Who Are the Women of the Pronatalist Movement?
It was late March in Austin and roughly 200 people had flown in for the Natal Conference, an event devoted to discussing collapsing fertility rates. There were churchgoing conservatives and Silicon Valley technologists, parents of five and parents of nine, edgelords in leather jackets and women in Lilly Pulitzer, all sharing a common concern: how to convince Americans, namely American women, to have more babies. At the Friday evening reception, as attendees mingled over wine in the domed entrance of the Bullock Texas State History Museum, a 31-year-old woman remarked with a twinge of concern that there did not appear to be all that many people wearing yellow wristbands, meaning the singles. Another guest said the room seemed heavily male.
'We were going to have more women,' said the economist Bryan Caplan, a father of four. 'But they all got pregnant.' (He meant this literally; the conference organizers said four female speakers had dropped out, citing either pregnancy or caring for a sick child.)
Ben Ogilvie, a 25-year-old law student from Chicago, who came single and eager to meet someone, said he was not surprised by the male skew: 'A lot of pronatalist women are themselves having children,' he said. 'They're out there doing the work.'
With America's fertility rate at a historic low — 1,616 births per 1,000 women, far under the rate needed to maintain the population size — a 'pronatalist' community has emerged, calling for bigger families and policies that encourage childbearing. This movement has skewed heavily right, made up of cultural conservatives who see conventional family units as the bedrock of society, as well as of technologists concerned that humanity is not replacing itself. Amanda Bradford, left, with Malcolm Collins, 38, and his wife, Simone, 37. The Collinses host a podcast called 'Based Camp' and are high-profile members of the pronatalist movement. Credit... Simone Collins
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Hungary Offers Model for Conservative Higher Ed Reform
Across the West, universities have ceased to be neutral institutions. Once dedicated to the pursuit of truth, they have become fortresses of ideological conformity. Anyone who diverges from progressive orthodoxy is excluded from faculty ranks, free inquiry is subordinated to activism, and taxpayer funds flow into administrative bureaucracies that enforce political correctness. What was once debate is now enforcement. What used to be education is now indoctrination. This is no longer a matter of liberal drift but an illiberal takeover—the Berkeley hippies who moved into faculty lounges decades ago would now be considered retrograde white supremacists—a structural crisis. As our colleague Christopher Rufo laid out last month in the Manhattan Statement on Higher Education, this moment calls for more than gentle nudges. Universities have violated their founding compact to seek truth and develop knowledge for the common good. They take billions from the federal government and repay it with contempt for most of the country. Reform will not come from within, so it must be cajoled from without. The West already has a model for what such reform can look like: Hungary. Hungary's approach to higher education has attracted scorn from international media and Western academics, who label it authoritarian. In truth, it has begun what American reformers have only recently proposed, and which the Trump administration is attempting to achieve as it moves to remedy our leading universities' massive civil rights violations: a serious realignment of higher education with the values of the nation that sustain it. Since 2021, the Hungarian government has restructured many of its public universities into foundation models, governed by boards of trustees. These boards, comprised of academics and civic leaders, are tasked with upholding academic integrity while ensuring institutional accountability. These structures resemble those in place in Germany and the Netherlands, so the opposition to them isn't technical, but political: Hungary's critics oppose this restructuring not because they fear dysfunction, but because they fear competition. ROME, ITALY - JUNE 24: Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán meets the press at Palazzo Chigi after a meeting with Giorgia Meloni on June 24, 2024 in Rome, Italy. ROME, ITALY - JUNE 24: Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán meets the press at Palazzo Chigi after a meeting with Giorgia Meloni on June 24, 2024 in Rome, Italy. Simona Granati - Corbis/Getty Images Some of these reforms are specific to the Hungarian context, but the reaction to them lays bare an underlying reality: "academic freedom" in the mouths of Western progressives no longer means the freedom to pursue open inquiry. Instead, the concept has been perverted to mean higher-ed grandees' exclusive right to determine who participates in scholarly life. In an Orwellian twist, it means suppressing dissenting views, excluding nonconformists, and protecting institutional monopolies under the pretense of intellectual neutrality. Nowhere has this dynamic become clearer than in the recent controversy surrounding Balázs Orbán, the political director to Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán (no relation). Last December, Balázs