We should respect the well-known differences between races of men. Blacks are good at what they do, and we should encourage that: manual labor under a hot sun in cotton fields, hip-hop, and shooting people. Mexicans are really good at what they do, and we should be mindful of this: manual labor in orange groves, cleaning floors, and customer service at fast-food restaurants. And Indians! How could we try to erase their cultural history as outsourced tech-support experts? Arabs, of course, are very good at building bombs, and we should encourage them to find ways to productively use this skill. Jews, as we all know, have always been good at finances; and germanics are great at engineering, whether for tanks or gas chambers. (Need I continue?) They're all equal in the eyes of God, of course, but we should constantly remind them of their places lest they decide to overturn society and define themselves on their own terms -- the resulting anarchy would otherwise destroy our modern, civilized (godly) society.
... would you be offended? Might you want to grab me, shake me, and yell something in my ears about history not defining you? Perhaps you'd tell me I have no right to tell people who they are, what they're good at, what their place in society should be? Would you manage to not slap me, or would the fist of death escape you?
The Pope has been so kind as to hand down word from God, specifying our respective positions in life. Women are good at raising children, men are good at everything else. Sure, women should be allowed to own things, have access to jobs, maybe vote, and -- if you're really lucky -- drive cars too. (If you don't recall, those are things which the Catholic church has had to give up fighting against.) But darn it all, they should remember that their historic place (past, not so much present, but hopefully future) has been barefoot in the kitchen. Equal, but different.
I can agree with equality, I can agree with difference. What I can't agree with is being told which differences are normal, and which aren't. I'm sure there are plenty of fathers out there who do a wonderful job raising kids alone; maybe some of them would like to meet a great career-minded woman? Should they switch places at that point, to make sure and form a nice, solid family as defined by others? Should the kid be handed to the woman (who is, by virtue of her gender, great at raising kids) while the guy goes off to find some career that can define him? Yeah, that's perfectly efficient. Let's tell people what they're good at rather than letting them self-organize however works out best for them! Because you know God would want kids to be raised by incompetent mothers for the sake of keeping up traditions...
On a secondary note: that booklet also says this "women trying to be like men" thing is making gay marriages possible by destroying the traditional definition of a family, and is therefore bad. That's just bad argumentation (go look up logical fallacies) -- I'm hoping (for God's sake) that the Pope just mis-heard his heavenly father, and the quotes aren't exact. He is old, after all. (Not, of course, that any part of the church -- past, present, or future -- could possibly be fallible, and certainly not mistaken.)
(Note that I find it's not terribly appropriate for protestants, who have rejected some of Catholicism's beliefs as outright wrong, to tell you much of anything about infallibility, or for that matter, warn you against breaking away from tradition -- all that seems to have worked out reasonably well for them. The Pope might disagree, of course: those protestants must be the cause of all this feminism; those darn heretics are teaching people it's okay to make up your own rules when you don't like the old ones...)
(Pot-shots are fun, but this isn't a negative campaign, I swear! I've got the big grin on my face to prove it, too!)