logo
Parenting is not just for pronatalists: the progressive case for raising kids

Parenting is not just for pronatalists: the progressive case for raising kids

The Guardian4 hours ago

A few months ago, I was at a playground just a couple of blocks from our home in Washington DC, when a mom I barely knew turned to me mid-conversation and said: 'I think I might be the deep state.'
The Guardian's journalism is independent. We will earn a commission if you buy something through an affiliate link. Learn more.
It was mid-March. Doge was tearing through the city, dismantling federal agencies at dizzying speed. Donald Trump, re-elected on a promise to 'shatter the deep state', had fired thousands of longtime civil servants in his first weeks back in office.
The job cuts have been top of mind in Washington. Most of my kids' playdates these days begin with nap schedule updates and end in quiet dread.
It isn't just jobs. International students are being deported. Measles outbreaks are creeping closer. The climate crisis is at our doorstep: blizzards one week, wildfires the next. Every day brings fresh threats to public safety, democracy and the planet itself.
'It makes you wonder,' she said as we pushed our daughters on the swings, 'what kind of world did we bring our kids into?'
It's a question I can't stop thinking about. I've lived in and reported on parenting across five continents, and what continues to astonish me is how uniquely punishing early parenthood is in the west, especially for those most committed to building a fairer world. Progressives are rightly vocal about how hard it is to raise kids, but too often, we forget to make the case for why it's still worth it.
In the face of so many overlapping crises, the decision to have children can feel reckless, or worse, like an act of denial. But parenting can also be something else entirely: a stubborn act of hope.
Raising children offers a crash course in progressive values. It's a way of tying ourselves more deeply to the future, of feeling the stakes of climate change, inequality and injustice – not as distant headlines, but as urgent matters affecting someone whose lunch you just packed.
By failing to make a case for children and families, the left has surrendered these issues to the pronatalist right. We've handed over the 'family values' agenda, allowing it to be defined by a rigid, exclusionary vision of parenthood.
Project 2025, the policy blueprint shaping much of Trump's current agenda, pledges to 'restore' a Christian nationalist view of the family unit as 'the centerpiece of American life'.
Figures such as JD Vance and Elon Musk, as well as the conservative Heritage Foundation, have declared childbearing a moral and civic duty. Some have even proposed medals and cash for mothers. At this year's March for Life, Vance called for 'more babies in the United States of America' and more 'beautiful young men and women' to raise them.
When we see child rearing as a private project, we forget that many of the movements that shaped the left – civil rights, labour, climate justice – were powered by people who looked at the next generation and decided they were worth fighting for. In his most well-known speech, Martin Luther King Jr didn't just dream of a better world for himself, he dreamed that his four little children would grow up in a nation where they would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. His vision was rooted in legacy.
That's what parenting does. It gives shape to our politics. It puts flesh on our ideals. It forces us to ask: what are we building and who is it for? Raising children doesn't distract from that work; it clarifies it.
Of course, parenthood isn't the only path to caring about the future – but it makes it harder to look away. It compels us to feel the weight of policy decisions in our bones. It blows open our empathy and softens the edges of individualism. Suddenly, every child becomes your child. Every policy becomes personal. You start noticing the stroller-unfriendly sidewalks, the unaffordable summer camps, the lack of paid leave – not just for yourself, but for all parents.
There's science behind this shift. Researchers have found that becoming a parent activates a 'parental caregiving network' in the brain, lighting up areas tied to empathy, emotional processing and social understanding. It happens in both mothers and fathers. For dads especially, the extent of this neurological change is closely tied to how much hands-on caregiving they do. In other words, caregiving rewires our brains to connect more, care more and notice the needs of others. At its best, parenting strengthens the very instincts progressives say they want to build society around.
I've seen this empathy in action. Before I had kids, I was reporting on the Rio Olympics and walking the beach one night with a colleague, a mother of two, when we were approached by a group of children begging for money. I clutched my purse and walked faster. But my co-worker slowed down, took off her blazer and wrapped it around a shivering child about her son's age. 'Get home,' she said gently. 'Your mom is probably looking for you.'
I could tell right away we were operating on different levels of empathy. She saw that child as an extension of her own kids. I wasn't there yet. But eventually, I got there, too.
When I finally became a mother, I began to see stories I covered differently. Now, when I interview parents who've lost children to gun violence in Brazil's favelas, I understand their grief in a new way. I report with deeper urgency and deeper care, seeing myself in their shoes, and my children in theirs.
This rewiring of the brain creates a political opening. It expands our sense of who counts as 'us'. It softens the boundary between self and other. In doing so, it changes how we interpret harm, not as something happening 'out there', but as something personal, urgent and unacceptable.
