It is now, in the United States, in intellectual circles, a cliche to state that images of perfect women, or no, not perfect, but images of women which are high-fashion, insidiously mess with the psyches of women outside of photographs, till it can become physically/mentally destructive; in other words, the exterior can invade the interior. With this logic in mind, wldn't it make a lot of sense to wonder whether the desire to have a child/be a mother is wholly natural and may indeed be as much the result of iedology if not more emblamatic? If it was a cliche to connect lesbians and gay dudes and non-heteros to parenthood, then I agree this proposal could make less sense. Could this mother desire in fact be massively twined to media culture/the culture of capitalism? Arguably, the single mosty important subject, aside from men in popular women's fiction, is motherhood/the suggestion that without child, woman isn't fully woman. I totally get that pondering if procreating/birth is ideological, because it is a real bodily occurence which does not require "artificial" aid in the most general sense, may seem very counter-intuitive; and yah, it is.
It's always fascinating how two issues which lend lend themselves to similar logics can get insistently identified as very different. Logic, in that regard, is such an utter pain in the polemicist's ass.
Note: this wondering of mine does not validate terms like Breeder or statements which are overtly mysogynist as opposed to taking a critical stance at heterosexuality. Yes, most women are heterosexual, but I'd argue there's a difference between having that dynamic be the focus of critique (which may entail using women as representatives of heterosexuality) versus criticizing women in an un-modified way is rather not the same.