Great piece! I too found that "Interesting Times" totally fascinating, and was unsatisfied by the ending. It was kind of awkward and uncomfortable. You're right to point this out: "Could Evans be traveling around the world, amassing impressive research on the global fertility decline, and writing and publishing enough to get the attention of someone of Douthat’s stature if she had kids? Absolutely, but it would be a lot harder. Why not acknowledge it?"
My second comment is that, cynically, I think "pronatalism" is kind of the right word for a lot of conservative people. They'd like babies to be born (hence, pro-birth) but view it is as the individual's (aka mother's) job make the lion's share of the sacrifices.
I like the term "pro-family creation" better than pronatalism. I think purely from a practical standpoint, adding wonky sounding terms does very little to bring more people into a conversation. Another example is alloparenting. It's a concept I think a lot of people love, but using that term makes it sound niche and only for weirdos. I think "pronatalism" does something similar.
I consider myself a progressive pronatalist, and I also was taken aback by the end of that interview. But while, of course, I was curious about the reasons Alice Evans has no children, I think Ross did the polite thing by not asking about it. There are just so many deeply personal reasons that a person might not have children, and in many cases it's not by choice. Ross's wife wrote an entire book about motherhood (Mom Genes) so it's certainly not the care that he's unaware of the discourse.
yeah I agree re not asking Alice. I guess either cut that part of the interview altogether, or find a way to speak to the tensions btw work and motherhood at a different time in the interview so it isn't personal, but at least the general reality is acknowledged. and yes re: "Mom Genes" -- he isn't by any means married to a tradwife, or someone who pretends motherhood comes with no pain or sacrifice
Yeah, I definitely agree that if you're crafting family policy, you have to look at the motherhood penalty and other costs overwhelmingly borne by women. But also, those things were still true (and probably worse) in the 80s and 90s when birth rates were high, even though birth control was readily available. I feel like their conversation was more focused on what's changed in the world that might explain the drop in birth rates and attitudes towards parenting over the last 30-40 years.
Also as for terminology, I feel like pronatalism, pro family formation, and generally pro-family are related but not interchangeable concepts. They're all important. But when you're looking at the worrying drop in birth rates, I don't think it's wrong to make raising the birth rates your explicit goal.
Thank you so much for writing this! Very galvanizing to read and I completely agree on the need to reframe away from just pumping out babies to supporting entire families and diverse forms of caregiving!
Something that I've *frequently* encountered recently as someone on the left who wants to be a parent, surrounded primarily by left/liberal people, is this idea of "oh you shouldn't even be trying to have kids now." I miscarried right before the 2024 election, and I heard that from so many people when I described what we were going through. And I've found it hard to defend our desire to be parents against the obviously rough state of the country. I love your framing of building a family as a meaningful, fulfilling pursuit, and it saddens me that I feel when I try to express that to people, it doesn't get through. Often, people feel more intent on pointing that having children right now means you're either selfish or have your head stuck in the sand. I don't agree with that characterization, and I'd love to figure out how to push back and express myself more effectively!
thanks for sharing this, Ellie. First off, I'm sorry to hear about your miscarriage. Second, the "selfish or have your head stuck in the sand" paradigm is so sad, and ultimately self-defeating. Wouldn't the future of the humanity be in better hands if we raise kids with good values who can properly care for other people and the planet? We need more care and compassion, and one way to bring that about is by raising compassionate kids.
My mind is blowing at these proposed Medicaid and Food stamp cuts. I agree with a focus of family formation, I think that shifting to part time employment combined with service (including caregiving) would be healthy and life and society affirming for almost all, etc. I care about and enjoy these conversations. But anyone who cares a whit about families, kids or the birth rate should see these potential cuts as a national emergency. I am beyond mad at pro-natalists (if they aren’t concerned about this that is what they are) fussing with child tax credits or baby bonuses or whatever as children’s health care and literal food are threatened. It is infuriating!
Fantastic piece. And you're so right about calling it pro-natalism which just emphasizes the breeding-cow quantity over quality aspect that emanates from the right (which is to say, male-dominated) perspective. Of course Ross didn't ask her about not having kids...he was afraid of the answer.
