logo
Why Voices on the Right Are Telling Moms to ‘Lean In'

Why Voices on the Right Are Telling Moms to ‘Lean In'

The Atlantic16-06-2025
Online, they say things such as: 'I believe women get to have it all: A career. An education. A happy marriage. And children.' And: 'Women—you are strong enough to succeed in both motherhood & your career. You don't have to choose one.' And: 'You don't have to put your career on hold to have kids.'
They are not, however, the former Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg, or the girlboss head of a progressive nonprofit, or a liberal influencer. Those quotations come from the social-media feeds of, respectively, Abby Johnson, the founder of the anti-abortion group And Then There Were None; Kristan Hawkins, the president of the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America; and the married couple Simone and Malcolm Collins, who run a nonprofit in the conservative-leaning pronatalist movement that encourages Americans to have more children. (Simone also recently ran for office as a Republican.) They all contend that women need to make very few trade-offs between having kids and building a flourishing career.
This argument, coming from these voices, is surprising for a few reasons. The idea that mothers should 'lean in' to challenging jobs was popularized by Sandberg, a prominent Democrat, in 2013 and embraced by legions of liberal career women. Within a few years, attitudes had soured toward both Sandberg and leaning in. Many mothers pushed back on the expectation that they be everything to everyone, and opted instead for raging, quiet quitting, or leaning out. A sunny lean-in revival is unexpected, especially from conservative-leaning women, a group that for the most part did not embrace this message when Sandberg was making it.
The specter of conservatives wanting to trap women at home has long been a liberal boogeyman, but it is based in some reality. Historically, some on the right, including Phyllis Schlafly and earlier-era J. D. Vance, have argued that women should, at the very least, deprioritize paid work so they can focus on motherhood. Some conservatives continue to make this claim: At a 2023 pronatalism conference, the far-right businessman Charles Haywood told audiences that 'generally, women should not have careers.' Allie Beth Stuckey, a conservative podcast host, once told my colleague Elaine Godfrey that women should put family first, and that any professional enterprise—say, a 'crocheting business' or the like—should come second to their kids. The conservative author and podcaster Ben Shapiro has written that girls are troubled because society has told them that they need not 'aspire to bear and rear children or make preparations to build a home. Instead, we've told them that they can run from their own biology,' including by pursuing 'more work hours.'
By contrast, Hawkins once posted a photo of her family, which includes four children, as proof that women can 'do both: Have a career & be a mother.' In reference to a picture of White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt holding her baby son at work, Hawkins wrote that it's a lie that 'you need to end a child's life'—a reference to having an abortion—'to have the career you want.' A female attendee at a recent pronatalist convention told a New York Times reporter, 'It's horrible to be telling young women that having kids is the worst thing you can do for your career.' Kristi Hamrick, a vice president of Students for Life of America, who has four children, told me, 'I'm highly offended by the modern-day misogyny that says you can't have a career and family, so pick career. There is no difference to turn-of-the-century misogyny which says you cannot have home and career, so stay home.'
The women I spoke with who make this argument expressed frustration with those on the right encouraging women to devote themselves fully to housekeeping and child-rearing. Hawkins told me she objects to what she calls 'tradwife stuff'—stay-at-home wives who post videos of themselves, for example, milling their own flour—because 'that's not financially possible for the majority of people.' Hawkins said that she has always worked full-time and that her husband homeschools their kids. 'I think especially now in the right wing, this messaging is coming across like, 'You're either an evil feminist career woman, or you're a mother,'' she said. 'I'm like, 'What about women who want to do both of those things?'' Johnson, who has eight children, told me that in recent years, 'this tradwife movement has been very loud. And I don't like it. I don't think it's helpful. I think it's kind of reductionist. Like, 'Women, you are just here to breed.'' She's heard conservative male speakers at events use the term boss babe pejoratively. 'What's wrong with being a boss?' she wondered.
Simone Collins, who works in private equity in addition to running her family's nonprofit, also pushed back against traditionalist views of women and work. Her mother, she told me, 'basically put her entire life on hold to raise me.' After Collins was grown, she 'didn't have anything else to live for and got really depressed, and that's terrifying to me.'
Now Collins, who has four kids, wants to model for her daughters the idea that having children and working hard at a career is normal. She told me that she works from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day. Unlike the families of some of the other women I spoke with, hers relies on outside child care: Their tenants provide it in exchange for rent. 'I'm just not the kind of person who can sit at home,' she said, 'and only focus on kids.'
Many of these women embrace progressive-leaning views on family policy. 'I think it's a gross detriment to society that we don't have federal parental leave,' Johnson told me. (This mirrors a growing sense among Republican voters that the government should boost support for working parents.) All of the women I spoke with mentioned something that is, at the very least, liberal coded: the importance of remote work to working moms. And yet none of them would generally be considered progressive. In our conversation, Hawkins criticized feminists of the 1970s and '80s; Hamrick described the concept of women working as 'very biblical,' pointing out the Proverbs 31 tale of a 'wife of noble character' who 'makes linen garments and sells them.' Johnson has supported 'head-of-household voting,' in which, hypothetically, a husband could cast a ballot for his wife.
Elizabeth Bruenig: Why the left should embrace pronatalism
