You say we need more babies, rightwingers? Come back to me after you’ve fought in the trenches of soft play | Emma Beddington

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Critique of Right-Wing Push for Increased Birth Rates Amid Parenting Realities"

You say we need more babies, rightwingers? Come back to me after you’ve fought in the trenches of soft play | Emma Beddington analysis cover image The Guardian 5.5
Image Source: https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/35ea070f846b6e26719b8158d4fd7577f5fff0d3/328_0_4331_3465/master/4331.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctb3BpbmlvbnMucG5n&enable=upscale&s=94462e1acb495a5cf01b0dd4f6dd54ef
Original Article Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/08/you-say-we-need-more-babies-rightwingers-come-back-to-me-after-youve-fought-in-the-trenches-of-soft-play
View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 5.5
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The article by Emma Beddington critiques the growing trend among right-wing politicians and commentators who advocate for increased birth rates as a solution to societal challenges. She highlights figures like JD Vance and Elon Musk, who have publicly pushed for pro-natalist policies, arguing that the focus on producing more children overlooks the practical realities and challenges of parenting. Beddington expresses disbelief that these leaders, who often lack direct experience with the difficulties of raising multiple children, can assert that having more babies is a viable solution to the world's issues. She notes that while some politicians have children, their experiences do not necessarily qualify them to dictate family planning to others.

In response to this discourse, Beddington proposes a satirical 'entrance test' for those who wish to speak on the topic of birth rates. She outlines various scenarios parents face, such as dealing with difficult bedtimes, managing multiple young children, and coping with parental exhaustion. Beddington vividly describes the chaos of family life, emphasizing the physical and emotional toll it takes on parents. Through her humorous and exaggerated scenarios, she illustrates that the realities of parenting are far more complex than simply advocating for higher birth rates. Ultimately, she calls into question the wisdom of increasing the population without considering the accompanying responsibilities and challenges that come with raising children.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article presents a critical view of the current pro-natalist rhetoric being promoted by various right-wing politicians and commentators. The author, Emma Beddington, expresses disbelief at the notion that increasing birth rates could serve as a solution to the world's pressing issues. This commentary highlights the disconnect between the lived experiences of parenting and the abstract political discourse surrounding birth rates.

Critique of Right-Wing Politicians

Beddington illustrates how politicians like JD Vance, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump have embraced pro-natalist policies without fully understanding the challenges that come with raising children. By calling for more babies, these figures may be seen as out of touch with the realities of parenting, especially for those without the resources to manage multiple children comfortably. The author argues that merely having children does not qualify someone to advocate for others to do the same; rather, they should experience the daily struggles that come with parenthood.

Public Sentiment and Perception

The article aims to evoke a sense of frustration among readers who might feel overwhelmed by the pressures of parenting and the political narrative surrounding it. By asking politicians to undergo a sort of "entrance test" for discussing birth rates, Beddington seeks to emphasize the importance of understanding real-life implications of such policies. This approach fosters a perception of the pro-natalist movement as superficial and disconnected from the realities faced by everyday families.

Concealed Issues

While the article critiques the pro-natalist agenda, it also subtly suggests that the broader socio-economic issues contributing to declining birth rates, such as economic instability and lack of support for parents, are being overlooked. The focus on increasing birth rates may distract from necessary reforms in family support systems, childcare, and work-life balance.

Manipulative Elements

The article does exhibit a level of manipulation in its tone and language. By using sarcasm and vivid imagery, Beddington effectively conveys her disdain for the simplistic solutions proposed by right-wing figures. This could lead readers to align with her perspective without critically evaluating the underlying issues at play.

Trustworthiness of the Information

The content appears to be grounded in real-world observations and critiques of public figures. However, the author’s strong emotional language may lead to biases that affect the objectivity of the analysis. While it successfully raises important questions about the implications of pro-natalist policies, its persuasive tone may overshadow a more balanced discussion of the topic.

In the context of current global discussions around family planning and population growth, this article resonates with those who feel that socio-economic factors should be prioritized over simplistic solutions. It may appeal more to progressive audiences who advocate for comprehensive family support policies rather than just increasing birth rates.

