In the past week, old comments by Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance about people without children have resurfaced, offending huge swathes of the American public.
Author
Prudence Flowers
Senior Lecturer in US History, College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Flinders University
In a 2021 interview, Vance described Democrats as “a bunch of childless cat ladies”, directly , who has two step-children with her husband Doug Emhoff.
The comment has garnered criticism from the likes of and , daughter of the late Republican senator John McCain. Many critics have pointed to who is 34, unmarried, without children, and a owner of .
Vance that his comments were meant to be sarcastic, but he doubled down on his argument that the left was pursuing “policies that are profoundly anti-child”.
So, why are these comments angering so many people, particularly women, across the political spectrum?
Vance’s views have racialised undertones
Vance’s views are .
He has by authoritarian Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to boost his country’s birth rates, which include financial incentives for couples who have children.
He has suggested than those with children and , which parents would exercise on their behalf.
Above all, Vance believes people without children do not have “an investment in the future of this country” and so .
In lamenting the in the United States, Vance also with a that opposes immigration and criticises minority birth rates, encapsulated in the far-right ““.
He has for believing they can “replace American children with immigrants,” even as his Indian-American wife Usha, the daughter of immigrants, has been targeted by .
The irony here is the Republican Party opposes many government policies that , such as protections and accommodations for pregnant workers, expanding Medicaid coverage for postpartum people, universal child care and government-funded pre-kindergarten, and benefits that would reduce child poverty, just to name a few.
Complex presidential families
Republicans have long insisted they are fighting to defend , envisaged as the depicted in the television show Leave it to Beaver in the 1950s.
However, the lives of past US presidents demonstrate the ahistorical nature of these claims to defend tradition.
While Harris has not personally given birth, neither has any other occupant of the White House.
did not have any biological children, including George Washington, the “father of the nation”, who, like Harris, was a devoted .
Pregnancy and birth has always encompassed risk. Shame and silence have often surrounded experiences of infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal death, making these events family secrets.
However, we know that , , and experienced such heartbreak.
Presidents have always had complex personal and family lives, including:
- rumoured
- (including with ).
Former presidents have and raised , too. Trump, notably, has five children from three different marriages.
Not just an American problem
Vance’s comments reveal much about the enduring stigma surrounding women, particularly those in positions of authority and leadership, who do not have children. And this scrutiny of the reproductive lives of female leaders is not restricted to the US.
In Australia, a Liberal senator once claimed that former Prime Minister Julia Gillard was not fit to lead the country because she was ““.
Similar attacks were at New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark. In the UK, both and endured speculation and negative commentary about not having children.
Yet, when New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had a baby in office, she was . And when Ardern resigned from office, a asked the sexist question, “Can women really have it all?”
And the idea that good leadership requires biological children has rarely come up in discussions of childless male leaders such as France’s or Japan’s .
Nor are male leaders questioned about their levels of engagement as parents. Political scientist Jessica Smith argues men in politics still have an automatic “” around discussions of family.
Biology as destiny
In 2024, it’s beyond comprehension to suggest that a person who is unable to become pregnant or who elects not to would be any less committed to society than a parent.
Yet ugly, gendered assumptions persist. They are deemed , “,” and .
More broadly, , whether they have children or not, believe Vance is merely saying out loud what many people silently think. Too often, women are judged solely through a biological lens. Our value, our ability to contribute meaningfully to society, is reduced to our ability to reproduce.
Nothing else we do matters. In Harris’ case, this means being a “” to her stepchildren, a , a “” and a spouse, in addition to being a who has shattered .
In the West, women and people who can become pregnant live in an unprecedented moment. The cumulative effect of the sexual revolution and feminist and LGBTQ+ movements has given us the ability to choose how we live and love.
Despite the rolling back of abortion rights in the US, women today have a level of control over their lives that was unimaginable in 1946, the year Trump was born.
As Vance’s views on this and make clear, however, it is precisely this agency that many conservatives .
Prudence Flowers has received funding from the South Australian Department of Human Services. She is a member of the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition.