Still, the lean-in argument is taking hold among some of these women, possibly as a practical calculation that backing women into a kids-or-career corner won't help raise fertility rates or persuade women to avoid abortion. Women attend college at higher rates than men, and men's labor-force participation has stalled while women's continues to grow. Only about a quarter of mothers in two-parent households stay at home while their husband works, a steep drop-off from the '70s. Nearly half of moms are their family's breadwinner. Despite possible differences in what they believe to be ideal, Republican and Democratic mothers work outside the home at similar rates. Today's young women will likely end up working—and wanting to do so. 'A Leave It to Beaver –style, more patriarchal approach to pronatalism is just not going to work,' Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, who focuses on family policy and has four kids, told me. (He works part-time, and his wife is a tenure-track professor.)
Encouraging Americans to have children seems to require acknowledging that few families can survive on one income. 'Everyone has to work,' Collins told me. 'If they make it such that you are not a conservative Christian or you're not part of our community if you have a working mother, they're not gonna have any more community members, because everyone has to have a job now.'
In their well-intentioned effort to encourage mothers' career aspirations, however, some of these women may be overstating their case. (Collins told me that she hasn't sacrificed her career for her kids 'even a little bit.') Many of them have organized their life in ways that are not available to many other working moms. All of those I spoke with work from home, which is something many women would like to do but cannot. Hamrick had a period of working part-time when her kids were young, something that most working mothers would like to do as well, but that relatively few are able to do, because part-time jobs tend to not pay well. The women I spoke with are all high up at organizations that offer a level of flexibility that, say, a nurse or a teacher does not enjoy. (Johnson, of And Then There Were None, lets her employees take naps in the middle of the day.) And they all have very supportive partners, some of whom don't work outside the home.
The thing is, for many women, having kids can be really bad for their career. Although the 'motherhood penalty' on wages varies depending on a woman's age and profession, and has declined over time, it seems to continue to exist in the short term. That is, although their earnings might eventually bounce back, women tend to make less money immediately after having children—whether because they cut back hours; accept more flexible, lower-paying jobs; or have bosses who discriminate against them. A large study recently found that after working women have children, their income falls by half, on average, and remains depressed for at least six years. Even women who are the breadwinner of their family see their income suffer after giving birth. Hiring managers are less likely to hire mothers than women without kids, and many offer mothers lower salaries. And women with kids may avoid or be steered away from ' greedy ' jobs—or high-paying white-collar jobs—which frequently require people to work well into the night, long after day cares have closed.
'Of course there's a trade-off. It's massive,' Catherine Ruth Pakaluk, a Catholic University of America economist who has eight children, told me. 'You have to be blind to deny it.' She went on, 'If I didn't have children, I would have done a lot more professionally.' Nevertheless, she said, 'I'm happy with this trade-off.'
Marc Novicoff: The loneliness of the conservative pronatalist
When pressed, the others I interviewed, who had previously expressed unqualified positivity, acknowledged some concessions between motherhood and career. Collins believes the sacrifices should come at home: She told me that working hard and raising kids is doable if people are less particular about the parenting part. 'If I spend the afternoon with the kids, the house is cleaner than it was before. The kids are well behaved. They're fed. They're all dressed. They look neat and tidy,' she told me. 'If Malcolm spends the afternoon with the kids, I come home, they're naked, their faces are smattered with candy smudges.' Many women, she said, don't accept this more anarchic brand of 'dad parenting,' so they cut back at work to do it themselves. 'If we revised that and made it more normalized to have kids more chaotically parented or parented in a more chill way,' she said, 'then I think women would be more comfortable not leaning out.'
Johnson said with some regret that she has missed key moments with her kids—for instance, witnessing some of their first steps—to keep up her travel-heavy schedule. Despite this, she said, 'I'm a better mom because I am not at home 24 hours a day with my children.' Women, she added, 'have this feminine genius within all of us that I believe is essential in the workplace.'
Others said they'd made compromises at work: Hamrick said her career has 'ebbed and flowed,' and for years she worked part-time. Hawkins said she often tells young women that being a mother and working full-time 'does require sacrifice.'
But the women I spoke with seemed especially concerned about the drawbacks that come from not having kids. They want more people to enjoy the fulfillment and sense of meaning they believe children bring to life, and to not regret missing their chance. Research suggests that a small number of Americans without children have regrets, but most do not; at the same time, some parents experience regret that they chose to have kids. Still, some women I spoke with worried that those who don't become mothers may live to lament their choices.
At some point, Hawkins told me, women who focus on 'making as much money as you can, climbing the corporate ladder so then your boss can fire you at any moment, and going on great vacations that you put on Instagram' may well look at their life and think, Wait a minute. What is this really about? Hawkins hopes that when they do, 'it's not too late' for them to have children. So she tells women they can have it all—even though for many women, that's much harder than it sounds.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate confirms Trump's pick to oversee higher ed, a man tied to for-profit colleges
Senate confirms Trump's pick to oversee higher ed, a man tied to for-profit colleges