Impact on Society and Politics

The article's critique of pro-natalist policies could influence public opinion, potentially leading to calls for more substantial support systems for families rather than mere incentives for childbirth. It may also affect political discourse, pushing for a more nuanced understanding of demographic trends and the challenges faced by parents.

In conclusion, this commentary reflects a growing concern over the disconnect between political rhetoric and the realities of parenting, urging a more empathetic approach to discussions about birth rates.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Source URL: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/08/you-say-we-need-more-babies-rightwingers-come-back-to-me-after-youve-fought-in-the-trenches-of-soft-play

Iabsolutely cannot fathom the number of populist rightwing politicians and commentators who have looked at the smouldering mess that is the world currently and thought: “I know what this situation demands –more toddlers.”Population-boosting discourse and policieshave spread acrossEurope(Hungary, Poland, Greece, Italy and beyond), while in the US an unholy coalition of tech bros, religious conservatives, blowhard podcasters and the politicians who pander to them have gone loudly pronatalist. JD Vance used his first speech as vice-president to proclaim: “I want more babies in the United States of America”; Elon Musk called declining birthrates “a much bigger risk to civilisation than global warming”; and Trump is considering various procreation-incentivising policies, includinga $5,000 “baby bonus”, which I believe is what a carton of eggs – hen, not human – costs in the US these days.

Now Nigel Farage has hopped on the breeding bandwagon (tick that off your “What fresh hell?” bingo card). Reform, he says, wants to go “much further to encourage people to have children”.

I needed to do something other than grind my teeth to stumps about this, so I’ve been brainstorming an entrance test for the role of publicly boring on about birth rates. Because having numerous children yourself (Vance lets the side down with a mere three; Musk tops the leaderboard with 14) doesn’t qualify you to harangue others to do the same; you need to have actually walked the multiple-children walk – done the stuff parents without a flotilla of staff or a tradwife spouse have to do.

Here are a few suggested “canon” events politicians should experience before they’re allowed to pontificate about our patriotic duty to breed.

Your internal organs either feel like, or actually are, falling out; you can’t sit down or lift anything safely (not sure how we simulate this for the bros, but it’s 2025 – technology can surely assist). Unfortunately, the writhing newborn with its gums clamped to your nipple hasn’t got the memo, and who’s this erupting into the room, exuding the on-the-brink energy of someone whose world recently imploded? It’s 12kg of inexplicably naked toddler barrelling towards a plug socket while intimating an urgent need to urinate, an open bottle of Calpol (where did they get that?) casually slung in one hand. Your move – oh, hang on, you can’t move.

Just regular, awful bedtimes: different, elaborate, multi-phase sleep rituals more complex than a Korean skincare regime for each child. A colicky baby. A toddler who fights sleep with the raw power of a heavyweight boxer. A child who waits until 11pm when you’re on your very last nerve to ask the big questions about death. Standard stuff.

You’re hungover, sick or sleep-deprived (joke – you’re always sleep-deprived) and desperate to crawl into a dark hole, but no, it’s 9am, everyone’s been up for four hours and you’re in an echoing hangar with lighting, music and general ambience inspired by Guantánamo, having paid £10 per person for the privilege.

One kid is attached to your leg, refusing to have fun without you; one has vanished entirely; another is headed straight into the ball pit, where they promptly have a screaming nervous breakdown. You’ll need to retrieve them, knowing there’s at least one rogue poo in there somewhere (worst lucky dip ever).

How bad can it be, you say to yourself? Then the sweating and the flashbacks start. It’s worse than ’Nam in Clarks and there’s no way out but through.

The cottage has vertiginously slippery stairs and surfaces full of low-hanging fragile knick-knacks, plus inadequate curtains, so everyone wakes at 4am. With no Freeview or phone reception, you can’t outsource the early shift to Bluey. The intersection of allergy, intolerance and awkwardness is such that there is no food everyone will eat. It’s day one and you’re already praying for the sweet release of death.

Guts in violent turmoil, you’re physically unable to move more than a metre from your lavatory while being repeatedly called upon to clean up – probably even catch in your cupped hands! – your sick children’s effluvia. Tell me again how more kids are the answer to the world’s ills?

Emma Beddington is a Guardian columnist

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian