One of the most interesting things about women that feminists lost site of was their desire to be mothers. Too often, I know, women who had stayed home raising four children were demonized by these women (I know my grandmother felt that way). But a woman’s desire to be with her children is, I imagine, very innate and very powerful. To talk about women without talking about motherhood is a truck-wide hole in their theory and a deeply unfortunate one. One of the interesting things about our society in comparison to past societies is that we are not obsessed with producing heirs. Thanks to modern medicine, a woman can have X number of children and reasonably expect to precede all of them. But, strangely, in the western world the feminists just aren’t reproducing. I can’t help but think this is because they have no room in their vast literature of protest for this embarrassing biological reality. Perhaps, they fear, if they begin to struggle with it, they’ll be brought to the so-called “anti-feminist” position, which is really just the viewpoint of a group of thoughtful women who disagree with feminists. Regardless, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that 8–>4–>2–>1 is not how societies flourish. Unfortunately, whatever the feminists may now say about motherhood, it’s too late. Their theories from the 60′s and 70′s have trickled down to a doubtlessly simplified view, and those disposed to listen have already made up their minds about children and patriarchy on the basis of this simplistic view. Those disposed not to listen are reproducing like spring bunnies on meth–think the Catholic, Jewish, Evangelical and Mormon right. What’s interesting is that these women of the religious right typically identify themselves with feminism. They do so, however, in a way that Miss Steinhem would find terrifying: hence the “anti-feminist” label they give their opponents.