USA Today

time3 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Senate confirms Trump's pick to oversee higher ed, a man tied to for-profit colleges

The Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's pick to oversee higher education policy, a man with deep ties to the for-profit college industry, by a 50-to-45 vote on August 1. Senate Majority John Thune filed cloture on Kent's nomination earlier in the week. And the education committee had already advanced Kent on a 12-11 vote without a hearing in late May. The undersecretary at the Department of Education oversees billions in federal financial aid and is charged with ensuring America's colleges provide a quality education. Education Secretary Linda McMahon had previously told USA TODAY that Kent is a 'natural leader' whose experience and concern for students 'make him the ideal selection for under secretary of education." He had won the support of several prominent university trade groups who are opposed to Trump's attacks on universities, but said they supported Kent's nomination. His confirmation comes as the Trump administration seeks to reshape higher education and has launched numerous investigations into high profile universities. Kent had already been working at the agency on the administration's initiatives like K-12 school choice. But prior to working in the government, Kent had a long history working for or close to for-profit colleges. From 2008 to the end of 2015, Kent worked for Education Affiliates, a for-profit college company. When he left, he was a vice president of legislative and regulatory affairs. In 2015, the Department of Justice announced the company had agreed to a $13 million settlement to settle accusations it had gamed the federal financial aid system. The company told USA TODAY Kent was not involved in the settlement or the allegations of fraud. Critics, including student advocacy groups and teacher unions, had called on the Senate education committee to put Kent through a public hearing to answer questions about his time working for the company. And one of the original whistleblowers tied to that case, Dorothy Thomas, expressed concern about someone from the company's leadership holding the under secretary position. Kent had also worked for Career Education Colleges and Universities, a for-profit college trade group. He developed a reputation for deep policy knowledge while speaking against regulations geared toward the for-profit college industry. That group's CEO, Jason Altmire, said Kent was not driven by partisan politics and would bring an unbiased view to the under secretary position. He then went to work for Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin's administration as a deputy secretary of education. Youngkin, in a prepared statement, said Kent improved how Virginia manages colleges and made them more accountable to students and families through increased transparency. Chair of the Virginia Senate's education committee, Democrat Ghazala Hashmi, told USA TODAY Kent had tried to destabilize accreditation in the state and he was aligned with efforts to dismantle consumer protections. In a departing message to the commonwealth, Kent said he was proud of reducing costs while pushing for free speech and accountability at Virginia's colleges. Chris Quintana is an investigative reporter at USA TODAY. He can be reached at cquintana@ or via Signal at 202-308-9021. He is on X at @CQuintanaDC

