J.D. Vance has been making headlines lately. I first encountered him in grad school when I read his book. No, I didn’t like it. Vance made sweeping generalizations, and to be frank, the writing was not that compelling. But that’s not what really irks me about Mr. Vance — or maybe it is.
In an interview in 2021, Vance says the U.S. is being run by, “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.” The same year, Vance suggested that childless persons get less of a voice in voting than those with children and should also pay higher taxes.
Now, a wise man probably would have apologized for what he said. I mean, I’m just a woman with no children and no real stake in this country (according to Vance), but I would think alienating a large voter base right before a very contentious election might not be the best course of action.
Instead, Vance has doubled down on his opinion. Like most politicians, when their actions come back to bite them, Vance remarked that the media was “focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance of what I actually said.” Now, Vance insists he was remarking that the Democratic party was becoming anti-family. “The entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children,” he said and specifically named Vice President Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It’s really a clever dog whistle, and I have to give him credit for that. However, I don’t think that was his intention — intention implies forethought or foresight.
In case you were wondering, V.P. Harris has two step-children, and Buttigieg has two children.
For a moment, let’s look at the statistics of Congress in 2021. According to the Center for American Women and Politics, only 144 out of 535 seats were women. Of those, 105 were Democrat and 39 were Republican. Interesting to note how few Republican women were elected. Another topic for another time perhaps. That’s only 26.9%. Once again, I find Vance making sweeping generalizations. At least he is consistent in one thing.
I find it mildly insulting and a little comical that Vance truly believes I and other citizens don’t have a direct stake in this country based on the fact that we don’t have children (and in my case do not want them). Why shouldn’t I have a stake in this country? I intend to live here for the next 50 years of my life, maybe 60. My nieces and my nephews will live here longer. I would like it not to be a scene out of Mad Max when they inherit it. I think we can all at least agree on that, regardless of what our political beliefs are.
Instead of eloquently and convincingly conveying his argument, Vance returned to the archaic insult of the much-feared “crazy cat lady.” I’m not even certain if an argument is what Vance was trying to hodge-podge together, but instead, once again, a sweeping generalization about women who can’t or don’t want to have children. For a man who claims to be pro-life, he is certainly comfortable disregarding and degrading a life that does not fit his ideals. I made the choice not to have children, and I am happy and confident about that decision. That said, if I were to want children (That will never happen. Sorry, Grandma.), I very likely could not have them due to a chronic illness. With one simply “sarcastic” statement, Vance invalidated hundreds of women (and men) who struggle to conceive.
In his attempt to gain support from conservatives or far-right Republicans, Vance alienated a large majority of the voter base. We’ll find out if it works in his favor come November. In the meantime, this miserable weird cat lady is going to rest easy knowing her choices are just that: hers.
newsroom@news-banner.com
