Women are the only people in the world capable of being mothers — and for good reason. They’re naturally able to meet the needs of their children in a way men can’t, from breastfeeding to distinguishing between a child’s cries. These instincts are God-given and biological, but one New York Times essayist would have you believe otherwise.
In a lengthy piece published last month, Chelsea Conaboy argued that women’s maternal nature is not actually natural to us but is man-made — literally. The patriarchy, she said, thrust maternity onto women in order to make them into what men wanted them to be: domestic, docile creatures whose only concern is for their children.
“The notion that the selflessness and tenderness babies require is uniquely ingrained in the biology of women, ready to go at the flip of a switch, is a relatively modern — and pernicious — one,” the author said. “It was constructed over decades by men selling an image of what a mother should be, diverting our attention from what she actually is and calling it science.”
Unsurprisingly, Conaboy went on to blame Christianity and other stuffy traditional institutions such as the nuclear family for convincing women that motherhood is a good in and of itself. At one point, she even complained about pro-life groups’ ability to tap into women’s longing for and connection to their unborn children through ultrasounds and heartbeat monitors. It’s almost as if there’s something in a woman’s nature that draws her toward motherhood.
For someone who hates the patriarchy so much, Conaboy sure seems to want to be just like the men who run it. Independent, self-focused, and detached from one’s responsibility to family — aren’t those the traits we associate most often with the domineering men who deprived women of their rights?
So much for smashing the patriarchy. Today’s feminists simply want to replace it.
