Amazed it even got published

If there is a WAR ON WOMEN there is a truth that there will be some women that will be seen as “traitors” like Anne-Marie Slaughter who says there is a difference between Feminism and Femininity. It does not matter that she is telling the truth that women are not the same as men and that they have a unique roll to fulfill in the world.

“What she is basically saying is what the Church has been saying for years: yes women deserve to be in the house and the senate so to speak but they also should not have to deny who they are as women namely their unique design as life bearers in order to get ahead. The articles are another example of how truth is truth and eventually, no matter how hard we try to suppress it, it does come to the surface."

Whether she is aware of it or not she continually restates the position the church has taken for oh um centuries. here is just one example LETTER OF POPE JOHN PAUL II to Woman.

Sarcasm aside I don't think this is a War on Women but there is a war its a Female Civil War.

I know this is the kind of Quote that gets Chesterton in trouble yet it explains the core of the War. “It [feminism] is mixed up with a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands.”

and

"Well, to get this honest but unpleasant business over, the objection to the Suffragettes is not that they are Militant Suffragettes. On the contrary, it is that they are not militant enough. A revolution is a military thing; it has all the military virtues; one of which is that it comes to an end. Two parties fight with deadly weapons, but under certain rules of arbitrary honor; the party that wins becomes the government and proceeds to govern. The aim of civil war, like the aim of all war, is peace. Now the Suffragettes cannot raise civil war in this soldierly and decisive sense; first, because they are women; and, secondly, because they are very few women. But they can raise something else; which is altogether another pair of shoes. They do not create revolution; what they do create is anarchy; and the difference between these is not a question of violence, but a question of fruitfulness and finality. Revolution of its nature produces government; anarchy only produces more anarchy." read it here

It still amazes me that there is any honest discussion that anyone can 'have it all'. It is the kind of pursuit that will make you mad precisely because it is totally unattainable this side of the great divide.