Brilliant piece Elissa. I couldn’t agree more that care, and the structures/cultural norms that support it, are missing in this conversation on both sides. On a related note, Samantha Mann’s piece in the Times “The Left Must Reclaim Motherhood” was an another interesting view — would love to know your take on it. 🙏🏼
And yet, I hear from readers all the time who feel the same and I have to wonder about a feminism that doesn't allow for these kinds of conversations...I just heard from someone who decided to take a break from a women's studies academic career to spend time with kids and said she was afraid to tell her mentors. I get all the layers and complications...but at the same time, care shouldn't be taboo!
Nice piece. I too am sick of the two “sides” of this issue, as it boils something delicate & complex down to talking points.
Something I’d like to see is honest discussion with families, like mine, who do have a lot of children. It would probably be illuminating, from a policy making perspective, to know what has helped us, what has hindered us, what would be helpful, what is not, etc. I see so many articles & news stories that talk to people who have chosen not to have children & lean into the “the world is ending & everything is too expensive” side, while interviews with parents with lots of children (usually from the more right-leaning angle) only highlight the good stuff. We need honest discussion!
yes, love this perspective. would you be open to being interviewed for my Substack? The book "Hannah's Children" dug into this, but was written by a conservative for a more conservative audience, and the author has eight children. There is nothing wrong with any of that of course -- just not the kind of "across the aisle" convo I think you are imagining and I would love to have.
Sure! I’m sort of on the periphery of one of the circles that author runs in, but don’t know her personally. I’ve yet to read the book, though a lot of folks I’m friendly with have & enjoyed it. All that being said, I do think it’s good to get perspectives from those in the trenches or who aren’t necessarily affluent.
UMC professional women that are either completely childless or maybe had 1-2 kids in their 30s.
Naturally, family support for this group is a mix of single mom welfare and daycare support for the professional lady with the 1-2 kids that doesn’t want to interrupt their career.
The right wing is middle class families often that have 2+ kids. They don’t get welfare and they need solutions that scale to multiple kids. Many become SAHM because that’s what makes more sense when you have a lot of kids.
There is also the divide that the leftists are either fine with public school or can afford private, while the middle class people need school vouchers to afford private school for several kids.
The kind of benefits and resources and tax systems these two groups would want are very different.
All of this is so dependent on where you live, I think. For example, I live in a very blue-state "left" community and there are many middle class families here with 3-5 kids (in fact, 3-5 kids is pretty common). Families typically own their homes and most parents work, though many mothers take years off, or work part-time in various capacities. People are invested in the public schools, which are really hit or miss depending on the teacher. However, because they were traditionally strong, there aren't a ton of other options locally. People here are pretty invested in their community with lots of civic groups, including for people with few resources. However, there are families in really tough situations, with disabled kids (often more than one in a family), absent parents (to death as well as divorce), parents with addictions or chronic illnesses, people suffering from various tragedies. Even in our own, the "charity" can't sustain these needy families. They (and hence we) require Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. ON TOP OF significant community support for things like back-to-school backpacks, clothes, holiday gifts, etc. Everyone I know who uses some kind of public assistance is already also accessing private charity and still struggling to get by. It's tough out there.
Yes, the left is better at creating a laundry-list of how many burdens they have to bear. Conservatives understand that raising children is work and sacrifice and it must be done to have a future. They also recognize that billions of normal every day people have done it for thousands of years. It can be done even if imperfect. It was the left that demonized parenthood, extended family, and religious organizations that served as support for parents. Thus the desire for “free” daycare and a never ending supply of welfare programs to pay for other people’s children. It is a never ending loop of destroying what works and then complaining about the results.
Once you know them, "other people's children" begin to look an awfully lot like one's own children made in the image of God, and it becomes super important that they have food, medical care, and attention. A few years in public service like schools, child care, or medical offices makes it awfully hard to separate out what kids deserve based on who their parents are. Let's hold up parenthood, extended family, and religious organizations that support parents. Let's also hold up social security, who was there for a local mom when her husband killed himself, leaving 4 kids that the community couldn't fund in entirety (though people chipped in in numerous ways to support the whole family, it was social security that provided her safety net in ways that the meals, clothes, and rides everyone have given freely couldn't totally provide). Let's also hold up food stamps, which helped another local mom whose husband's mental health took a terrible turn, forcing her to temporarily move out (after 6 months, his condition was stabilized, thank God) and while the community gave her supermarket cards and child care, she still needed the food stamps to provide the nutrition they all needed. Let's also hold up Medicaid, which supports my cousin's daughter who was born with significant physical, developmental, and sensory disabilities (she is deaf-blind, with heart problems that required multiple surgeries, as well as additional cognitive disabilities) - her parents would never have been able to pay all of the money her healthcare has required (never mind her therapies!), esp. not with 2 other kids to care for (they love kids and have a decent sized family). Life is imperfect, and it is a huge blessing to be able to be there for each other in personal ways, and through support programs.
