Similarly, I can't help but wonder if this article hasn't generated its own negative feedback through a mechanism that has nothing to do with motherhood. It seems to me that more than defending motherhood, or decrying a hate of motherhood, it mostly just seems like classic out-group baiting.

What you do, is you take a class of people, Group A, and you draw a line around them. Then you say "Group A has positive attributes X,Y, and Z" Though it is fundamentally bad logic, it is almost reflexive that members of Group ~A (not A) will make the inference "Therefore Group ~A lacks positive attributes x, y, and z." It's even worse if you praise group A for its lack of certain negative attributes.

Case in point: "Say what you will about white people, they are not dirty, lazy, criminals."

It's true, of course, but try saying that anywhere but a white supremicist message board and see how far it gets you.

Similarly. "Mothers work really hard." It's true, but the intent of the sentence is ambiguous. Why would you bother telling me that mothers work really hard? Is is to dispel the myth that motherhood is easy, or is it to set up a contrast with non-mothers? If it's the second, it edges towards the offensive, regardless of how hard mothers work, objectively speaking.

Consider the direct rhetorical contrast: "Mothers work really hard. It's good if the childless show them patience and compassion." Denotationally, there is nothing wrong with this. Both statements are true. But given the way language is normally used, it seems like the first implies the second. The childless should show mothers patience and compassion because mothers work hard [in a way the childless usually don't]. That's kind of insulting, particularly if you attach a moral weight to the work of parenting.

This is particularly compounded when parents try and emphasise the impermiability of their group affiliation. I.e. saying things like "I never understood what love was until I had a child." It may be true, but it's hard not to read as "you don't have a child, so you don't understand what love is." Similarly "When I became a parent I found I had to work harder than I ever did in my life" tends to read as "I work harder than you." It's not intentional, but when parents write about the uniqueness of parenthood and the virtue of parenthood, it tends to trend very close, rhetorically to "the unique virtue of parents."

Another example. "I've just had a rough day. I've had to watch the kids. Feed the kids. Clean up after the kids. Drive the kids to and from school. And on top of that, I have a full time job. I used to think I knew what 'tired' meant, but I am beyond that. I am so far beyond tired, that tired would seem like a welcome relief. I'm sorry if my kids trouble you, but I beg you to be patient with me."

It's probably true. It's probably meant as a sincere plea for sympathy. It comes off as a carefully constructed insult. "My problems are severe in a way that exceeds your ability to empathize, but I nonetheless ask for your outward cooperation." It's not meant that way, but because parents sometimes emphasize the transcendent specialness of parenthood, it can seem like it.

The real kicker is that in real life, this doesn't necessarily happen. Because real life is specific. People say "I've had a hard day today" and they ask for help from people who's day hasn't been so bad.

In writing, people don't talk in specifics. They talk in generalities. They don't say "October 25, 2009 was a particularly rough for me, I worked really hard and had a hard time controlling my kids. I really needed help."

Instead they say "What the childless don't understand is that when you've had a really rough day, doing all the work involved with raising a child, that sometimes it is difficult to control him, they should be more patient."

Similarly, the childless don't say "I was in a pretty good mood 10/25/09, I probably would have been cool, but if it had been 10/25/2008, I would have been in a plenty foul mood myself, because I had three essays due in the space of a single week and was operating on zero sleep."

What they say instead is "Mothers don't have a monopoly on hard work. Just because I don't have a gaggle of brats swarming around advertising my energy levels doesn't mean I'm some lazy slob."

So, what happens is that the sum total of the mother's experience gets compared to the sum total of the childless experience, and neither side wants to admit that one is better than the other. This is not how people normally act.

In summation. The reason that motherhood in print (or other abstract discussion) tends to draw flame has nothing to do with a general hatred or suspicion of motherhood. More likely it boils down to the following factors.

Motherhood is lavishly praised

Mothers are often compared to a discrete, identifiable group (the childless, even if only through self-comparisson)

Mothers are often view their experiences positively and are eager to share them.

This is classic flame-bait. Something about the ingredients of positivity, exclusivity, and vocality - they combine to make internet TNT. It doesn't actually matter how serious or trivial the subject matter is. Don't believe me? Check out the discussions surrounding Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition. They make this "continuity of the human race" discussion look positively casual.

I think it just has something to do with the way the human brain is wired.