> I'm not sure what equal power means, nor what changes would help bring that about.
I think equal power means just that (see [1] for definitions of power), and as to what actions would bring that about, that's a matter of debate among progressives. But the main question is whether you want to bring it about with all the social change that entails; conservatives generally don't (they find the status quo satisfactory, and some even want to roll the clock back). My main issue is not with conservatives who admit their conservativeness, but with those who've convinced themselves that their conservative and (sometimes extremely so) values aren't conservative but neutral. If you don't think social action of any kind should be taken to change the current power distribution in society (and let alone if you want to roll back changes already made), then you're advocating for conservative policy. Wanting to do nothing is conservative by definition, and it means that your values are such that you find the status quo preferable over a change in the distribution of power.
> It's also likely that due to unfair distribution of personality traits among the population that a fair distribution of power is unlikely in practice unless enforced on society.
No, because we're talking about statistical distribution, not an equality among all individuals.
> I also think women and men have different values and priorities in life, in part due to women's fertility declining sooner than men's. It's hard to have a high-status job and it's extremely hard to care for young children while doing a high-status job.
That is a largely irrelevant question (or a secondary one [2]). The question is whether you want to change society so that women and men have equal power (statistically).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
[2]: That's because we can ask why that's so. No biological basis for that has been proven and even if biological factors play a significant roles, we constantly use technology to overcome biological limitations to achieve desirable goals. For example, biology is certainly a 100% complete explanation for humans' inability to fly, but because we've deemed flight desirable, we overcame that limitation with technology. I always find it amusing how people who normally see technology as a solution to many problems and are reluctant to admit defeat use the slightest hint for small biological effects as a satisfactory explanation that some change cannot or should not be achieved.