As Mother’s Day approaches this weekend, I am unsettled by a movement moving into mainstream culture.
Pronatalism, an ideology that encourages women to have more children to reverse a decline in birth rates, is back with a new group of proponents buoyed by the support of government allies.
I’ll state here that I love children. I love being a mother. But this latest effort to manufacture a baby boom is disturbing, primarily because (as usual) the most prominent voices shaping the movement are not mothers.
It’s no surprise that in late March, men comprised the majority of the 200 attendees gathered for a weekend convention to discuss how to save humanity by birthing more babies. On-site matchmakers and ministers were ready to marry couples (heterosexual only, please!) who are ready to procreate.
It is true that the U.S. birth rate has been declining for decades and is currently at a near-historical low. But this is also true for the rest of the world. The Total Fertility Rate in the U.S. is below replacement level. Without immigration, we would need this simulated birth rate estimate to move from 1.6 to 2.1 births per woman to keep the population growing.
The new crop of pronatalists considers this a crisis of apocalyptic proportions with dire economic consequences. Members of this movement come in several stripes.
Some want the influx of babies to be genetically superior and are willing to use technology to customize their offspring. They are less invested in babies being raised in a traditional family structure than those who only support a baby boom in the context of a heterosexual, Christian marriage — preferably without the use of IVF.
Then there are those who want more babies in America, but only babies of their kind.
This movement has already demonstrated that it isn’t about making motherhood easier or more compelling for women. It is a barely concealed attempt to create a population with specific genetic traits, double down on traditional gender roles and strip women of the freedom that comes with choosing our path through life.
The scientifically and morally bankrupt theory that humans can be improved through selective breeding evolved in 1883 when Francis Galton advocated that society should promote the marriage and breeding of the “fittest individuals” by offering financial incentives.
This 140-year-old idea has been repackaged as a potential policy of the Trump administration — a $5,000 baby bonus for married women and a medal for moms with six or more children (another idea from the early 20th century). Today’s pronatalists claim intellectual superiority, but they are stealing ideas from the past.
Women who don’t want to have children or who do want children but haven’t had the right circumstances might find this tone-deaf response to important social issues off-putting.
One Pew Center study found that among women under 50 years old, 64% said they don’t want children. Their reasons are not solely financial, though raising kids is expensive. They want to do other things before having children, they are worried about the state of the world, or they have no interest in taking on the 24/7 demands of modern motherhood.
The story is different for women over 50. One of the biggest reasons they didn’t have children is that it just never happened.
For a movement that gives lip service to valuing motherhood, some of the proposed incentives to encourage women to have more children don’t address the actual concerns of mothers.
In Georgia, it costs more than $200,000 to raise a child from birth to age 18, based on a recent study by Lending Tree. That’s more than a $5,000 baby bonus will cover. Not everyone has access to a billionaire babymaker willing to pay for procreation.
Evidence from the social sciences indicates that birth rates would increase with investments in affordable child care, paid family leave, child tax credits and subsidies for health care, including fertility treatments and family planning.
Public investments that reduce student debt, increase affordable housing, create job security and provide incomes that grow faster than the cost of living would also go far in convincing more women to have more children.
One of the most outspoken mothers of the pronatalist movement has said she plans to have children for as long as possible (through IVF), and she is prepared to die in childbirth. It’s a provocative statement, but it gets to the heart of what feels so icky about this whole thing.
If you die having children, then you aren’t parenting. This isn’t a “celebration of motherhood.” This is a path to engineering a population devoid of anyone who doesn’t conform to a certain set of standards.
A society that truly values motherhood must also value all the ways women might create the families they wish to have. Motherhood should be expansive, not narrowly framed as a patriotic duty or rooted in restrictive gender roles or only the privilege of a select few.
Instead of pledging to die in childbirth, mothers should hold tight to the promise of living as fully and freely as we can live, for ourselves and for our children.
Read more on the Real Life blog (www.ajc.com/opinion/real-life-blog/) and find Nedra on Facebook (www.facebook.com/AJCRealLifeColumn) and X (@nrhoneajc) or email her at [email protected].
About the Author
Keep Reading
The Latest
Featured
