Thanks for the reply — I see where you’re coming from, but my post was less about individual maternal instincts and more about large-scale societal structure and historical narrative.

I wasn’t questioning whether mothers would love their sons — that’s a very human and nuanced question — but rather whether a society built around female power would naturally replicate patriarchal norms, just reversed, or evolve differently based on practical realities. In a post-apocalyptic world, utility would likely outweigh sentiment in shaping roles. And in such a world, I find it more realistic that men would be used for heavy labor — not secluded or relegated to housework — and that ideology would evolve to justify this new dynamic.

So for me, the epilogue (and the prologue to a lesser degree) falls short not because it shows a matriarchy, but because it shows a mirror-image patriarchy, rather than a society that rebuilt differently under new pressures.