While I appreciate the efforts of thoughtful theologians to demonstrate that the care of children is not a lesser vocation, I resent the frequent characterization of women as being more personally suited to the task than men: her one finger, his two fists and all that. This may be true very generally. But it is not true of me.
The biological equipment is the extent of my inherent capability for the generation and care of children. I am impatient. I have a short fuse and a bad temper. I get bored quickly. I get annoyed easily. I'm much more inclined, less the constraints of conscience, to use my two fists than some kind of fabled preternatural maternal gentleness. I like to get deeply absorbed in impersonal tasks. I hate noise, I hate interruptions. I don't find children cute or amusing and I do not, on balance, enjoy their company. I don't like cuddling with the flailing, grubby things unless I'm darn cold. When people asked if I wanted to hold the baby back in the day, I said no.
For what it's worth, arguing that women are better programmed temperamentally to take care of children is, for many women, not persuasive. It's ultimately a practical point, which are usually not the most beneficial in theological context (because hey, if I'm not maternally gifted, I shouldn't be mothering, right?). I'm tempted to throw a "theology of glory" at it too.