It’s easy to use empathy to “support” children with other people’s bank accounts. Other parent’s bank accounts. The above are exceptions not rules. A safety net is one thing but paying the bills of intentionally single parents without sufficient income is a good way to encourage the same kind of bad behavior in the name of compassion. They may look like my children but they are not. Things get worse not better through indiscriminate “helping”.
Thanks for this, Elissa! As someone who's written a lot about the challenges of motherhood, it's been interesting (to say the least) to recently become one myself. Still trying to figure out how to hold onto the both/and of it all, but I've been thinking about When You Care a lot these last few months.
Ah, thanks so much for sharing that with me. I am so so excited to hear how you are processing IRL motherhood and can't wait to read about it when you are ready. For me the both/and has never gone away, but definitely shape-shifted over the years...and now with an 8 and 12 y.o. I feel like a very heavy door has closed (I can almost hear the thump, see the dust rise) on early parenthood and motherhood now takes place in an entirely different, and in my case, much easier, terrain.
Great piece! I too found that "Interesting Times" totally fascinating, and was unsatisfied by the ending. It was kind of awkward and uncomfortable. You're right to point this out: "Could Evans be traveling around the world, amassing impressive research on the global fertility decline, and writing and publishing enough to get the attention of someone of Douthat’s stature if she had kids? Absolutely, but it would be a lot harder. Why not acknowledge it?"
My second comment is that, cynically, I think "pronatalism" is kind of the right word for a lot of conservative people. They'd like babies to be born (hence, pro-birth) but view it is as the individual's (aka mother's) job make the lion's share of the sacrifices.
Totally awkward and uncomfortable! And to just rush past it...kinda weird.
And I agree re your second comment, and that really captures my whole issue with the way the right is framing this. We can do better!
Thanks for reading.
I like the term "pro-family creation" better than pronatalism. I think purely from a practical standpoint, adding wonky sounding terms does very little to bring more people into a conversation. Another example is alloparenting. It's a concept I think a lot of people love, but using that term makes it sound niche and only for weirdos. I think "pronatalism" does something similar.
good point re alloparents! it sounds unfamiliar and therefore terrifying.
I consider myself a progressive pronatalist, and I also was taken aback by the end of that interview. But while, of course, I was curious about the reasons Alice Evans has no children, I think Ross did the polite thing by not asking about it. There are just so many deeply personal reasons that a person might not have children, and in many cases it's not by choice. Ross's wife wrote an entire book about motherhood (Mom Genes) so it's certainly not the care that he's unaware of the discourse.
yeah I agree re not asking Alice. I guess either cut that part of the interview altogether, or find a way to speak to the tensions btw work and motherhood at a different time in the interview so it isn't personal, but at least the general reality is acknowledged. and yes re: "Mom Genes" -- he isn't by any means married to a tradwife, or someone who pretends motherhood comes with no pain or sacrifice
Yeah, I definitely agree that if you're crafting family policy, you have to look at the motherhood penalty and other costs overwhelmingly borne by women. But also, those things were still true (and probably worse) in the 80s and 90s when birth rates were high, even though birth control was readily available. I feel like their conversation was more focused on what's changed in the world that might explain the drop in birth rates and attitudes towards parenting over the last 30-40 years.
Also as for terminology, I feel like pronatalism, pro family formation, and generally pro-family are related but not interchangeable concepts. They're all important. But when you're looking at the worrying drop in birth rates, I don't think it's wrong to make raising the birth rates your explicit goal.
Thank you so much for writing this! Very galvanizing to read and I completely agree on the need to reframe away from just pumping out babies to supporting entire families and diverse forms of caregiving!
