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

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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CNBC

24 minutes ago

• CNBC

Some lawmakers in both parties question the legality of Trump's Iran strikes

WASHINGTON — Several members of Congress in both parties Saturday questioned the legality of President Donald Trump's move to launch military strikes on Iran. While Republican leaders and many rank-and-file members stood by Trump's decision to bomb Iran's major nuclear enrichment facilities, at least two GOP lawmakers joined Democrats across the party spectrum in suggesting it was unconstitutional for him to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. "While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional," Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who usually aligns with Trump, said on X. "I look forward to his remarks tonight." Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said in response to Trump's social media post announcing the strikes: "This is not Constitutional." Massie introduced a bipartisan resolution this week seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran "unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran" passed by Congress. In brief remarks from the White House on Saturday night, Trump defended the strikes but did not mention the basis of his legal authority to launch them without Congress' having given him that power. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., reacted in real time during a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, slamming Trump's actions as "grossly unconstitutional." "The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right," Sanders told the crowd, which broke out in "no more war!" chants. Some Democrats called it an impeachable offense for the president to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Trump's move is "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," she said on X. "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations." Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., said on social media: "This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten called on House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to "grow a spine" and protect the war powers reserved for Congress. Johnson said Trump respects the Constitution as he sought to lay the groundwork to defend his decision to act unilaterally. "The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties," he said in a statement. Johnson's remarks, along with support for Trump's move offered by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., indicate that Trump may have sufficient political cover to avoid blowback from the Republican-controlled Congress. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." But he stopped short of labeling the military action illegal or unconstitutional. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., was more direct on the legal question. "The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional," said Clark, the No. 2 Democrat. "In doing so, the President has exposed our military and diplomatic personnel in the region to the risk of further escalation." Appearing Saturday night on MSNBC, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-authored the resolution with Massie, wondered whether the anti-war voters who support Trump would back his move. "This is the first true crack in the MAGA base," he said, noting that Trump's rise in the 2016 primaries was aided by his move to slam President George W. Bush for the Iraq war.

USA Today

38 minutes ago

• USA Today

Trump just bombed Iran. We deserve to know why, but don't count on the truth.

You'll pardon me if I don't trust the words that fall out of the president's mouth. We were never given clear information about how close Iran was to developing a nuke. President Donald Trump may have just hurled America into war because he was mad nobody liked his recent military parade. Before you brush off that assertion and defend the June 21 U.S. attacks on three of Iran's nuclear sites − bombings ordered without showing Americans clear evidence or purpose, without congressional approval and without public support − consider who you're dealing with. Trump is a small man forever trying to make himself look big. He's a liar, a fabulist and an impulsive bully. His recent attempts at looking tough involved sending the U.S. Marines to Los Angeles and holding a large military parade in Washington, DC, that did little to impress. Opinion: From massive protests to a puny parade, America really let Donald Trump down Trump had a choice with Iran, and he chose war Israel's attacks on Iran and claims the Iranians were close to develop a nuclear weapon left Trump with a choice: He could study the facts, build a case for the American people and exhaust all diplomatic efforts. Or he could bomb the daylights out of Iranian nuclear sites and pull our nation back into a war in the Middle East. He chose the latter, perhaps because he thought it would make him look mighty. Americans were informed of the attack via words Trump posted on the social media site he owns. He later addressed the nation, saying the objective 'was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity.' 'Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success,' Trump said. 'Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' How can Americans believe a president who lies like Trump? I certainly hope so, but you'll pardon me if I don't trust the words that fall out of the president's mouth. We were never given clear information about how close Iran was to developing a nuke. And again, this attack didn't have congressional approval or popular support. An Economist/YouGov poll taken between June 13 and June 16 found: 'Only 16% of Americans think the U.S. military should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran; 60% say it should not and 24% are not sure. Majorities of Democrats (65%), Independents (61%), and Republicans (53%) oppose U.S. military intervention in Iran.' Yet here we are. The president who ran on repeated assertions that he would bring peace to the world has launched an attack that will undoubtedly put Americans abroad and at home in danger. Opinion: Trump pivots to distractions as polls show collapsing support for his agenda Trump repeatedly promised peace, yet he has now brought us to war In his inaugural address, Trump said: 'We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end − and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into. My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That's what I want to be: a peacemaker and a unifier.' Trump said of his opponent in the presidential race, then Vice President Kamala Harris: 'To make her president would be to gamble with the lives of millions of people. She would get us into a World War III guaranteed because she is too grossly incompetent to do the job.' And here we are, either fully engaged in a war with a powerful Middle-East nation or, at best, on the precipice of one. Americans deserve answers on Trump's decision to bomb Iran House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries released a statement saying: 'Donald Trump promised to bring peace to the Middle East. He has failed to deliver on that promise. The risk of war has now dramatically increased, and I pray for the safety of our troops in the region who have been put in harm's way. President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Americans deserve to know, explicitly, why these attacks took place. We deserve to know what merited the president's decision to launch the attacks without the support of Congress. But how can we expect clear and honest answers from a man who lies as easily as he breathes? Why should we expect this was anything more than a flex to soothe the insecurities of a commander-in-chief who preaches 'America first' while meaning 'Trump first'? Trump ended his comments bizarrely saying: "I just want to thank everyone, in particular God. We love you, God.' 'God help us' would be far more appropriate now. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.

