My husband, Paul, and I stopped on our walk recently to watch a team of workers taking down some tree branches. A woman operated a small crane to pick up the cut wood and place it in a truck.
Paul observed, “That must be a tough job, working with all those men.”
I couldn’t resist the chance to be snarky. “Probably. But the real question is, does she have children?”
Yes, the debate that started with vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance’s disparaging remarks about “childless cat ladies” has put me on edge. Big time—because I’m disturbed by both sides.
The right brought it up, to be sure. But the left’s response has been—too often—that Vice President Kamala Harris is a stepmother.
Please. No. This is the correct answer: A candidate’s parental status should not be an issue in any campaign.
I know it’s hard for my fellow liberals to stick to the same line on, well, anything. But in this case, I wish we could all agree that biology is not destiny. For nearly half a century, women have been able to choose whether they have children or not. Our motherhood status is only one facet of our being.
I don’t have children and I do have three cats. Those are two facts about me. Do with them what you will. I assure you, they are only part of my story.
Of course I am interested in knowing facts about candidates. How old are they? Where did they grow up? What sort of education have they had, and what did they do before entering politics?
Do they have a family? Pets? Perhaps my most important question is whether they read books, and if so, what genres?
But when I finally decide who to vote for, I just care about the candidate’s policies. I want leaders who support the protection of the environment. That is my number one issue. They should also champion working people and small business owners. My candidates believe in free speech and women’s access to reproductive health care.
I want stronger protections for schoolchildren, which probably means some, not unreasonable, limits on gun ownership.
One issue I don’t think much about is the southern border. If we had problems with Canada, some 150 miles up the road, I’d be all over it. I am grateful that is a highly unlikely scenario. What is important to me are leaders who recognize that we have problems on the southern border that need to be addressed, but at the same time support legal immigration. I will vote for candidates who respect immigrants who have come here lawfully and who have compassion for those who have fled their home countries and are seeking asylum.
I try to be realistic about what elected officials can do, even the president. I don’t see that any one person is going to bring my grocery bill down, or fill my oil tank more cheaply. I vote for candidates who have good intentions; who, from my point of view, have their hearts in the right place. Then I hope they will just do their jobs.
A good president, in my opinion, speaks thoughtfully, supports our allies throughout the world and tries to keep us out of conflict. I want a president who champions the best of America, and who has high hopes for the future.
Will my candidates govern well? Whether they are married, have children or make weekly phone calls to their 95-year-old mothers is only mildly interesting to me.
A happy family portrait featuring two parents, two children and a labradoodle can’t hurt a candidate. But what does it really tell us? Families are complex. Parenthood does not equal sainthood. There are many wonderful parents doing the hard work of raising children. But people aren’t necessarily wonderful just because they are parents.
Vance’s remarks were divisive. They tried to pit mothers against “childless cat ladies.” Women who fit the description, including Taylor Swift, have reacted with mocking humor. (And decisive action, as Swift endorsed Kamala Harris.) I did post a “cat for Kamala” meme on my Facebook page and it did bring me a chuckle.
But I can’t help but see the serious side of Vance’s remarks. I grew up in the 1970s, and learned that women should be able to do what they want with their lives. In junior high school, our miniskirts had to fall to our knees. A couple of years later, we protested and earned the right to wear pants, including jeans, to school. It was a huge victory, both practically and symbolically.
Today, women can choose both motherhood and careers, or stay at home with their children. They can opt to have a child or adopt a child and remain single. They may decide not to have children at all. They may take in a relative’s children and raise them, or marry a partner who already has kids and become a stepmom. Maybe they decide to live their lives on their own, but have rich relationships with nieces, nephews and young neighbors.
Maybe they adopt a few cats.
I know these women. You do too. They are the embodiment of our democratic ideals, that hard-fought-for right to the pursuit of happiness.
The vice president likes to say, “We’re not going back.” I’m with her—even though I’m really more of a dog person.
No comments:
Post a Comment