From Tokyo to Berlin, getting more women into the workforce, and into leadership positions, is widely recognized as good economic policy. So why are some American political leaders encouraging women to stay at home?
Amidst widespread concern over the country’s falling birth rate, a growing chorus of conservative voices is telling American women to step back from work outside the home and focus on motherhood.
The appeals are sometimes vague calls to “restore the family” and have “more babies.” But they are often more direct. A few high-profile conservatives have recently called on women to prioritize children over their careers.
Not everyone agrees with this take, even on the right. Earlier this year at the Natal Conference, a gathering of pronatalists focused on addressing low birth rates, attendees pushed back on this idea. Some noted that for many women, abandoning a career for motherhood isn’t just undesirable, it’s financially impossible.
Vice President J.D. Vance, who once disparaged Democratic leaders as “childless cat ladies,” now brands the left as “anti-family and anti-child.” In reality, Republican and Democratic parents behave remarkably similarly when it comes to family. They hold similar views of parenting, and they marry and have children at similar ages. Roughly two-thirds of mothers in both groups work outside the home. And there is no evidence that Democratic women are more likely than Republican women to delay childbearing for the sake of a career.
The real divide on this issue isn’t between left and right; it’s between those who think women must choose between careers and children, and those who believe they shouldn’t have to.
Women’s labor force participation rose dramatically during the second half of the 20th century, from less than 30 percent to nearly 60 percent of women, but that number has not changed much in the last 25 years. As women’s roles expanded beyond the home, work became more than a paycheck—it became an identity. Economic historian Claudia Goldin described this as a “quiet revolution,” as women pursued higher education and entered professions once dominated by men. They began delaying marriage and childbearing to build careers, not because they rejected motherhood, but because they valued both.
Read more: Here’s What Real Pro-Family Policy Looks Like
Today, some political leaders want to reverse that revolution. They envision a return to a time when men were the sole breadwinners and women stayed at home, at least until they had fulfilled their maternal role.
In fact, that kind of thinking may worsen the very problem these leaders claim to care about.
Birth rates have been stable in the United States for decades. Recent dips in birth rates are due to declines in teenage pregnancy, and shifts to older ages of childbearing. Meanwhile, a 2023 Gallup poll found that 45 percent of Americans said three or more children was the ideal family size, the highest level since the early 1970s. So why aren’t people having as many kids as they want?
Because it’s too expensive. When asked why they’re having fewer children, Americans most often cite financial pressures: housing costs, lack of childcare, and job insecurity. The issue isn’t that women are choosing careers over motherhood. They’re trying to pay the rent.
If political leaders want more babies, they need to make parenting more affordable and more compatible with working life. That means better child care, paid leave, flexible work, and affordable housing—not moral lectures about gender roles.
Other countries are learning this lesson the hard way. South Korea, for example, has one of the world’s lowest birth rates: less than half the U.S. rate. It also ranks near the bottom among wealthy nations in workplace equality. South Korean women, facing rigid expectations and workplace penalties, have increasingly opted out of marriage and motherhood altogether. A growing “4B” movement—short for “no dating, no sex, no marriage, no kids”—has captured public attention, both in Korea and abroad.
In response, the South Korean government declared a demographic crisis and began rolling out sweeping reforms: expanded parental leave (now one of the most generous paternity leave policies of all wealthy countries), bonuses for childbirth, required corporate disclosures about child care access, and a national campaign for work-life balance. The investment has topped $270 billion, but promises an even larger economic return if successful. And for the first time in years, both marriage and birth rates have ticked upward in Korea.
America would do well to pay attention.
U.S. leaders can continue pressuring women to choose between work and family, an approach that is not only unpopular but unworkable for many who are already struggling to make ends meet—or they can embrace policies that support both.
If politicians force women to choose, they risk replicating the demographic crises seen elsewhere. Alternatively, they can help build a society where both women and men can thrive in their chosen career and at home.
The message to Americans should be simple: You don’t have to choose between working and parenting. We’ll help you do both.
The post The Real Way to Boost Birth Rates appeared first on TIME.
