Since neutrality is, in fact, impossible - we have to take sides on all major issues: we must "favour".
So, is being a mother a good thing, or not?
*
The Christian answer is that to be a mother "in the context of marriage" is a good thing.
The Christian evaluation of the goodness of motherhood is, ultimately, not-worldly, but a matter of eternity - not of pleasure but of purpose.
(Much more could be said, but let that suffice to sketch the framing of motherhood.)
*
(Which is not-at-all to say married motherhood is always and under every circumstance a good thing, far from it; but that we must and will always start from a bipolar assumption against which evaluations are framed: so motherhood will, like it or not, be regarded either as good or bad - and for Christians it is good. For Mormons it is the highest behavioural 'good' for a woman - for Catholics it is a good, but lower than the celibate religious life.)
*
The secular modern answer is that motherhood is "a lifestyle choice".
The evaluation of motherhood is therefore done by the same criteria as other lifestyle choices - which is essentially related to hedonic prospects, the probable predicted outcome in terms of pleasure and pain, fulfilment and suffering.
From the secular perspective, motherhood (of course) has nothing to do with divine plans of ultimate purpose or eternity -it is "not" a profound thing - at most it might be said that motherhood (for a particular person) might be helpful - or even necessary - for their "personal development".
*
As secular lifestyle choices go, motherhood has some advantage of being a biologically powerful experience (due to evolutionary heritage), but this also brings problems because of phenomena like 'bonding' and the forms of psychological dependence - which mean that mothers may be made miserable by bad things happening to their children, children's failure to be beautiful or status-enhancing; plus of course if a mother finds that her need for personal development requires her to abandon her marriage and children - then these biological factors may make her feel guilty and miserable.
(Note: From a secular modern perspective it is the woman's feelings of guilt and misery that are bad - not abandoning marriage and family in pursuit of self-development. Luckily, any such guilty and miserable women have therapy and antidepressants to make them feel better about things...)
So, considered as a secular lifestyle choice, motherhood- and indeed marriage - are high risk investments; and (from this secular perspective) probably best undertaken by people who either thrive on psychodrama or are immune to guilt - so that dependence is avoided and responsibilities can be walked-away-from without sabotaging the primary and sacred goals of fulfilment and self-development...
*
These two perspectives on motherhood are - if not exactly opposed - about as far apart as it is possible to be: the Christian and secular framing of motherhood have almost nothing in common: the one is a "end" validated by other-worldly considerations, the other a "means to an end" validated by here-and-now emotions.
Of course, Christian motherhood is also often validated by here-and-now emotions of astonishing intensity - but from a secular perspective this is not due to intrinsic worth but merely to a biological heritage.
*
And there must be some secular women who have a very powerful, but theoretically inarticulate and publicly indefensible "gut-feeling" that marriage and motherhood are something of primary significance for women - far, far more than the normal run of lifestyle choices such as choice of job, car and house.
And this justifies "their own" existential choice to put motherhood near the centre of life - as far, far more important than other aspects of lifestyle.
But even if they do regard motherhood as more important "for themselves"; when it comes to organizing society (propaganda, laws, regulations etc) secular moderns have zero basis for 'assuming' that motherhood (in marriage) is what most women want to do, or ought to be able to do (if possible) - no way for organizationally privileging the status of motherhood...
Because all that would be "prejudiced"; it would entail setting-up and maintaining a society primarily organized around the needs of married couples and families - what would help "them"; and therefore necessarily a society "according lower status "to the single, and to childless couples.
*
If the secular modern frame is being applied, it is difficult/ impossible to justify privileging one lifestyle choice - married motherhood - over another; especially because it would inevitably be one consequence that single and childless women would be made "to some significant extent" to feel less happy, second rate, either an object of sympathy or disapproval.
This is a real cost (both real, and a cost) of acknowledging the special transcendental value to motherhood.
To the modern Leftist, this cost seems "absolutely" intolerable. So motherhood is and must be treated as merely a lifestyle choice, on a par with choosing a college or a holiday.
And, since motherhood "really is" a very a high risk lifestyle choice, with vast potential to induce misery - by and large modern secular women women don't take the risk - and therefore focus on what else is left-over: careers, fashion, sex, friends, holidays... the stuff of a modern women's life as displayed and advocated daily by millions upon millions of mass media outputs.
*
...Which, if Christians are correct, means that "WOMEN IN MODERN SECULAR CULTURE ARE, "EN MASSE", REJECTING REALITY "in one of its most fundamental aspects; and instead embracing a very obviously false, very obviously fake, and very obviously unsatisfactory delusional existence.
Look around - it's everywhere!
*
Credit: candle-magic.blogspot.com