No nominees deal
No nominees deal

Politico

time4 minutes ago

  • Politico

No nominees deal

The Senate will try to break an impasse Friday to advance three spending bills in hopes of showing progress after days of discord. A separate holdup over presidential nominations, meanwhile, could come down to direct talks between Democrats and the White House. A patchwork of objections from senators on both sides of the aisle have held up the spending legislation for days and foiled a plan for what some had hoped would be a four-bill package. But members expressed new optimism Friday that a second, more limited attempt could move forward. It's one of two pieces of major business Republican leaders are hoping to wrap up before the Senate starts its traditional summer recess. In addition to the spending bills — where they are keen to show some progress ahead of the Sept. 30 government shutdown deadline — they also want to confirm a broad tranche of President Donald Trump's nominees. The nominee conversations appear more dicey, senators said, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Friday that he has put Trump officials 'into conversation directly' with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's team. Top White House staffers were also in the Capitol on Thursday night after Thune met with Trump at the White House. 'This is how this is ultimately going to get resolved,' Thune said. Meanwhile, GOP senators said leaders are running traps on a possible deal that would advance the smaller package of spending bills. Under the pending proposal, leaders would seek unanimous consent to tie together the fiscal 2026 spending bills funding the Veterans Affairs and Agriculture departments, as well as military construction projects and the FDA. A third spending bill, funding Congress itself, could be voted on separately. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins said Friday morning she expects a unanimous consent request on some constellation of those three bills. The Maine Republican is eager to show progress on bipartisan spending bills before the Senate leaves for its lengthy August recess. Upon their return, members will have only a handful of session days to make further progress ahead of the shutdown deadline. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) has made clear he will object to including Legislative Branch funding in the package and wants the chance to vote against the $7.1 billion bill. It's the smallest of the 12 annual appropriations bills, but Kennedy maintains it still costs too much. 'They agreed to my proposal,' he told reporters Friday. 'They're going to have one vote on [Military Construction–VA] and [Agriculture-FDA] together and separate vote on [Legislative Branch] so I can vote no. Then they'll marry them up later if all three pass, as they probably will.' Coming to a nominations deal could be much trickier, given Trump's determination to get all of his 150-plus pending nominees confirmed quickly. Trump on Thursday said on Truth Social that the Senate 'must stay in Session, taking no recess' until all of the nominees are confirmed. Even if senators stay in Washington, that goal will be all but impossible to meet absent Democratic cooperation. Democrats under Schumer are exploring whether to quickly confirm a smaller subset of nominees in exchange for other concessions, such as the release of government funding they claim has been illegally 'impounded' by the Trump administration. Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.

Trump injects a new dose of uncertainty in tariffs as he pushes start date back to Aug. 7
Trump injects a new dose of uncertainty in tariffs as he pushes start date back to Aug. 7

Los Angeles Times

time33 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Trump injects a new dose of uncertainty in tariffs as he pushes start date back to Aug. 7

