Leftist women are getting their knickers in a twist about how JD Vance, in 2021, described Kamala Harris and other childless leftist women. The fact is that Vance’s colorful language accurately describes a real and troubling phenomenon amongst a certain segment of childless women (not I hasten to add, all childless women) in America.
Soon after Vance announced his candidacy for the Ohio Senate stated during a speech that “the childless left” isn’t committed to America’s future because, without offspring, leftists have no direct stake in the future. In response to Tucker Carlson’s inquiries, Vance expanded on what he meant by that observation:
We’re effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, 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.
And it’s just a basic fact. You look, Kamala Harris. Pete Buttigieg, AOC—the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. And how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?
I just wanted to ask that question and propose that, maybe, if we want a healthy ruling class in this country, we should invest more, we should vote more, we should support more people who actually have kids because those are the people who ultimately have a more direct stake in the future of this country.
The obvious suspects—the leftist childless cat ladies who chose careers over having children—were outraged. A Google search revealed that among those most outraged was actress Jennifer Aniston (55 years old), a Democrat, Aniston’s outrage even made The Hill:
Jennifer Aniston, who’s been open about her fertility struggles, is ripping Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance for the Ohio senator’s previous remarks dubbing Vice President Harris one of several “childless cat ladies” in Washington.
[snip]
In her social media post, Aniston shared a message with her nearly 45 million Instagram followers directed at Vance: “I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day. I hope she will not need to turn to [in vitro fertilization] as a second option.”
“Because you are trying to take that away from her, too,” Aniston, 55, said.
In a 2022 interview, the Emmy Award winner said she tried to get pregnant for several years and underwent unsuccessful rounds of in vitro fertilization.
Neither Vance nor Trump, of course, has made an attack on in vitro fertilization. Indeed, Trump strongly supports IVF, but the truth never bothers Democrats.
What The Hill doesn’t mention, but Aniston admits in an Allure article, is that her IVF attempts were in her late 30s and early 40s. At that stage, most women have already zoomed past peak and even less peak fertility and are into the stage where they’re saying, “I hope that having spent my childbearing years chasing a career, science can step in and give me a baby.”
I’m not being mean. I’m speaking the truth because I almost waited too long and needed medical intervention (although not IVF) to get pregnant at 35. Had I waited another year, it would almost certainly have been too late. Moreover, it wasn’t just my career that kept me out of the baby-making business. Instead, it was the immature pleasure of being a relatively affluent adult who could live an incredibly self-centered life. I was one of those childless adults at Disneyland.
Kids blew that life entirely apart. When they were very little, I was no longer the master of my own destiny, and I hated it. As my kids got older, I still had to put my needs on the back burner because my children’s needs were always infinitely greater than mine.
Parenting was the most exhausting, frustrating, and challenging job I ever had. It was also, bar none, the most fulfilling, important thing I’ve done. It made me a hugely better person (especially by destroying my post-adolescent selfishness) because I needed to be the best person for them. Today, their very existence gives me infinite joy.
My kids’ existence is also the jet fuel for the work I do. When politics overwhelm and depress me, I say to myself, “None of this really matters because I’m going to be dead soon, anyway.” Then I shake myself like a wet dog and think, “But my children aren’t going to die. I’m building their world, and my grandchildren’s world, with every word I write.”
So, I know Jennifer Aniston and the others like her. And to be very clear, I’m not talking about women who desperately want children, not as a Hollywood accessory or a career afterthought, but because they want to fulfill their destiny as women but for whatever reason, have been unable to do so. These aren’t women whose childlessness is driven by devotion to a corporation or to self but by sheer bad luck. In other words, most of them probably aren’t self-centered and immature.
I’m also not talking about some of the wonderful women I know who are childless by choice but who moved beyond the selfish immaturity of the left. These women, invariably conservative, aren’t invested in dystopian Marxist nightmares that require world depopulation and intersectional divisions. They altruistically look to the future of all children in the absence of their own.
But for the most part, much as feminists may inveigh against it, children are good for women because they usefully burn up the emotional energy that Nature gave women to expend on their children. Women who have been told that children will destroy planet Earth take that same energy and, driven by their leftist nightmares, go crazy.
These crazy women are the ones in the front line of the pro-Hamas movement (and Hamas hates women), the climate change movement (which dooms mankind to cold, dark, death-ridden pre-modern times), the open border (which floods the country with illiterate, often criminal, people who have medieval attitudes but are required to take the place of America’s missing children), the transgender movement (which sterilizes people), and, of course, abortion.
They are the middle-aged white women crowding around Kamala Harris in her first big campaign appearance,
And the hate-filled women who appear in the trailer for Matt Walsh’s upcoming movie examining the DEI movement:
In other words, Vance was targeting a very specific class of “childless cat ladies.” These are women who’ve never grown beyond being a 14-year-old adolescent reading scary dystopian fiction or focusing obsessively on her body. Bounded by their fears and obsessions, they hysterically seek to tamp down those concerns by exerting a form of control over the world that will make it a very bad place in future.
Only those childless women who have given in to this madness should take umbrage at Vance’s words because he was definitely talking to them. Everyone else, whether childless or not, needs to stand down.