Here is the Wikipedia page, for easy reference. I am not clever enough to link to a targeted location on a webpage, but if you would do me the kindness of going to the "Notable specimens" section, you will note that the specimens that were discovered so far have estimated creation dates spanning the course of 20,000 years! Are there any current theories as to why that would be?
To a layman like me, it seems like having that sort of cultural continuity for 20,000 years, especially to people who ostensibly lacked a written language, would be very unlikely. Am I wrong on that account? Or, do these statues appeal to some basal human trait or desire, whether it's sexual, want for abundance, the security of a mother, or something similar where it would not be so unusual for a contemporary artist, who has never known of the figurines, to create a similar work of art independently (i.e. as people have been depicting lions through the ages)? Or, is there another theory altogether?
The Upper Paleolithic is an exciting period of human history. Elements of behavioral modernity emerged earlier in time (roughly more than 100,000 years ago) but for the first time we see the widespread use of highly diverse material culture, art becomes commonplace and portable, and tools diversify in type and workmanship. As you said, the Venus figurine tradition began early, roughly 40,000 years ago with the Venus of Hohle Fels, and persisted until roughly 11,000 years ago with the highly stylized Venus of Monruz. Venus figurines therefore persist for roughly 30,000 years, from sites as widespread as Lespugue on the French-Spain border, to Gagarino and Kostenki in eastern Europe.
We have absolutely no evidence of writing during this period. The Upper Paleolithic is one of the first periods where we see continual, long-distance trade of raw materials, as well as gradual spread of tool technology across Europe. Both of these developments indicate increased communication, cognition, and between-group cooperation previously unheard of in our lineage.
We have no way of knowing what these figurines meant to our ancestors, but their permanence and widespread adoption indicate oral traditions not only spread the cult geographically, but maintained at least elements of the cult throughout time. This is also a novel Upper Paleolithic development. My personal favorite theory is that increased population density and a slightly longer lifespan allowed for the continual transmission of knowledge from elders to offspring that was not previously possible with smaller bands and a shorter life history pattern. The importance of the figurines could have changed over time, or they could have meant something slightly different in France than Russia. Perhaps the permanence can be attributed to the multitude of meanings that can be associated with the figurines.
While the female/feminine figurines are very common, so are animal figurines (throughout the same period). There are not as many straightforwardly male figurines (but some of the ones classified as female are also thought to be androgynous but some researchers).
There are two main kinds of art during the period when the figurines are common: rock art and the figurines.
Rock art is not portable, it is often in hills or canyons away from settlements.
The figurines are portable, some are designed to stand up in sand or mud, they are often found inside dwellings, and they are not usually found in caves, hills or canyons. They are often found in collections of other objects.
They could be toys, of course (consistent with being found close to hearths). Whether toys are "just toys" is an interesting question. I have a collection of medieval figurines, I do play with them, but they are also of interest to me for other reasons.
Nearly all the figurines are found in context with other symbolic objects or have symbolic elements aside from female sex traits associated with them. For example, the "net-headed" figurines date to the period when string was first invented and nets were first made. In cultures where netting is still a very important part of the economy, it is often women who make the nets (which they use for carrying roots even where fishing is unavailable). A net-headed female figurine, then, would seem to represent a capable woman, one with a net (they are time-intensive to make and require a great deal of skill), and one who knows how to collect resources.
Bird-like features, references to water, feathers, small animals are often incorporated into these "Venus" figures.
What's interesting to me is the very high concentration of these objects in the Upper Paleolithic in Europe (I can't think of any other large region that has so many stone age figurines). The later rise of many forms of sculpture (with the appearance of large, relatively immovable statues) in the same area is worth noting.
Cave art/rock art from the same period seems notably lacking in images of women (I believe there's at least one). Male images and, most especially, animals that were hunted or feared are depicted in cave/rock art.
Are these two forms of art, then, made by different members of the same groups? Same members, different contexts? Different groups? To answer these questions, it's important to look at known forms of social structure amongst hunter-gatherers in similar surroundings.
But it's still difficult to explain the extraordinary amount of art/decoration found in Europe during this time, much of which clearly depicts feminine form.