If there’s one thing most Americans knew about Sen. JD Vance of Ohio before Tuesday night’s debate, it’s that he really hates childless cat ladies. The number of mean comments Donald Trump’s running mate has made about cats, childless women, or any combination of the two are too numerous to count. Cat owners/childless people (categories he regularly conflates) are “miserable” and “sociopathic”, according to Vance. They should have fewer votes and pay more in taxes, as punishment. His obsession with bullying and shaming people who don’t have children has led more than one person to wonder, “Does J.D. Vance actually like being a parent?”
Vance’s hypocrisy on the issue of children’s health and safety won’t register to most people, because they always knew that his chatter about childlessness was always more about women than children.
Vance would like you to believe, however, that this isn’t a matter of personal psychology, but a well-considered political philosophy. He has repeatedly insisted that only parents have “an investment in the future of this country.” Vance doesn’t seem to think people can care about people beyond their immediate, biological family, and so need to physically create children to care about policies that impact the youngest generation. During Tuesday night’s debate, he brought up his “beautiful children,” attempting to enhance his self-styling as a man who cares because he is a father. He insisted that he wants a Republican Party that is “pro-family.” He insisted he’s “pro-baby.”
But at every turn during the vice presidential debate with Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Vance showed that having three children has done diddly squat to make him care about the future. On the contrary, Vance repeatedly made it clear that his “pro-family” view is all rhetoric. In practice, he doesn’t care about actual children, either now or in the future.
That much was evident when Vance sneered that climate change is “weird science.”
Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.
The CBS hosts asked if he agreed with Trump that climate change is a “hoax,” and Vance dodged the question by saying he doesn’t think that Harris “doesn’t believe her own rhetoric” when she says climate change is real. As we’ve been told ad nauseam, Vance is a smart guy who went to Yale. He knows full well that the science on climate change is as ironclad as it gets. With the devastation of the recent Hurricane Helene, we’ve all been reminded how much worse the future will be if we don’t continue reducing carbon emissions, as Democrats have started to do with the Inflation Reduction Act. With that simple answer, “pro-baby” Vance showed he will wreak havoc on the futures of all children for his political ambitions.
As many feminist critics — myself included — have argued, Vance’s relentless talk about children isn’t rooted in a true enthusiasm for the joys of parenthood. Instead, it’s about leveraging childbirth as a weapon against women’s equality, driving them out of the workforce and into dependent relationships with men. That’s why he also opposes affordable childcare and divorce. It’s why he was giddy that his accomplished mother-in-law gave up a year of her career to give him free childcare so he didn’t have to contribute as much to the care of children he sure loves to talk about. And it’s why he’s an adamant opponent of legal abortion, even though most women who have abortions are mothers trying to care for the children they already have.
At every turn during the debate, viewers were reminded that Vance doesn’t really care what happens to kids after they’re born. As Walz reminded voters, Vance’s lies about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio have led to terror being rained on the community and disrupted the ability of children to even go to school.
Vance shrugged it off and kept up the lies, falsely claiming that migrants have been a disaster for the community when all objective reports show they have boosted the economy and brought young people back to a town that was rapidly aging.
When abortion came up, Vance tried to put a humanizing spin on his anti-choice views by invoking a friend who used abortion to escape an abusive relationship. But he immediately pivoted to insisting that the goal of Republicans — for which there is no evidence — is to pass policies so that no one feels like they need to have an abortion again. That sounds nice as rhetoric, but in practice, it shows a chilling disregard for the safety of not just women, but children. Even if it were true that Republicans were willing to shore up the social safety net — and they are not — that does little for the issue of keeping women and children safe from abusive men.
Research shows that when women are forced to carry pregnancies they don’t want to term, they are more likely to stay in contact with men who abuse them and often their children. And Vance has said he thinks women are obliged to stay with men who beat them, condemning women who leave violent marriages for shifting “spouses like they change their underwear.” Men who hit women are also more likely to hit children. One of the surest ways to keep actual children safe from violence is to give women the autonomy to decide when they have children — and with who.
In the end, it may not matter much that Vance exposed himself as thoroughly anti-child. Most people, whether they agree with Vance or not, already understand that his “childless cat ladies” comment wasn’t really about children, but about Vance’s hostility to women’s freedom and equality. His glib lies and rationalizations don’t confuse most people on this front. Vance’s hypocrisy on the issue of children’s health and safety won’t register to most people, because they always knew that his chatter about childlessness was always more about women than children.
Still, it matters. Vance claims to care about children, but can’t seem to see them as anything beyond a weapon to wield against women. But children are people in their own right. Children’s interests aren’t well-served when they’re being used this way. Children do better when they have mothers who are happy and stable. Children do better when the government protects their education, health care, and safety. Children need adults who believe in science, especially climate science, and are willing to make sacrifices to protect the planet for the future. Vance made it very clear last night that children are only valuable to him if they can be used to derail women’s futures. But when it comes to the futures of children themselves, Vance could not care less.
Read more
about this topic