Yet, the demands of caregiving can pull us away from political life. A 2022 UK study found that parenthood temporarily reduces political participation among mothers. The reason is obvious: we're exhausted. Calling your representatives between diaper changes feels impossible. I get it. Some days, I fantasize about deleting all my news apps, retreating into a cozy, apocalypse-adjacent bubble with my kids, and calling it a day.
'Generally, I think parents are the worst at advocating for themselves because they are just too damn tired. It's one more thing in the lives of people who already have too much expected of them,' Jennifer Glass, professor at the University of Texas's department of sociology and Population Research Center and an expert on parental happiness, told me.
But parenting doesn't have to distract from political work. It can fuel it. When we do organize, our sharpened parental empathy can translate into political power. Around the world, it's progressive movements, often driven by the demands of parents, that have expanded what family support can look like. In Sweden, it was working mothers who pushed for what became the world's most generous parental leave system, eventually adding incentives for men to take their fair share. In Singapore, multigenerational bonds are built into policy: the government gives housing grants to families who live near grandparents and tax breaks to elders who help with childcare. In France, parents helped lead the 1968 protests that birthed a cooperative childcare system.
But when progressives step back from family values, conservatives fill the void.
This is not a uniquely American phenomenon. According to the United Nations, the share of countries with explicit pronatalist policies has nearly tripled since 1976. But these visions often center on traditional gender roles and narrow definitions of family, excluding anyone who doesn't fit the mold. We shouldn't let the only cultural narrative around parenting come from those who see it as a tool for enforcing hierarchy and control.
Progressives must also fight for a say in the values shaping the next generation. A 2023 Pew survey found that 89% of teenagers raised by Democratic parents identify with or lean toward the Democratic party. For Republican parents, the number is nearly as high, at 81%.
That suggests political identity is often passed down through environment and lived experience: what kids hear at the dinner table, what they see modeled at home and which communities shape their worldview.
From there, each new generation brings fresh ideas about justice. Social progress doesn't only happen by changing the minds of the old; it happens through generational renewal. Throughout the country, youth raised in the shadow of mass shootings are leading the charge for gun reform. In Montana, young people took the government to court over climate change and won. In Sweden, Greta Thunberg sparked a global climate movement at 15.
These movements exist because someone raised those children to believe they had not just the right, but the responsibility, to shape the world around them. But if we step back from parenting, or treat it as apolitical, we leave that space wide open.
The right is more than ready to fill it. That's why they're fighting so hard to control what children are taught, which books they read, whose families are visible in their classrooms and which identities are allowed to exist.
This is the moment for the left to reclaim family as a public good. Progressives shouldn't just defend the right to abortion, we must fight for people's ability to have families and raise them with dignity. That means paid leave, universal childcare, affordable healthcare and a livable planet.
It also means rejecting the caricature that progressives are a party of 'childless cat ladies' while conservatives corner the market on family values. We are, and always have been, the natural home of pro-family policy.
After all, children tether us to the future, but also to each other. Progressive values thrive in that space of interdependence, where no one is expected to go it alone. Caring for kids – whether as parents, educators, neighbors or policymakers – demands a communal ethic of care.
I've seen this ethic in action across the world. While writing my book, Please Yell at My Kids, I spent years studying how families around the world raise children in community. In the Netherlands, children as young as eight walk themselves to school. Parents trust that if they need help, a community member will step in. In Denmark, babies nap unattended in strollers outside cafes – not because parents are careless, but because they trust the society around them. In Mozambique, where formal support systems often fail, mothers rely on each other for food, childcare and safety, transforming neighborhoods into extended families. These cultures aren't perfect, but they understand that raising a child isn't a private endeavor. It's a collective one.
Some understandably hesitate to bring children into a world on fire. Others worry that parenting means stepping back from activism or ambition. But for many, becoming a parent doesn't dilute that drive; it crystallizes it. Climate change isn't just a policy failure – it's the air your child will breathe. Gun violence isn't abstract – it's a possibility you carry every time you drop them off at school. The broken systems you tolerated suddenly become intolerable when your child has to navigate them, too.
This isn't about idealizing parenthood. It's about refusing to surrender this human experience to those who would use it to divide us. So yes, the world is on fire. But refusing to bring children into it won't put the flames out. What may, perhaps, is raising a generation bold enough to rebuild it.
Marina Lopes is the author of Please Yell at My Kids: What Cultures Around the World Can Teach You About Parenting in Community, Raising Independent Kids, and Not Losing Your Mind, out now

