I’ll just say that the women (and it’s almost exclusively women) who are making the arguments in the main post and in comments at Generation Cedar in favor of the proposition are not being illogical, irrational, or stupid for saying that a (not the only but a) reason women should try and stay pregnant is (I’m not making this up) to show the community that they and their partners have an active, non-dysfunctional sex life.

I happen to think the premises upon which they base their lines of reasoning are batshit insane with the result that their conclusions bring more harm than necessary on themselves and others. So I’m not saying I agree with them. Nor am I even saying “well, takes all kind to make the world” either. And in fact to the extent they argue or agitate that their choices should be imposed on all women (and by extension imposed on their partners and anyone else needed to take up the slack they drop by being perpetually pregnant) I’d oppose them… vigorously.

But there’s a tendency (around the world) to think people who do something you really, deeply, and based on evidence, believe is a mistake are deluded, enthralled, diminished, or coerced otherwise safe to dismiss as second-class or second-rate human beings. It’s pretty clear these are first-class and first-rate human beings who either have, or would have done well in college, grad school, or business.

They’re not stupid, or ignorant, they’re just really, really wrong.

They’re not even wrong about everything! They’re being a little (ok, a lot) dogmatic about the whole women should be fruitful and multiply thing, but no more dogmatic than other people can get about the overarching importance of women of not having any children at all.

And they’re certainly not wrong about the whole lower-case “it takes a village” importance of recognizing that community implies mutual responsibility and obligation as well as mutual support.

On the other hand I sure don’t see how even if they accept Paul’s (local, tactical) admonitions in his letters that wives should be to their husbands as their husbands are to God as some kind of claim that it’s a sin for women, or men, to decline sex when they don’t feel like it… or simply because their partner demands it.

And, whoo boy, I seriously don’t see where they get the idea that frequent and visible pregnancy, or not, is a more discreet way to signal ongoing sexual compatibility… or at least activity… to one’s community than, say, verbally checking in with friends, family, and confidants from time to time.

I mean, sure, if you add those last two bits as axioms for your value system then a lot of their conclusions start to follow a little more logically. Though since, despite a very conservative and Biblically-minded childhood, I don’t see the basis for those axioms in faith I’d strongly, strongly advise adherents to discard them.

And I suppose if you add a further axiom that for those so inclined, physically gifted, who can find the financial backing, competitive childbearing wreaks no more (but no less) havoc on one’s body or lifestyle than many other physically intense athletic disciplines such as career-professional ballet, track, power lifting or bodybuilding, etc. We just don’t see, say, Billy Jean King, Michael Jordan, Pikaboo Street, or Brett Favre recommending that all children be not only encouraged but required to dedicate their lives to athletics. Nor do they regard any other pursuit as sinful. Nor do they claim that everyone is physically capable of doing so. Nor do they claim that everyone should be pressured to succeed or die trying. Nor do they insist, at all, at all, that people should be forbidden a choice to participate. The women in the post aren’t willing to make those accommodations to themselves or to others.

But even that doesn’t make them stupid. It just makes them intense, uncompromising, driven, passionate, committed, fierce, gonzo, brave, adventurous, dedicated, persevering, rational in the application of their first principles, and a whole bunch of other words and phrases that have been historically used admiringly about men… if not so much, or so admiringly, about women.

Finally, all the above is not a random exercise in “gee, everything is just empowerment isn’t it?” I’m not saying it to somehow celebrate or admire what women can accomplish even when I disagree with them. Nor, as I mentioned earlier, is it a bunch of “takes all kinds to make the world” cultural relativism. Instead it’s to point out that because the proponents are intelligent and motivated rather than intimidated or enthralled to their husbands or ministers the task of persuading them to back off advocating their model as an obligation to be jammed down all out throats is more daunting than we tend to wish… or wish to imagine.