I read all 191 pages of the Heritage Foundation’s new “Saving America by Saving the Family” policy paper so you don't have to.
It isn’t pretty. Maybe grab a drink, and sit down for this.
I have a lot to talk about today – and this is important stuff, so I hope you find time to read through to the end.
But first, I want to point you towards today’s Equal-ish episode, which is an interview with Wharton School professor and economist Dr. Corinne Low – who is also the author of the 2025 book Having It All. You do not want to miss this one! This interview was one of my favorites, and covered some new territory for us, including: a little history lesson around US marriages since 1960, why parenting is so much more time consuming today than it was a few decades ago, and why women need to think about their utility function when it comes to relationships. Enjoy!
After you listen to the Corinne Low episode, I’d also recommend the newest episode of Be a Happier Parent, hosted by my new friend, Alex Trippier. On January 29, he posted an interview with Francesca Cavallo, the author of Midnight Stories for Rebel Girls and Stellar Stories for Boys of the Future. I mentioned Rebel Girls in Equal Partners, and said we needed an equivalent for boys. Seems that Cavallo agreed! This was a heart-warming interview about new masculinities, helping boys explore new worlds beyond their dreams, and why gender equity is good for all of us.
The timing of these latest Equal-ish and Be a Happier Parent pods couldn’t be better, as both provide beautifully articulate counterpoints to the new policy paper from the Heritage Foundation.
OK, so here goes….
This paper went up on their website a few weeks ago, and was co-authored by the Heritage Foundation and the DeVos Center for Human Flourishing. (I’m not being snarky; that’s the actual foundation name.) I wanted to read the whole thing before writing about it, hence the delay in this post. But rest assured – no AI summary for you! I read each and every one of those 191 pages so you wouldn’t have to. (You’re welcome!)
The #1 most important thing to highlight is that this paper is not an extremist policy suggestion from the fringes of American society. The Heritage Foundation wrote Project 2025, which has been a literal blueprint for the second Trump administration. Heritage is highly influential among GOP leaders, and we should take their policy papers seriously.
Top 4 Differences Between Equal Partners and the Heritage Foundation Policy Paper
To be clear, this paper is not really about marriage, gender, or families. It is dressed up as a family policy paper, but this is really all about control. My interpretation is that the Heritage Foundation has a clear vision for the American future: a robust population of not-very-bright workers and breeders; contented heterosexual couples procreating early and often. They want Americans to be healthy enough to add to the GDP, and not require much government support. But they don’t want anyone to be smart enough or rich enough to gain any real power or hold leaders accountable.
Of course, I doubt the writers themselves would adhere to these guidelines. They would never want their own kids to be working a manual labor job, giving up on professional dreams or goals. This report is not for people like them. What they describe is an ideal sub-class of Americans that enable the elites to live comfortably and securely. But I digress.
End goal aside, this paper is presumably about family, gender, and marriage – which happen to be the central topics of Equal Partners. So, here are my top 4 take-aways, the most obvious contrasts between my work, and this paper:
1. The Definition of Marriage
The Heritage paper makes it abundantly clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. They repeatedly disregard the concept of marriage between same-sex and/or queer couples, and they are very anti-trans. (They actually disregard the concept of gender identity and transgender completely.) All of their policy recommendations are solely for a heteronormative couple, whereas I wrote Equal Partners intentionally to include all couples.
I also find it interesting that Heritage claims the reason why people get married is to procreate. And to a lesser degree, for economic stability and to build the social fabric of our nation. But mostly to procreate.
They seem to think that having children is why people walk down the aisle. The paper never talks about love. (Actually, the word “love” only appears two times in the 191-page paper: once in reference to love of children, and once in reference to a reason for divorce.) The word “partner” is only used in terms of “sexual partners,” which are cast is a negative light. Heritage never mentions mutual respect, partnership, support, companionship, attraction, or shared interests. It felt like a very 1600’s feudal definition of marriage – and one that is very out of touch with what real humans feel in 2026.
2. The Future of Traditional Gender Roles
The Heritage paper, no surprise, supports traditional gender roles: men should be breadwinners, and women should be caregivers. “Fathers and mothers are not generic and interchangeable ‘parents.’ It is not discrimination to acknowledge the differences between them. Each brings unique and complementary assets to the vocation of parenthood.” The Heritage paper is very concerned about a diminishing American birthrate, and asserts that traditional gender norms are the answer. If we want to increase our birth rate, stabilize families, and support young parents – they believe we need to lean into traditional gender norms.