WASHINGTON — For weeks, President Donald Trump was promising the world economy would change on Friday with his new tariffs in place. It was an ironclad deadline, administration officials assured the public. But when Trump signed the order Thursday night imposing new tariffs, the start date of the punishing import taxes was pushed back seven days so the tariff schedule could be updated. The change in tariffs on 66 countries, the European Union, Taiwan and the Falkland Islands was potentially welcome news to countries that had not yet reached a deal with the U.S. It also injected a new dose of uncertainty for consumers and businesses still wondering what's going to happen and when. Trump told NBC News in a Thursday night interview the tariffs process was going 'very well, very smooth.' But even as the Republican president insisted these new rates would stay in place, he added: 'It doesn't mean that somebody doesn't come along in four weeks and say we can make some kind of a deal.' Trump has promised that his tax increases on the nearly $3 trillion in goods imported to the United States will usher in newfound wealth, launch a cavalcade of new factory jobs, reduce the budget deficits and, simply, get other countries to treat America with more respect. The vast tariffs risk jeopardizing America's global standing as allies feel forced into unfriendly deals. As taxes on the raw materials used by U.S. factories and basic goods, the tariffs also threaten to create new inflationary pressures and hamper economic growth — concerns the Trump White House has dismissed. As the clock ticked toward Trump's self-imposed deadline, few things seemed to be settled other than the president's determination to levy the taxes he has talked about for decades. The very legality of the tariffs remains an open question as a U.S. appeals court on Thursday heard arguments on whether Trump had exceeded his authority by declaring an 'emergency' under a 1977 law to charge the tariffs, allowing him to avoid congressional approval. Trump was ebullient as much of the world awaited what he would do. 'Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again,' he said Thursday morning on Truth Social. Others saw a policy carelessly constructed by the U.S. president, one that could impose harms gradually over time that would erode America's power and prosperity. 'The only things we'll know for sure on Friday morning are that growth-sapping U.S. import taxes will be historically high and complex, and that, because these deals are so vague and unfinished, policy uncertainty will remain very elevated,' said Scott Lincicome, a vice president of economics at the Cato Institute. 'The rest is very much TBD.' Trump initially imposed the Friday deadline after his previous 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April resulted in a stock market panic. His unusually high tariff rates announced then led to recession fears, prompting Trump to impose a 90-day negotiating period. When he was unable to create enough trade deals with other countries, he extended the timeline and sent out letters to world leaders that simply listed rates, prompting a slew of hasty agreements. Swiss imports will now be taxed at a higher rate, 39%, than the 31% Trump threatened in April, while Liechtenstein saw its rate slashed from 37% to 15%. Countries not listed in the Thursday night order would be charged a baseline 10% tariff. Trump negotiated trade frameworks over the past few weeks with the EU, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines — allowing the president to claim victories as other nations sought to limit his threat of charging even higher tariff rates. He said Thursday there were agreements with other countries, but he declined to name them. Asked on Friday if countries were happy with the rates set by Trump, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said: 'A lot of them are.' The EU was awaiting a written agreement on its 15% tariff deal. Switzerland and Norway were among the dozens of countries that did not know what their tariff rate would be, while Trump agreed after a Thursday morning phone call to keep Mexico's tariffs at 25% for a 90-day negotiating period. The president separately on Thursday amended an order to raise certain tariffs on Canada to 35%. European leaders face blowback for seeming to cave to Trump, even as they insist that this is merely the start of talks and stress the importance of maintaining America's support of Ukraine's fight against Russia. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has already indicated that his country can no longer rely on the U.S. as an ally, and Trump declined to talk to him on Thursday. India, with its 25% tariff announced Wednesday by Trump, may no longer benefit as much from efforts to pivot manufacturing out of China. While the Trump administration has sought to challenge China's manufacturing dominance, it is separately in extended trade talks with that country, which faces a 30% tariff and is charging a 10% retaliatory rate on the U.S. Major companies came into the week warning that tariffs would begin to squeeze them financially. Ford Motor Co. said it anticipated a net $2 billion hit to earnings this year from tariffs. French skincare company Yon-Ka is warning of job freezes, scaled-back investment and rising prices. Federal judges sounded skeptical Thursday about Trump's use of a 1977 law to declare the long-standing U.S. trade deficit a national emergency that justifies tariffs on almost every country. 'You're asking for an unbounded authority,' Judge Todd Hughes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told a Justice Department lawyer representing the administration. The judges didn't immediately rule, and the case is expected to reach the Supreme Court eventually. The Trump White House has pointed to the increase in federal revenues as a sign that the tariffs will reduce the budget deficit, with $127 billion in customs and duties collected so far this year — about $70 billion more than last year. There are not yet signs that tariffs will lead to more domestic manufacturing jobs, and Friday's employment report showed the U.S. economy now has 37,000 fewer manufacturing jobs than it did in April. On Thursday, one crucial measure of inflation, known as the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, showed that prices have climbed 2.6% over the 12 months that ended in June, a sign that inflation may be accelerating as the tariffs flow through the economy. The prospect of higher inflation from the tariffs has caused the Federal Reserve to hold off on additional cuts to its benchmark rates, a point of frustration for Trump, who on Truth Social, called Fed Chair Jerome Powell a 'TOTAL LOSER.' But before Trump's tariffs, Powell seemed to suggest that the tariffs had put the U.S. economy and much of the world into a state of unknowns. 'There are many uncertainties left to resolve,' Powell told reporters Wednesday. 'So, yes, we are learning more and more. It doesn't feel like we're very close to the end of that process. And that's not for us to judge, but it does — it feels like there's much more to come.' Boak writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Paul Wiseman contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store