Something that I've *frequently* encountered recently as someone on the left who wants to be a parent, surrounded primarily by left/liberal people, is this idea of "oh you shouldn't even be trying to have kids now." I miscarried right before the 2024 election, and I heard that from so many people when I described what we were going through. And I've found it hard to defend our desire to be parents against the obviously rough state of the country. I love your framing of building a family as a meaningful, fulfilling pursuit, and it saddens me that I feel when I try to express that to people, it doesn't get through. Often, people feel more intent on pointing that having children right now means you're either selfish or have your head stuck in the sand. I don't agree with that characterization, and I'd love to figure out how to push back and express myself more effectively!
thanks for sharing this, Ellie. First off, I'm sorry to hear about your miscarriage. Second, the "selfish or have your head stuck in the sand" paradigm is so sad, and ultimately self-defeating. Wouldn't the future of the humanity be in better hands if we raise kids with good values who can properly care for other people and the planet? We need more care and compassion, and one way to bring that about is by raising compassionate kids.
My mind is blowing at these proposed Medicaid and Food stamp cuts. I agree with a focus of family formation, I think that shifting to part time employment combined with service (including caregiving) would be healthy and life and society affirming for almost all, etc. I care about and enjoy these conversations. But anyone who cares a whit about families, kids or the birth rate should see these potential cuts as a national emergency. I am beyond mad at pro-natalists (if they aren’t concerned about this that is what they are) fussing with child tax credits or baby bonuses or whatever as children’s health care and literal food are threatened. It is infuriating!
Fantastic piece. And you're so right about calling it pro-natalism which just emphasizes the breeding-cow quantity over quality aspect that emanates from the right (which is to say, male-dominated) perspective. Of course Ross didn't ask her about not having kids...he was afraid of the answer.
I so appreciate your nuanced critique. Keep writing...we need it!
thank you!
Brilliant piece Elissa. I couldn’t agree more that care, and the structures/cultural norms that support it, are missing in this conversation on both sides. On a related note, Samantha Mann’s piece in the Times “The Left Must Reclaim Motherhood” was an another interesting view — would love to know your take on it. 🙏🏼
thank you! and I really appreciated Samantha Mann's piece. I've gotten in trouble for saying similar things in the past, but I'm okay with that.
This was the piece that some read as a betrayal to the feminist cause: https://slate.com/life/2024/05/mothers-day-personal-essay-happiness-celebration.html
And yet, I hear from readers all the time who feel the same and I have to wonder about a feminism that doesn't allow for these kinds of conversations...I just heard from someone who decided to take a break from a women's studies academic career to spend time with kids and said she was afraid to tell her mentors. I get all the layers and complications...but at the same time, care shouldn't be taboo!
Nice piece. I too am sick of the two “sides” of this issue, as it boils something delicate & complex down to talking points.
Something I’d like to see is honest discussion with families, like mine, who do have a lot of children. It would probably be illuminating, from a policy making perspective, to know what has helped us, what has hindered us, what would be helpful, what is not, etc. I see so many articles & news stories that talk to people who have chosen not to have children & lean into the “the world is ending & everything is too expensive” side, while interviews with parents with lots of children (usually from the more right-leaning angle) only highlight the good stuff. We need honest discussion!
yes, love this perspective. would you be open to being interviewed for my Substack? The book "Hannah's Children" dug into this, but was written by a conservative for a more conservative audience, and the author has eight children. There is nothing wrong with any of that of course -- just not the kind of "across the aisle" convo I think you are imagining and I would love to have.
Sure! I’m sort of on the periphery of one of the circles that author runs in, but don’t know her personally. I’ve yet to read the book, though a lot of folks I’m friendly with have & enjoyed it. All that being said, I do think it’s good to get perspectives from those in the trenches or who aren’t necessarily affluent.
I will be in touch before long (longer being a little longer than normal because of summer break...)
The left has two groups:
Poor single women on Medicaid.
UMC professional women that are either completely childless or maybe had 1-2 kids in their 30s.
Naturally, family support for this group is a mix of single mom welfare and daycare support for the professional lady with the 1-2 kids that doesn’t want to interrupt their career.
The right wing is middle class families often that have 2+ kids. They don’t get welfare and they need solutions that scale to multiple kids. Many become SAHM because that’s what makes more sense when you have a lot of kids.
There is also the divide that the leftists are either fine with public school or can afford private, while the middle class people need school vouchers to afford private school for several kids.
