According to The Guardian, "Research emerging from the London School of Economics examining the links between intelligence and maternal urges in women claims that more of the former means less of the latter," proves that smart (progressive) women choose to remain childless while dumb (unprogressive or "conservative") women choose motherhood.
Ergo, science thus also proves that one of the most famous unprogressive women in America, Megyn Kelly at FoxNews, is dumb because she chose to be a mother three times and is thus best suited for the degrading tasks of breast-feeding, breast-pumping, diaper-changing, being a shoulder upon which to cry, being bare-foot in the newsroom, etc. while smart, progressive women have ample leisure time for mind-broadening activities such as relaxing on a beach while reading 50 Shades of Gray.
What smart woman would choose to trade that for the burden of looking forward to growing old as a mother and thus becoming burdened in her old age by visits and affection from children and grandchildren? Who would want to trade a great retirement portfolio from a long and successful career for such intangible familial experiences?
There's a downside to this fact of science that is most flattering to progressive women: soon the world will be overpopulated by bare-footed conservative women and gun-totin' conservative men and under-populated with progressive men, women and both or neither.
But 21st Century technology promises to provide a solution: smart women will have their eggs fertilized in a lab by smart men (of which, unfortunately, there is a dearth) and then implanted in a bare-foot, free-range dumb woman (an unprogressive, conservative woman) for birthing, breast-feeding, diapering, and then delivery to the government for nurturing, education, socializing, etc.