San Francisco Chronicle​

an hour ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

Trump's move against Iran may draw more criticism from MAGA's anti-interventionists

President Donald Trump's decision to strike three nuclear sites in Iran could deepen a divide among some of the Republican's supporters, including high-profile backers who had said any such move would run counter to the anti-interventionism he promised to deliver. Notably though, immediately following Trump's Saturday announcement of the strike, some of those who had publicly spoken out against U.S. involvement voiced their support. The lead-up to the move against Iranian nuclear sites had exposed fissures within Trump's 'Make American Great Again' base as some of that movement's most vocal leaders, with large followings of their own, expressed deep concern about the prospect of U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war. With the president barred from seeking a third term, what remains unknown is how long-lasting the schism could be for Trump and his current priorities, as well as the overall future of his 'America First' movement. Among the surrogates who spoke out against American involvement were former senior adviser Steve Bannon, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., commentator Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk, the founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point. Part of their consternation was rooted in Trump's own vocalized antipathy for what he and others have termed the 'forever wars' fomented in previous administrations. As the possibility of military action neared, some of those voices tamped down their rhetoric. According to Trump, Carlson even called to 'apologize.' Steve Bannon On Wednesday, Bannon, one of top advisers in Trump's 2016 campaign, told an audience in Washington that bitter feelings over Iraq were a driving force for Trump's first presidential candidacy and the MAGA movement. "One of the core tenets is no forever wars,' Bannon said. But the longtime Trump ally, who served a four-month sentence for defying a subpoena in the congressional investigation into the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, went on to suggest that Trump will maintain loyalty from his base no matter what. On Wednesday, Bannon acknowledged that while he and others will argue against military intervention until the end, 'the MAGA movement will back Trump.' Ultimately, Bannon said that Trump would have to make the case to the American people if he wanted to get involved in Iran. 'We don't like it. Maybe we hate it,' Bannon said, predicting what the MAGA response would be. 'But, you know, we'll get on board.' Tucker Carlson The commentator's rhetoric toward Trump was increasingly critical. Carlson, who headlined large rallies with the Republican during the 2024 campaign, earlier this month suggested that the president's posture was breaking his pledge to keep the U.S. out of new foreign entanglements. Trump clapped back at Carlson on social media, calling him 'kooky.' During an event at the White House on Wednesday, Trump said that Carlson had 'called and apologized' for calling him out. Trump said Carlson 'is a nice guy.' Carlson's conversation with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that day laid bare the divides among many Republicans. The two sparred for two hours over a variety of issues, primarily about possible U.S. involvement in Iran. Carlson accused Cruz of placing too much emphasis on protecting Israel in his foreign policy worldview. 'You don't know anything about Iran,' Carlson said to Cruz, after the senator said he didn't know Iran's population or its ethnic composition. 'You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of a government, and you don't know anything about the country.' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene The Georgia Republican, who wore the signature red MAGA cap for Democratic President Joe Biden's State of the Union address in 2024, publicly sided with Carlson, criticizing Trump for deriding 'one of my favorite people.' Saying the former Fox News commentator 'unapologetically believes the same things I do,' Greene wrote on X this past week that those beliefs include that 'foreign wars/intervention/regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction.' 'That's not kooky,' Greene added, using the same word Trump used to describe Carlson. 'That's what millions of Americans voted for. It's what we believe is America First.' About an hour before Trump's announcement, Greene posted on X that, 'Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war.' 'This is not our fight,' she added. 'Peace is the answer.' In another post following Trump's announcement, Greene urged, 'Let us all join together and pray for peace." Alex Jones The far-right conspiracy theorist and Infowars host posted on social media earlier in the week a side-by-side of Trump's official presidential headshot and an artificial intelligence-generated composite of Trump and former Republican President George W. Bush. Trump and many of his allies have long disparaged Bush for involving the United States in the 'forever wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Writing 'What you voted for' above Trump's image and 'What you got' above the composite, Jones added: 'I hope this is not the case…' Charlie Kirk Kirk is among those who seemed to have made a quick about-face. About an hour after Trump's announcement, Kirk posted a series of messages on social media supportive of Trump, saying Iran had given the president 'no choice.' Kirk praised Trump for acting 'with prudence and decisiveness" and 'for the betterment of humanity.' Kirk also reposted a 2011 tweet in which Trump had written that 'Iran's quest for nuclear weapons is a major threat to our nation's national security interests. We can't allow Iran to go nuclear.' 'When Trump speaks, you should listen,' Kirk added. It was a different tone from the start of the week, when Kirk said in a Fox News interview that 'this is the moment that President Trump was elected for.' But he had warned of a potential MAGA divide over Iran. Days later, Kirk said that 'Trump voters, especially young people, supported President Trump because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war.' He also wrote that 'there is historically little support for America to be actively engaged in yet another offensive war in the Middle East. We must work for and pray for peace.'