Not surprisingly, Equal Partners cites data indicating traditional gender roles are actually restricting for both men and women. They are the cause of family stress, not the answer. Because traditional norms limit our choices, and restrict our opportunities. Not all women want to marry a man, have babies, forego a career, and link 100% of her value to her family. Not all men want to marry a woman, have a robust career, prioritize work over his relationships with his kids, and find 100% of his value in his job. To truly support young families, we need to reject traditional gender norms and encourage all people to embrace all parts of themselves. We need to fight against restrictive social norms that limit our life choices.
And to be clear – all of my writing is very pro-family, pro-relationship, and pro-kids. Including traditional families. I have repeatedly said that if traditional gender roles work for you – great. We need policies that support everyone. But the Heritage paper is very different; they are exclusive. If you don’t agree with their version of natural family, you are deemed unnatural.
Again, is it just as important to note what they are NOT saying, and there was no mention of the fact that lack of male participation in the home is driving young women away from marriage. They failed to note that many young women are choosing to be single because of traditional gender norms. Many Gen-Z women grew up watching their mothers work full time AND do everything at home. And they don’t want to choose that kind of exhaustion for themselves. They are tired of Mankeeping, and tired of doing all the cognitive and emotional labor for their relationship. These Gen-Z women – the most highly educated women in American history – are rejecting traditional relationships so they can pursue true fulfillment. It is because there isn’t enough equal partnership that we see women rejecting marriage – not the opposite.
3. Why It Is Hard to Start a Family in 2026.
The Heritage paper states that it is economically challenging for young people to start a family in 2026. Housing prices are restrictive, wages are low, inflation is up. Kids are expensive! Those without generational wealth, especially those saddled with college loans, have a very hard time breaking free of debt. Starting a family is also time consuming, and it is hard to find the hours to balance both work and time with a new baby. On all of these points, we agree! However, we differ in our responses to this challenge.
The Heritage paper is highly focused on tax policy, and devotes many (many) pages to outlining a series of suggested tax incentives for young people to get married and make lots of babies. (They also devote many many words to railing against the current social safety net – which they think incentivizes single, female-led families. “Congress has made a deliberate choice to privilege and subsidize out-of-home, marriage-agnostic, non-parental childcare.”)
Honestly, a lot of this tax stuff is outside of my lane. I would love for a tax specialist to dig into this more deeply. But essentially, they are very supportive of tax credits for families. I have two big issues with this theory.
One, humans do not make life and relationship decisions in response to the tax code. I’m pretty sure the “rational economic actor” theory got debunked years ago. People have kids for all kinds of reasons – but no one is ever going to think, yes, I am going to take on the massive life-long responsibility of having another baby so I can access that one-time $2000 tax rebate.
Two, these tax credits would only apply to a narrow definition of family: male-female couples; families where all members (parents and kids) are full US citizens with social security numbers; families where the parents got married before they were 30 years old; households where parents live with biological children only (no blended families); families with more than two children; and families where one parents is a stay-at-home.
It is interesting that the Heritage paper talks about work structures, and how hard it is for women to both work and care for an infant. True! But their solution is for women to leave the workforce when their first child is born, and stay home. Which is contrary to what many women want - and they don’t mention that 85% of fathers want to be involved in their child’s life from day one. Their solution of a stay-at-home mom does not solve anyone’s problem.
I am a big supporter of the #paidcareforall policy suggestion, which would ensure that any worker can take time off work to care for a child, sick family member, or elder care - without worry about losing their income or job. This way parents could take time off, giving both parents maximum time for bonding with new babies. No surprise, the Heritage paper did not mention this policy suggestion.
The paper did talk about the need for greater workplace flexibility, which is great. They even cited a 2018 Cato Institute poll that found parents say flexible work schedules, remote work, and part-time are they best ways to balance work and family. But then they quickly slip back into gender roles, saying that work flexibility is more valuable for women than men. My read – they’re OK with women working part time or a flexible job. But men should be the more traditional 40+ hours-a-week breadwinners.
Just to reiterate - traditional gender norms box everyone in. The traditional breadwinner / caregiving dichotomy is bad for everyone. It means women feeling all the pressure of managing and caring for a family – and squeezing in her professional or personal interests into those times of day when she’s not breastfeeding, cleaning, cooking, or driving kids to soccer practice. (And any woman that has significant professional dreams, aspiration, or goals? Well, they’re just selfish.) Traditional norms mean that men are pressured to financially provide for their family, and in the mean time often give up what matters most in life - time with their families, close relationships, and the joy of parenting and caregiving. And traditional norms mean that trans and non-binary people are simply erased from society, because they don’t have a clear role in society at all.
