Most important in my view, the interpretation of Gen. 3:16 by some complementarians that the woman will desire against her husband to dominate him is a very recent development in church history. I am certainly open to correction on this, but as best as I can tell, Susan Foh in 1975 was the first to formalize the idea in the Westminster Theological Journal in a response to, you guessed it, feminism.
Although this is something for which a great big collective "duh" should be the answer we know that a lot of people won't go into the history of academic and pseudo-academic trends.
According to Foh herself, her presentation in 1975 that first introduced the currently accepted complementarian interpretation of Genesis 3:16's “your desire will be for your husband” as a “desire against your husband to dominate him” is a RE-examination and RE-consideration of the Biblical view of women. I am Reformed and generally hang with Reformed conservatives. It strikes me as odd that such a new view keeps popping up in modern writing among those who are known for loving their church fathers and church history.
Also according to Foh, she presented her new view of Genesis 3:16 as a response to feminism. It's important to note that the term feminism does not represent a monolithic movement. Carolyn McCulley has some helpful information of the various waves of feminism in her book, Radical Womanhood. If you examine the history of feminism, Foh wasn't reacting against the broad, general idea of feminism though she uses the broad term. Frankly, I'm grateful for the 1st wave of feminism in particular, and you should be too [Wenatchee The Hatchet: Amen!!], for it helped women get the right to vote, the right to inherit land, the ability to go to college, property rights, and so forth. It was God's common grace at work. In her article, Foh was reacting specifically to the 2nd wave of feminism (the 3rd wave of feminism is thought to have begun in the 90's, so it wasn't an issue yet). So 3 millennia after Genesis 3:16 was written, there appears on the blip of human history a movement for women's rights in the 1960's that seems to justify a new interpretation of the curse. Really, folks, changing our interpretation of Scripture for a reason that surfaced in the last 0.08% of human history should trouble conservative theologians. [emphasis original]
Ironically a variety of readings attempting to counteract "feminism" sail right past a core concern that would resonate with ... feminism.
A straightforward reading such as Vos', Keil's, and Delitzsch's, requires no theological backflips. The woman's root problem is that, even though child birth is painful and the man rules her, she still has a morbid craving for him, looking to him in completely unhealthy ways that do not reflect her status as image bearer of God. The woman wants something from the man that he was never intended to provide her, that he even on his best day is not equipped to provide. He becomes her idol.
A woman should not need a man to give her life meaning. Too many complementarians pay lipservice to this idea when what they want is for the man to be the mediator between the woman and Christ. The problem is two-fold, that men want this kind of weird job and there are women who want them to have it. Should a complementarian dispute this let me point out that Wendy is as complementarian as just about anybody and to borrow a catchphrase from a certain local preacher, "it's biblical" to point out that too many women idealize marriage and idolize it (as do plenty of guys).
Speaking of which ...
Authoritarian pastors unchecked by their peers and accountability structures who hold to Foh's views have contributed to feminism in the church as much as anything. Holding on to Foh's views on Genesis 3:16 sets a tone of suspicion of women when we talk about gender issues in the church, and that tone is not helpful.
In case you didn't scroll over the link, it's to the Alsups review of Real Marriage.
Wendy's done a nice job covering how some people trying to make a case against feminism decided they had to start mounting a case against a set of ideas that, as Wendy put it, comprise 0.08 of the whole of human history. Personally I'd put that percentage somewhere closer to 0.0024 percent of human history but it depends on what points of reference we're using or how far back we identify nascent feminism in Western society.