Jason, I kind of think that to ask that question is to see the answer.

In any case, does Lisa Miller perhaps think being a New York Times columnist a more honorable job then that of a mother?

Funny. The appeal of Sarah Palin to many men is that she is a cool-looking chick that shoots moose.

" (The appeal of Sarah Palin to so many Christian women was exactly this: She prioritized her fertility while juggling a big job and a husband who was frequently out of town. Her fans call her a Proverbs 31 woman, a reference to the biblical character who does it all — and who keeps herself looking good. Her price, the Bible says, is “above rubies.”)

"To which I say this: We’ve come a long way from the days of the Bible, baby, and I don’t want to go back there."

That dropped my jaw.

Quite so, Lee. It says "rejoice and be exceeding glad." But come to think of it, it doesn't say "Have a great time grousing about it."

Wrong Kevin, Kim, but yes, the Berkeley progressives are a very curious group. I moved in 1981 from L.A. to the Bay Area and worked at a Savings & Loan in North Berkeley, a fairly prosperous area. I expected to be among the civilized, enlightened, etc., and I will not trash everyone; but to a surprising and disappointing degree, I found that our customers-- who cared deeply for the welfare of people in other countries (So. Africa, Nicaragua)-- treated me as little more than a servant to be disdained. Now, I WAS a servant, and I AM still a servant, but the discrepancy between their explicit political views and their treatment of someone who is actually physically present before them was quite noticeable.
I sometimes ask our foreign national-scientists what has surprised them about coming to California/Berkeley, and a few of them have picked up on this inconsistency as well.
It IS an interesting place to work, and an interesting place to seek to build the Kingdom as well.

Ah, well, Gina, it certainly is politically INcorrect. But as the "Alien" films repeat ad nauseam, actually giving birth is far worse, to the liberal mind. So if there's a nagging urge for motherhood, one way to satisfy it without postpartum depression is to assume someone else's waif.

That is, until they journey back to Earth, whereupon Ripley can make contact with Mr. Bumble at the workhouse. (Yes, abrupt change of genre and chronology, but I'm sure you get my drift.)

Interesting, Lee -- these days, I would have said that adoption was politically INcorrect. :-)

Matthew 5:11-12, Jason.

Now that I think about though, is "how much other people hate us" the most healthy topic of conversation for a Christian?

Kevin V., the Berkeley-in, or is it Berkelians, are also terribly rude.

Wow, Kevin - I just had a flashback to one of the "Alien" movies ("Aliens", I think), where Sigourney Weaver's character, Ripley, tries to destroy the queen of the aliens. The queen was busy producing eggs from a large termite-like sac - a very visual representation of a "breeder".

And Ripley, finding an orphan girl who had been surviving among the aliens, does the only sensible thing for a childless politically correct adult female - she adopts. Further, she protects the little girl from the alien "breeders" who would co-opt the child's body as a means of mass production.

I didn't realize, until now, just how barefaced the on-screen depiction is of liberal hostility toward those of us who reproduce, and our culture. Thanks for the insight.

...my pastor's wife has had the experience, in a very well-known local produce store, of having customers make snide comments about her as 'a breeder,' since they have four [really delightful] children.
But then it's pretty well known that, in Berkeley, tolerance is only supposed to extend in one direction.

Good point about Christianity improving the lives of women, LeeQuod. I found it amusing that the places Miller pointed to as "the only way for a woman to escape the binds of her God-given fertility" (and get an education) were convents. Because we all know that convents have always been bastions of secular philosophy.

Yes, I'm happy that I have the freedom to choose whether I want to pursue a career or raise a family. But the fact that someone has a big family and is proud of their children doesn't limit anyone else's freedom in any way. This is one of the many things that I think should be obvious, but apparently are not (or at least not to everyone).

Hopefully not, Lee -- but, should it happen, I'll vouch for the males and their right to discuss the topic. :-)

Ms. Miller's piece is definitely a "target-rich environment" for anyone who can shoot straight, but I found this interesting:

"Especially worrisome is the inevitable corollary to that belief: Women should put their natural fertility first — before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence — because that’s what God wants."

Most of us here know that anywhere Christianity has become the dominant belief system, the lives of all women have become dramatically better. Much of what Ms. Miller complains about was actually *corrected* by Christianity.

But what I find interesting is the way Ms. Miller pits a woman's self-actualization against obedience to God - and *only* to God. There's no mention of a woman's role in her family, or her community, or her society. I detect a strong odor of Rousseau, with woman being born free but is everywhere in chains - or was, until the Glorious Revolution of the 1960s.

It's as if "No man is an island, entire unto himself" applied only to *men*.

So there's at least one false dichotomy between being true to oneself versus following God. There's another between realizing one's true potential vs. fitting into society. There's probably a third between feminism and Republicans. And there are probably more.

Too much like shooting fish in a barrel.

----

Can we expect someone to once again ignore Gina's gender and complain that the discussion has been dominated by males?

The romantic idealization of the calendar is far more absurd.

I don't know when I've read an opinion piece that dishonest. She lies about the issue. She lies about people on the other side of the issue. She lies about the Bible.

The last one is, of course, the most egregious. I have more respect for atheists who simply disregard the Bible than for someone who so misrepresents it.

"There’s nothing wrong with big families, of course."

"...the romantic idealization of biblically abundant families is a retrograde dream."

Breathtaking consistency there, Ms. Miller. I'm guessing the principle of abrogation applies to guilt-ridden, modernocentric, anachronistic liberal screeds as well as the Muslim scriptures?

Taking personal offense or feeling implicitly condemned by the mere size of someone's family seems to say a great deal more about the aggrieved than it does about the family. One rarely experiences the kind of raw insecurity and derision of a feminist in the presence of large, loving patriarchal families. It is not enough for women like Miller to simply choose a different lifestyle (which Santorum and Romney would both agree she has the right to do). She must denounce theirs as a primitive, dangerous, outmoded "retrograde dream."

Somebody feels pricked in a very sensitive place.