4. The Role of Marriage Bootcamp
I reeled when I read these pages, because on the surface it sounds a lot like the MOVE Your Marriage we-treats I created with Brian Page and Ashley Brichter. The paper talks about how young families are often un-prepared for the relentlessness of family life, and don’t always have the communication tools they need to navigate a long-term relationship. Strangely enough, I agree! But here’s where we diverge. The Heritage paper suggests government grants should pay for Marriage Bootcamp … but only for couples who are cohabitating. (Aka living in sin.) And these bootcamps aren’t designed to improve communication or foster more loving, supportive partnerships; they are designed to convince people that being legally married is better than living together. If your metric is # of couples married, then this program could be successful. But I am unconvinced they spark any real impact, because getting married does not necessarily improve the quality of a relationship.
(And get this - they even suggest holding graduation ceremonies where people walk down the aisle at the end of their class. I couldn’t help but to think of Moonie mass-weddings when I read that part.)
Do we really need more marriages? Or do we need stronger family units? When Brian and Ashley and I created MOVE, we intentionally created a program that presents a breadth of research, asks key questions, and allows couples some time to figure out their best way forward. We should not force any couple into a one-size-fits-all relationship structure. We need to trust people to find the best way for themselves.
Why Does Any of this Matter? Here’s the Scariest Part.
Here’s the paragraph that scared me the most.
“The President should issue a series of executive orders requiring every grant, contract, policy, regulation, research project, and enforcement action involving the federal government to do the following: Explicitly measure how it helps or harms marriage and family, block actions that discriminate against family formation, and give preference to actions that support American families.”
At first read, this executive order could feel innocuous. After all, no one wants to be seen as anti-family. But think about the impact if every federal dollar spent needs to reflect the Heritage Foundation’s definition of a “natural family,” which is clearly stated as a union between one man and one woman, who marry young, and have more than 2 kids. I know a lot of great families that fit that description – but I also know a lot of great families who do not. Including my own.
In the eyes of this policy, anyone who chooses not to marry or never meets anyone they want to marry is “unnatural.” Any couple who chooses not to have kids, or who can’t conceive, is unnatural. Any queer or same-sex couple is unnatural.
After reading this paper, I can see that it isn’t a far stretch that families that only have 1-2 kids, blended families, people who use birth control, or couple who choose to adopt, are also deemed unnatural.
If you got all the way down here - thank you for reading! And thank you for caring. If we’re lucky, this paper will fade into memory. But the ideas in this report are already being voiced by elected officials with lots of influence. Elements of this report are likely to find their way into legislation in the near future. We need to pay attention, and elect officials that care about ALL American families.
P.S. I actually have a few more pages of notes, but decided anything more on substack would get tedious. If you’re super interested, drop me an email, and I’ll be happy to send you the rest of my thoughts.
AI, Deepfakes, Pornography and Grok: Follow-up to my Jan 7 Post
I would never waste your time by reposting a blatantly misogynist article. But I thought this was interesting – a counterpoint from my own, but written by another Feminist perspective. I don’t agree with this author, who says, “we have to teach girls to be tougher, not men to be nicer.” But I’m including this for readers to demonstrate how complex and complicated the issue is.
The Spectator published Does it really matter if Grok undresses us all? This is behind a pay wall, but you can request a copy through their IG page.
The author doesn’t appear to believe that men should be allowed to run amok, but that “we need to enforce the laws which are already in place to punish men for active misogyny, domestic violence, rape or the use of child pornography.” She feels that simply putting women’s faces on nude images isn’t really a problem. Women should buck up, and focus on the super-egregious. Again, not my perspective. But I’ll throw it out there – what are your thoughts?
This newsletter will always arrive on a Wednesday afternoon. This is in honor of my dad, who used to call Wednesdays “hump day.” He did this to cheer me up when I was a kid slugging my way through the week; he’d assure me I was already over the hump, and nearly to the weekend. So, when this hits your inbox – even if you don’t read it – think to yourself: congratulations! You made it over the hump, and the weekend will be here before you know it.
And for all of you who survived last week’s snowstorm AND massive school closures for days - and extra congrats and big hug to you!
Oof this isn’t surprising and yet still so nauseating. Probably needed something stronger than tea. Thanks for all that reading!
I read the first 20-25%, then just skimmed the rest, since much of it became redundant. But what stood out most of all to me from what I read was that the paper puts all the blame squarely on men and women, and what is considered societal 'norms' today, but neglects to mention the actual relative causes, mainly, corporate dominance over society since the 60's in regard to stagnant, low wages, consumer costs, increased taxes, increased housing costs, etc... all that created most all of the problems the Heritage paper outlines. In my opinion, the problem isn't 'families', the problem is the status quo in regards to the corporate economic system, organizations like the HF and and complicit politicians. Perhaps Heritage would fare better if they started there.