The kind of benefits and resources and tax systems these two groups would want are very different.
Well lower cost housing should help everyone. And making sure child tax credits don't result in serious penalties as income goes up.
All of this is so dependent on where you live, I think. For example, I live in a very blue-state "left" community and there are many middle class families here with 3-5 kids (in fact, 3-5 kids is pretty common). Families typically own their homes and most parents work, though many mothers take years off, or work part-time in various capacities. People are invested in the public schools, which are really hit or miss depending on the teacher. However, because they were traditionally strong, there aren't a ton of other options locally. People here are pretty invested in their community with lots of civic groups, including for people with few resources. However, there are families in really tough situations, with disabled kids (often more than one in a family), absent parents (to death as well as divorce), parents with addictions or chronic illnesses, people suffering from various tragedies. Even in our own, the "charity" can't sustain these needy families. They (and hence we) require Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. ON TOP OF significant community support for things like back-to-school backpacks, clothes, holiday gifts, etc. Everyone I know who uses some kind of public assistance is already also accessing private charity and still struggling to get by. It's tough out there.
The TFR of very liberal women in the top 20% of IQ is 0.6 (that means they are shrinking 70% a generation).
The TFR of conservative women in the top 20% of IQ is 1.8, 3x as much.
For the 60-80% bracket its 1.2 and 2.1 liberal vs conservative.
It's simply not statically true that smart liberal women are having kids. There is a gigantic fertility gap.
Poor people are obese and watch TV all day. We should not be paying them to have children.
Yes, the left is better at creating a laundry-list of how many burdens they have to bear. Conservatives understand that raising children is work and sacrifice and it must be done to have a future. They also recognize that billions of normal every day people have done it for thousands of years. It can be done even if imperfect. It was the left that demonized parenthood, extended family, and religious organizations that served as support for parents. Thus the desire for “free” daycare and a never ending supply of welfare programs to pay for other people’s children. It is a never ending loop of destroying what works and then complaining about the results.
Once you know them, "other people's children" begin to look an awfully lot like one's own children made in the image of God, and it becomes super important that they have food, medical care, and attention. A few years in public service like schools, child care, or medical offices makes it awfully hard to separate out what kids deserve based on who their parents are. Let's hold up parenthood, extended family, and religious organizations that support parents. Let's also hold up social security, who was there for a local mom when her husband killed himself, leaving 4 kids that the community couldn't fund in entirety (though people chipped in in numerous ways to support the whole family, it was social security that provided her safety net in ways that the meals, clothes, and rides everyone have given freely couldn't totally provide). Let's also hold up food stamps, which helped another local mom whose husband's mental health took a terrible turn, forcing her to temporarily move out (after 6 months, his condition was stabilized, thank God) and while the community gave her supermarket cards and child care, she still needed the food stamps to provide the nutrition they all needed. Let's also hold up Medicaid, which supports my cousin's daughter who was born with significant physical, developmental, and sensory disabilities (she is deaf-blind, with heart problems that required multiple surgeries, as well as additional cognitive disabilities) - her parents would never have been able to pay all of the money her healthcare has required (never mind her therapies!), esp. not with 2 other kids to care for (they love kids and have a decent sized family). Life is imperfect, and it is a huge blessing to be able to be there for each other in personal ways, and through support programs.
beautifully put
It’s easy to use empathy to “support” children with other people’s bank accounts. Other parent’s bank accounts. The above are exceptions not rules. A safety net is one thing but paying the bills of intentionally single parents without sufficient income is a good way to encourage the same kind of bad behavior in the name of compassion. They may look like my children but they are not. Things get worse not better through indiscriminate “helping”.
"Other people's children" are necessary to have a future.
Thanks for this, Elissa! As someone who's written a lot about the challenges of motherhood, it's been interesting (to say the least) to recently become one myself. Still trying to figure out how to hold onto the both/and of it all, but I've been thinking about When You Care a lot these last few months.
Ah, thanks so much for sharing that with me. I am so so excited to hear how you are processing IRL motherhood and can't wait to read about it when you are ready. For me the both/and has never gone away, but definitely shape-shifted over the years...and now with an 8 and 12 y.o. I feel like a very heavy door has closed (I can almost hear the thump, see the dust rise) on early parenthood and motherhood now takes place in an entirely different, and in my case, much easier, terrain.