The "Federletus" and David Brooks

What possible connection could I make between the impending Britney Spears baby and the conservative New York Times columnist?

When I first read on Gawker that there was a "Federletus," I was more than a bit disturbed. Britney Spears, with child? This just seemed wrong. Now, according to David Brooks, Britney would be a role model, marrying and having children young (she's 23). This is precisely the arrangement Brooks advocates, the Spears situation showed me why the Brooks plan just doesn't sit right. 23 might have once seemed like a perfectly reasonable age to start having kids, and for some women it might be just that. But Britney, whose schoolgirl act caught on in a large part because she was more or less schoolgirl age when it appeared, whose not-a-girl-not-yet-a-woman-ness feels like just yesterday, seems to have skipped a big chunk of adulthood. This is not to say I know what's best for Ms. Spears, but what I'm trying to figure out is why I find it icky that a married 23-year-old would be having a baby. And I will fully admit that I have not, in my analysis, controlled for the fact that the 23-year-old in question is Britney Spears. Because, my feelings on natalism aside, I'm thinking that's probably a factor that would need to be taken into account.