One of the assumptions of classic feminism is the denial of distinctions between male and female. This is a bold position given the pretty obvious differences in physiology. What is usually meant is that being a male or female does not predispose one to a certain role like mother or father let alone homemaker or CEO.
By the way, this is why great care is taken to insulate the discussion from the issues of biology and physiology - most often by using the word "gender" instead of "sex" when referring to male and female. The former is a category of linguistics; the latter a biological one.
The former allows for a lot of variation and ambiguity (the Hebrew word "fathers" is a feminine plural - go figure!); biology, however, does not allow for this ambiguity - if you have a penis and testicles you're a male; a vagina and ovaries you're a female.
(About that last statement, two comments: first, sorry to be so blunt but, although people normally have this figured out by the second grade our public schools and universities usually manage to confuse this. Second, if you disagree with this - don't bother reading the rest of the post... we're just not on the same page.)
Having run up against this pretty large brick wall feminists insist that a woman's body is at least irrelevant to her purpose in life, if not an outright hindrance. That she has all the physical equipment for conceiving, bearing and nurturing children; and that her body prepares for this every month is ignored in favor of other pursuits deemed more important. In other words, the material realities of her maternal physiology are denied in favor of higher, intangible goals. Conversely, motherhood is viewed with disdain and those women who embrace it are considered unenlightened.
What should be recalled, especially by Christians advocating feminism, is this is the very outlook of Gnosticism, that ancient heresy which so plagued the early Church. In Gnostic thinking - flowing as it did out of Greek philosophy - man's body, composed of matter, is evil. It is to be contrasted with God, who is wholly spirit and therefore good. Further, Gnostic salvation is the escape from the body, achieved not by faith in Christ but by special knowledge (the Greek word for "knowledge" is gnosis, hence Gnosticism).
For feminists, a woman's salvation (= fulfillment) can come only by denying the reality of her body and pursuing the status of the "liberated woman" - liberated in the sense that who she is and what she does is unrelated to any maternal or domestic pursuit.
In Christian theology our physical make up cannot be separated from our spiritual calling. In Genesis we read, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number...'" 1:27-28. An implication of our being made in God's image is reproduction. In this way the glory of the Lord, as displayed in His image, will fill the earth.
In the New Testament Paul says to the Corinthians, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit... you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body" 1Corinthians 6:19-20. Note how the spiritual life is here summarized in the thought of honoring God with one's body - no Gnosticism here - and involves at the very least living as God designed us to live. In the context of Paul's statement this meant not having sex with someone who is not your spouse.
Perhaps these two themes lay behind Paul's startling statement that "women will be saved through childbearing..." (1Timothy 2:15). She honors God with her body by living as God designed her to live in childbearing.
