by Hanna Rosin

Conor, I edited that Katie Roiphe piece you mentioned, and I could not agree with you more. I am baffled by the enraged responses from otherwise very intelligent feminists. Either the mere sight of Roiphe's name makes them seethe. Or the mommy wars are truly un-killable. Roiphe writes:

One of the minor dishonesties of the feminist movement has been to underestimate the passion of this time, to try for a rational, politically expedient assessment. Historically, feminists have emphasized the difficulty, the drudgery of new motherhood. They have tried to analogize childcare to the work of men; and so for a long time, women have called motherhood a "vocation." The act of caring for a baby is demanding, and arduous, of course, but it is wilder and more narcotic than any kind of work I have ever done.

"Minor dishonesties" is hardly a turning of the rhetorical knife. It's a fairly mild and gentle way to make what is an obvious and undeniable point. The idea of motherhood as a "vocation" has been around for at least a century, and anyone who has ever been to a pre-school parents' meeting lately will recognize its continued prevalence.

Katie did not say that feminists hate their babies, or that baby-less women are useless, or anything else she's being accused of saying. What she did is perfectly capture the seduction of disappearing into the newborn, opium den haze. 

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.