Orbán successfully defended his PhD dissertation at Eötvös Loránd University. His thesis, focused on constitutional issues attending national sovereignty, was approved by a faculty committee, earned the highest honors, and passed all academic and procedural reviews. But that didn't stop left-wing academics from launching a smear campaign. A German academic blog alleged that Orbán benefited from political favoritism. Critics also alleged plagiarism, then abandoned that charge when no evidence emerged. Dissenting members of the university's doctoral council admitted that the thesis was academically sound but still opposed it on vague ethical grounds, citing Orbán's position in government. One professor called on the university to deny the degree outright, not because of scholarly deficiencies, but because of Orbán's political affiliation. This was no isolated outburst, but part of a broader effort to delegitimize conservative participation in academic life. Even Anna Unger, a legal scholar critical of the government, described the backlash as a coordinated campaign of intimidation. The campaign failed and Orbán earned his degree. But the real lesson of the episode lies in what it revealed. The opposition was not to the content of his work, but to the idea that someone aligned with Hungary's government could be allowed to participate in academic life at all. The critics were not defending scholarly standards, but their exclusive claim to setting those standards. This pattern is not unique to Hungary. American universities famously screen out candidates based on "diversity statements," enforce other ideological litmus tests, and use public funds to support political activism. Institutions that were created to educate citizens have become tools for reshaping them. The Manhattan Statement calls for a new compact, as does model legislation that one of us (Shapiro) helped develop and that's been adopted in many states. Universities should be required to eliminate political loyalty tests, disband race-based bureaucracies, and restore merit as the primary basis for admission, hiring, and promotion. Free speech must be enforced in practice, not just in theory. Institutions that refuse to comply should lose taxpayer funding. These are not radical demands, but overdue correctives necessary for restoring public trust in higher education. Hungary's experience shows that such reforms are both possible and effective. The foundation model has stabilized university finances, increased transparency, and enabled new institutions, such as the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), to grow. MCC, whose board Orbán chairs—and where both of us have been involved in programming—sponsors research, runs seminars, hosts visiting speakers, and offers fellowships to students with a range of views. It represents a different vision of what academic life can be. That vision is one in which public institutions serve the public, not a self-replicating elite. It's one in which conservatives and classical liberals can participate in scholarly debate without being treated as intruders. It's one in which universities are once again judged by whether they produce knowledge and educate citizens, not whether they reinforce progressive narratives. The university is not above the political community that sustains it. When it ceases to reflect and serve that community and begins to function as an engine of ideological enforcement—not to mention identity-based discrimination—it forfeits its privileged status. In that case, as Hungary's example shows, the state has not only the right, but also the duty, to act. Ilya Shapiro is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute and author of Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites. Charles Yockey was formerly a legal policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute who spent the past year living in Budapest as a fellow of the Hungary Foundation. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Aid groups call on Israel to end ‘weaponization' of aid in Gaza
JERUSALEM (AP) — More than 100 nonprofit groups warned Thursday that Israel's rules for aid groups working in the Gaza Strip and occupied West Bank will block much-needed relief and replace independent organizations with those that serve Israel's political and military agenda — charges that Israel denied. A letter signed by organizations including Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders and CARE accused Israel of 'weaponizing aid' as people starve in war-torn Gaza and using it as a tool to entrench control. The groups were responding to registration rules announced by Israel in March that require organizations to hand over full lists of their donors and Palestinian staff for vetting. The groups contend that doing so could endanger their staff and give Israel broad grounds to block aid if groups are deemed to be 'delegitimizing' the country or supporting boycotts or divestment. The registration measures were 'designed to control independent organizations, silence advocacy, and censor humanitarian reporting,' they said. The letter added that the rules violate European data privacy regulations, noting that in some cases aid groups have been given only seven days to comply. COGAT, the Israeli military body in charge of humanitarian aid to Gaza, denied the letter's claims. It alleged the groups were being used as cover by Hamas to 'exploit the aid to strengthen its military capabilities and consolidate its control' in Gaza. 