fit for only paying alimony, because of biology.
In the majority of cases women get primary custody anyways. That is as it should be.
And kids do need more than milk alone. Even when breast milk was the only option for tiny babies, men were capable of being part of caring for their kids.
500 years ago, could a man be the primary caregiver for an infant? fuck no.
The only "bollocks" here is your absurd notion that there are no neurological differences between men and women despite the mountain of science that says otherwise.
Here's some Norwegian "scientists" who are as confused as you are.