A woman simply cannot be a role model in all of the same ways as a man, and vice-versa. This belief that men and women are the same and contribute in exactly the same ways is a big part of the problem that this article discusses.
I recommend the book 'Families and how to survive them' which covers human developmental psychology and has detailed sections on gendered role models. It may push a few woke buttons, but doesn't everything?
It isn't, in fact it's great that we have different kinds of role models. The problem being discussed is that some people lack certain types of roles models (i.e. male ones)
People are emotional creatures, not rational ones. Like it or not, there is an outsized influence on (especially) young people when they do or do not see people "like them" (gender, ethnicity, immigration status, nation of origin, etc.) in various roles. And this is also exaggerated by society. If a boy is in a community where it's "common knowledge" that men are stupid, deadbeat, bums, then no one will be surprised if he acts in a way that indicates he's heading in the same direction. No one will intervene on his behalf, and he will (statistically, not universally) act in a way that conforms to those expectations.
Some men are relatively emotionless, and there's nothing particularly bad about it, but it can be difficult to find healthy role models who are wired the same way.
some Depth Psychology (Jungian) suggests that the primal biological child is female. Development of a male starts similarly to the female, but must take steps over the growth phases, to differentiate. Historically males are very, very useful for successful survival and reproduction, but times have changed for WEIRD and others.. Meanwhile, cultural ritual was replaced by commercial "neutral" offerings that lessen differences in tribal/cultural groups, and therefore also remove or smooth out important development goal posts for young men.