'The refusal of some international organizations to provide the information and cooperate with the registration process raises serious concerns about their true intention,' it said in a statement on Thursday. 'The alleged delay in aid entry … occurs only when organizations choose not to meet the basic security requirements intended to prevent Hamas's involvement.' Israel has long claimed that aid groups and United Nations agencies issue biased assessments. The aid groups stressed on Thursday that most of them haven't been able to deliver 'a single truck' of life-saving assistance since Israel implemented a blockade in March. A vast majority of aid isn't reaching civilians in Gaza, where tens of thousands have been killed, most of the population has been displaced and famine looms. U.N. agencies and a small number of aid groups have resumed delivering assistance, but say the number of trucks allowed in remains far from sufficient. Meanwhile, tensions have flared over Israel and the United States backing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to serve as the main distributor of aid in the besieged territory. The American contractor, meant to replace the traditional U.N.-led aid distribution system in Gaza, has faced international condemnation after hundreds of Palestinians were killed while trying to get food near its distribution sites. Israel has pressed U.N. agencies to accept military escorts to deliver goods into Gaza, a demand the agencies have largely rejected, citing their commitment to neutrality. The standoff has been the source of competing claims: Israel maintains it allows aid into Gaza that adheres to its rules, while aid groups that have long operated in Gaza decry the amount of life-saving supplies stuck at border crossings. 'Oxfam has over $2.5 million worth of goods that have been rejected from entering Gaza by Israel, especially WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) items as well as food,' said Bushra Khalidi, an aid official with Oxfam in Gaza. Aid groups' 'ability to operate may come at the cost of their independence and ability to speak out,' she added.
Boston Globe
14 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Aid groups call on Israel to end ‘weaponization' of aid in Gaza
The groups contend that doing so could endanger their staff and give Israel broad grounds to block aid if groups are deemed to be 'delegitimizing' the country or supporting boycotts or divestment. Advertisement The registration measures were 'designed to control independent organizations, silence advocacy, and censor humanitarian reporting,' they said. The letter added that the rules violate European data privacy regulations, noting that in some cases aid groups have been given only seven days to comply. COGAT, the Israeli military body in charge of humanitarian aid to Gaza, denied the letter's claims. It alleged the groups were being used as cover by Hamas to 'exploit the aid to strengthen its military capabilities and consolidate its control' in Gaza. 'The refusal of some international organizations to provide the information and cooperate with the registration process raises serious concerns about their true intention,' it said in a statement on Thursday. 'The alleged delay in aid entry … occurs only when organizations choose not to meet the basic security requirements intended to prevent Hamas's involvement.' Advertisement Israel has long claimed that aid groups and United Nations agencies issue biased assessments. The aid groups stressed on Thursday that most of them haven't been able to deliver 'a single truck' of life-saving assistance since Israel implemented a blockade in March. A vast majority of aid isn't reaching civilians in Gaza, where tens of thousands have been killed, most of the population has been displaced and famine looms. U.N. agencies and a small number of aid groups have resumed delivering assistance, but say the number of trucks allowed in remains far from sufficient. Meanwhile, tensions have flared over Israel and the United States backing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to serve as the main distributor of aid in the besieged territory. The American contractor, meant to replace the traditional U.N.-led aid distribution system in Gaza, has faced international condemnation after hundreds of Palestinians were killed while trying to get food near its distribution sites. Israel has pressed U.N. agencies to accept military escorts to deliver goods into Gaza, a demand the agencies have largely rejected, citing their commitment to neutrality. The standoff has been the source of competing claims: Israel maintains it allows aid into Gaza that adheres to its rules, while aid groups that have long operated in Gaza decry the amount of life-saving supplies stuck at border crossings. 'Oxfam has over $2.5 million worth of goods that have been rejected from entering Gaza by Israel, especially WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) items as well as food,' said Bushra Khalidi, an aid official with Oxfam in Gaza. Aid groups' 'ability to operate may come at the cost of their independence and ability to speak out,' she added. Advertisement
