The Nanny State: A Conservative Concern or a Misogynistic Myth?

April 11, 2022

Written By Alannis Jáquez

An old wet nurse; symbolizing France as a nanny-state and public health provider. Courtesy of
Noel Dorville.

In 2012, Michael Bloomberg, who was the mayor of New York City at the time, suggested a ban on
the sale of fountain drinks larger than 16 fluid ounces in restaurants, delis, and concession stands.
This proposal was met with mixed opinions from the public. While some supported the ban due to
concerns about the obesity epidemic, others thought it was an overextension of political power.
Conservative news outlets, such as the National Review and the Washington Times, referred to
Bloomberg as “Nanny-State Napoleon” and “Mommy Bloomberg” in response to the proposed
ban and other, similar public health measures.

The “nanny state” refers to a government that interferes with the public’s personal choice and, as
a result, is overprotective. The idea of the nanny state itself is rooted in sexist stereotypes. The
term likely came from Sir William Harcourt who referred to state interference as “grand-maternal
government” in 1873, implying that women take on a paternalistic role in government. Similarly,
philosopher Thomas Hill Green was recorded referring to it as “grandmotherly government” in
1881. But it wasn’t until British conservative Iain Macleod denounced a proposed bill that would
lower the speed limit to 70 miles per hour that the term “nanny state” was first used.

Bloomberg’s soda ban is just one of many policies that have been condemned nationwide for
contributing to a nanny state. For example, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors mandated that
toys be excluded from McDonald’s Happy Meals and New York State passed a ban on smoking in
outdoor public spaces, both of which were met with backlash. Although the Happy Meal toy ban
prompted McDonalds to reduce the Happy Meal’s calorie, sodium, and fat content, and public
smoking bans significantly reduce the risk of heart attacks in nonsmokers, policies like these are
still regarded as overprotective.

The term “nanny state” was created and continues to be used by conservatives, who have long
opposed government interference. It isn’t difficult to see why they oppose paternalistic policies
such as Bloomberg’s soda ban: the American Conservative Union calls for the strict limitation of
government in order to exercise individual rights. To conservatives, the importance of personal
sovereignty outweighs any collective benefits that would result from so-called nanny state
policies. In the example of the soda ban, the potential public health benefits of regulating sugary
drinks were no match for individual choice and freedoms. At the time, conservative politicians
such as Sarah Palin and George Will openly expressed their disapproval of the ban, instead
advocating for limited government.

Discourse around mask mandates in the age of COVID-19 is yet another example of American
conservatives’ fear of upholding the nanny state. Many refuse to accept mask mandates even
though there is a plethora of evidence that mask-wearing is an effective measure to stop the
spread of the COVID-19 virus which has been the cause of nearly a million deaths in the United
States. American conservatives continue to label mask mandates as an encroachment on personal
liberty. But is the preservation of life not the preservation of liberty? This condemnation by
conservatives of the perceived nanny state becomes dangerous not only when politicians use it to
shut down important policy proposals, but also because of their invocation of misogyny and toxic
masculinity.

Though “nanny” is technically a gender neutral term, it typically refers to female caretakers.
Nannies have overwhelmingly been, and continue to be, women. As of 2019, nearly 97% of
nannies were women. Other careers such as coaching and mentoring are not used to imply a
protectiveness or guidance that is overbearing. Instead, the terms “coach” and “mentor” are often
associated with healthy support. Coaching, unlike nannying, is not a career dominated by women:
about 40% of women’s college teams are coached by women and only 3% of men’s college teams
are coached by women. Because of its proximity to femininity and womanhood, the term “nanny”
has become an insult in politics.

Paternalism is related to the concept of the nanny state and yet it is not used nearly as often to
denounce policy. This can be attributed to the everpresent desire to distance politics from
femininity. Calling Mayor Bloomberg “Nanny Bloomberg” is an insult because it feminizes the
traditionally masculine nature of politics. In order to gain support, political candidates must often
display stereotypically masculine traits such as assertiveness, strength, and power. This is
especially true for female politicians, who are scrutinized for demonstrations of compassion or
docility. Additionally, female politicians are perceived as holding less “masculine” traits such as
strength and competence and are considered less qualified than their male counterparts to handle
crime and foreign affairs. This finding holds true even when taking policy and platform differences
into account. The use of the term nanny state is part of a long history of misogyny in politics.

The misogynistic nature of the term nanny state is made even more apparent when considering its
association with women’s suffrage. One of the main arguments against women’s suffrage was the
perceived womanly desire to overextend the functions of the minimal state, that is, a system of
government with very limited power. The minimal state was thought to be upheld by men. It was
believed that if women had the ability to vote and run for office, the minimal state would
inevitably become the welfare state, or what some now call the nanny state. Robert Stout, a
former prime minister of New Zealand, was the first to make the argument that women’s suffrage
would result in the overextension of government—though he actually supported many of the
policies he claimed women would ignorantly advocate for. These policies ranged from the
regulation of working conditions to temperance legislation. It wasn’t the content of these policies,
but rather those who would enact them, that ignited criticism. His argument was nothing but an
excuse to exclude women from politics.

Furthermore, it should be noted that for some politicians, promotion of the welfare state is not
the issue—rather, it is coming across as weak that provokes outrage and dissent. Feminist studies
scholar Maureen McNeil writes, “The disdain for the ‘nanny state’ convey[s] the view that people
should be ‘real men’ and take care of themselves. It construct[s] a set of dichotomies: welfare
state, socialism, femininity, dependence and indulgence versus the market, laissez-faire values,
masculinity, independence and austerity.”

If conservative politicians continue to dismiss certain policies merely because they appear too
feminine, effective policies will continue to be lost. It is only once we leave behind the language
that connects the welfare state and paternalism to women and femininity that we will be able to
extend beyond the limitations human prejudice poses in lawmaking.

Alannis Jáquez is a freshman at Columbia College where she plans to major in Political Science.
Alannis is a native New Yorker and growing up in the Bronx is what fueled Alannis’ passion for
public health and education reform.