What People Still Don’t Understand About JD Vance’s Misogyny

🌈 Abstract

The article discusses the controversial remarks made by Republican Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance about "childless cat ladies" and his narrow perspective on who should have a say in the future of the country. It also examines the broader issue of attempts to limit voting rights based on the notion of "skin in the game" and the importance of empathy and concern for the future beyond one's own family.

🙋 Q&A

[01] Republican Vice Presidential Candidate JD Vance's Remarks

1. What were the key points of JD Vance's controversial remarks about "childless cat ladies"?

• Vance's remarks focused on women who choose not to have children, dismissively referring to them as "childless cat ladies"
• His remarks were criticized for their misogyny, as he focused only on women and not men who choose not to have children
• Vance also failed to consider the roles of stepparents and adoptive parents in caring for the future

2. How did Vance and his supporters try to defend or downplay these remarks?

• Vance's fellow Peter Thiel protégé Blake Masters referred to people without children as having "no skin in the game"
• Fox News host Trey Gowdy critiqued Vance's "cat ladies" remark, but Vance did not retract or apologize for his previous comments

3. What does Vance's perspective reveal about his moral and political lens?

• Vance and others seem convinced that self-interest is the only interest for everyone
• This view leads them to believe that only those raising children can truly care about the future of the country or the planet

[02] The Broader Issue of Limiting Voting Rights

1. What is the history of attempts to limit the right to vote to those deemed to have a greater "stake" in the future?

• During the Founding era, the franchise was limited to property owners and those who paid taxes
• For decades, most states forbade paupers from voting, based on the idea that they lacked a sufficient "stake" in the country's future

2. How does the author argue against the notion that people without children are less deserving of a voice?

• The author points out that there are many decent people whose empathy extends beyond their own loved ones
• He questions whether we would want teachers, police, firefighters, or social workers who are unwilling to sacrifice for those they don't know
• The author also asks whether soldiers only put their lives on the line for their own families when serving their country

3. What kind of world would we be creating if we believed that people without children are less deserving of a vote or a voice?

• The author argues that this would be a harmful and misguided way of thinking, as it would exclude many caring and empathetic individuals from participating in shaping the country's future.