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Lives at risk' due to aggressive seagull population
‘Lives at risk' due to aggressive seagull population

The Independent

time32 minutes ago

  • The Independent

‘Lives at risk' due to aggressive seagull population

Scottish ministers are facing calls for a national summit to address the increasingly aggressive seagull population as attacks are recorded across the country. Former Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross and fellow Tory Rachael Hamilton warned that gulls pose a serious health and safety risk, with people's lives now at risk. Critics accused the Scottish Government of inaction and NatureScot's licensing system of being bureaucratic and having a conflict of interest. Agriculture Minister Jim Fairlie acknowledged the issue's seriousness but stated he could not intervene in the licensing system due to potential judicial review, attributing the problem to people feeding gulls. NatureScot emphasised its role in balancing public safety with conservation, noting a decrease in lethal control licenses and advocating for long-term co-existence with gulls.

Iran still has enriched uranium, Israel admits
Iran still has enriched uranium, Israel admits

Telegraph

time34 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Iran still has enriched uranium, Israel admits

Iran still possesses enough nuclear material to build a bomb despite recent air strikes, a senior Israeli military official has said. He also told reporters there were 'concerns' that Tehran would rush to build a crude nuclear weapon now that the conflict between the two nations was over. The comments came as Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, rejected claims by Donald Trump that it would resume nuclear talks with the US next week. On Wednesday, Iran's parliament approved legislation to suspend all co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog. The senior Israeli defence official said on Friday: 'We understand that there is still enriched material in Iran.' They added that the Israel Defense Forces would strike the Islamic Republic again if it detected future efforts to develop a nuclear weapon. A ceasefire deal was agreed earlier this week to end the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran. The US also carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, including using bunker-busting bombs on the fortified Fordow enrichment facility. Mr Trump claimed the raid caused 'total obliteration' and that it would take 'decades' for Iran to rebuild its nuclear programme. The US president and senior administration officials also launched scathing attacks on reported leaks of US intelligence which suggested the campaign only set back Iran's ambitions by months. But while praising the accuracy of the US's B2 stealth bombers in the strikes, the Israeli official said the prospect of Iran using its surviving enriched uranium to fashion a crude nuclear warhead in secret was 'a concern'. 'It's very hard to find every gram of enriched material,' he said. 'We are tracking this, also with our allies.' He suggested that controlling whatever nuclear fuel Iran possesses could be best done through diplomatic channels. Shortly before the conflict began, the IAEA said it believed Iran possessed just over 408kg of uranium enriched to at least 60 per cent. Further enriching the material to weapons-grade, around 80 to 90 per cent, is a relatively short process. The watchdog said this could be enough for Iran to build 10 nuclear bombs. Even before the campaign began, the prospect of Iran producing a warhead and then miniaturising it to mount a ballistic missile without detection was considered nearly impossible. However, there have long been concerns that it could build a functional warhead that could be delivered manually, such as by boat or truck, undetected. On Thursday, it was reported that two European governments believed the stockpile was not at the Fordow site at the time of the strike on Sunday. Mr Trump had claimed during this week's Nato summit that talks between Iran and the US would begin next week. But speaking during a television interview, Mr Araghchi said: 'Don't take Trump's words seriously. No agreement for renewed negotiations has been made.' He added that Iran was 'reviewing its policies' following the attacks but said it was 'too early to judge whether successful negotiations are possible.' The foreign secretary also admitted that US and Israeli attacks on Iran's nuclear sites had caused 'serious damage,' although he said the full extent remained unclear as the country's Atomic Energy Organisation continued to assess the situation. 'These damages were not minor, and serious harm has been inflicted on our facilities,' he added. Rafael Grossi, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief, said he had written to the Iranian government requesting permission to travel to the country and to resume nuclear inspections. Tehran previously claimed it moved its enriched uranium before the US strikes, and Grossi said inspectors needed to check the stockpiles. 'We need to return. We need to engage,' he said. However, Mr Araghchi said Iran had 'no plans to receive' Mr Grossi. On Wednesday, Iran's parliament passed a new law suspending all co-operation with the IAEA, including removing monitoring cameras from nuclear sites and banning the watchdog's inspectors from entering the country. Providing any reports to the agency is also now illegal. The legislation passed with 222 votes in favour and none opposed. Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, the Iranian parliament's speaker, said the country's nuclear programme would now be pursued with 'greater speed.' Iran's foreign ministry also claimed that if Europe activated a 'snapback' mechanism to restore UN sanctions, it would be committing a 'historic mistake' that would 'completely eliminate Europe's role' in nuclear talks. On Thursday, Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, said that Moscow wanted Iran to continue co-operating with the IAEA, putting pressure on Tehran to reverse course. On Friday, the fragile ceasefire appeared to be holding despite both sides blaming each other for violating it. Across Iran, officials continued to celebrate what they described as a 'victory' over Israel and the US. Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has announced that funerals for senior commanders killed in the Israeli attacks will be held on Saturday. It is unclear if Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader who usually leads prayers for senior officials, will attend.

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