You are clearly missing the point. It's not that every woman lacks motivation, it's that the trend for woman is to lack a particular motivation to do a certain thing, which - the author points out - is exactly the same behaviour men exhibit.
It just happens to be that this tendency, coupled with differing social behaviours and expectations, is what has produced the current situation.
Feminism was born out of women recognizing a discrepancy between what women attained and what men attained. It's not that suddenly women became motivated to reach higher level of achievement but merely that they noticed that men had more than them and decided such inequality was unacceptable.
Feminism arose for the same reasons that any social movement arises: a part of society feels that they are being unfairly treated as second-class citizens. What exactly does it mean to be a second-class citizen? Whether it is getting paid less, or not having the same job opportunities, in the end it boils down to this: a second-class citizen feels that they are not given the same honor and dignity as a normal citizen.
So feminism arose because a significant amount of women believed that they did not have the honor and dignity that they deserved. So why did they not have honor and dignity? Had it always been this way in American society? It had not always been this way in American society. But the industrial revolution led to changes in society, and those changes changed the cultural values of American society. Cultural values such as what kind of person is honorable and dignified.
People with outlandish amounts of wealth came to be honorable and dignified. Eccentric/genius/rich/crazy type people became honorable and dignified. It was "cool" to be rich, to own a big oil company, to do ridiculous things with your wealth, to invent cool gadgets (and to a lesser extent, research - Einstein became famous, as did Edison, Tesla, etc).
As American culture shifted its values, people who did not take outlandish risks or were not rich, lost their honor and dignity. The group that was most affected throughout all parts of society were women, who tended not to take risks or behave in outlandish ways, and who tended to be stay-at-home moms and grandmothers.
And when the cultural values changed, not only did women perceive themselves as being "stuck" in less honorable positions because of their gender - but men began to think the same about women. Men also began to think that, "Well, a woman stays in her house all day and cooks and looks after kids and is a wife, well then she must be looked down upon as a second-class citizen because she doesn't get the same honor and dignity and respect."
When all of society - men and women - began to look at women as being in less dignified positions and jobs, not because they were women, but because of what they did (and they did what they did because they were women - they bear children), then women reacted to that and the feminist movement was born.
Unfortunately, the feminist movement has not helped the situation, because society still values the rich, powerful, eccentric, outlandish risk-taking person more than a person who just does his or her job in a quiet but fulfilling manner. As a result, the feminist movement has tended to push women into behaving like men, and women are still not satisfied, and the resulting changes in society have left men feeling unhappy to the point where men feel that they are second-class citizens. Until American societies returns the dignity back to women for being women - not for trying to be like men - this problem will persist.
No. You should really read more before pontificating.
Feminism did not arise because we suddenly stopped valuing women as mothers. It arose because that is all we valued in women[1].
The history, if you bother to read it, bears this out. Hell, even today, certain attitudes bear this out, although with the help of feminism, we see less of it in modern culture.
Do you think a woman should be allowed to become a doctor? A physicist? To run in a marathon? SHould she be less valued if she chooses not to be a mother? Should she be forced to make a choice between those occupations and motherhood? And if she chooses both, which should be more valued by society?
[1] Ok, not all, but I'll leave out the other aspects so-as not to confuse the issue.
Feminism arose because women did not like the way they were being treated. Society did actually stop valuing motherhood. It was an indirect result of society valuing doctors, physicists, CEOs, etc, yet restricting women from those same things. Only women can be mothers, and when women are restricted from those things society values, they become more defined only by being a parent, and when the value of women falls, so does the value of a woman being a parent.
To answer your question, of course a woman should be allowed to become a doctor, a physicist, or an athlete. Yes, she should be valued less if she chooses not to be a mother, just the same as a man should be valued less if he chooses not to be a father. She should not sacrifice her motherhood in pursuit of a career, just as a man should not sacrifice his fatherhood in pursuit of a career.
Because of the biological difference between a woman and a man, a woman must take much more time and effort away from other things in life to be a mother, whereas a man barely has to do any effort to have children. And so a natural division of labor occurs where the father takes on the role of a provider and the mother takes on the role of a nurturer. Since the father has more of a burden for providing, it is more important for him to become a doctor or such, but this is because that is how he fulfills his duties as a father.
You might say, why should a person be valued less if they choose not to be a parent? Well, all normal people have a sex, male or female. Why are we male or female if not to procreate with the opposite sex? Furthermore, any culture that values people not having children over people having children would have gone extinct.
You're not being very clear here, because it seems you've just said the precise opposite of what you posted previously in the first paragraph.
Initially, you said feminism arose because we started valuing other (more flamboyant?) occupations more than the more mundane, which essentially boiled down to motherhood in your post.
Now you're saying that, no, motherhood wasn't valued any less, but woman were discouraged from entering those more flamboyant occupations. This, in turn devalued motherhood through its association with people not involved in high status occupations, thus feminism arose as a reaction to the lessening of status.
This re-raises the question of why women were discouraged from entering high-status occupations initially. And as far as I can tell, you've completely closed your argument in a circle.
It would be nice if someone would actually address this instead of just downvoting. I knew my comment wouldn't be popular when I made it, but I was hoping to get some actual answers out of the deal.
It isn't about ability, it's about motivation.