J. D. Vance’s “quip” about childless cat ladies has caught the wrath of the internet, news pundits, and talented meme makers.  How did this fraction of a sentence uttered three years ago capture the attention it has?  Perhaps, as I’ll explore, it wasn’t simply a “quip,” but rather an expression of a much deeper position regarding not only women, but family, and social structure.   What are the underscoring ideas exposed here? 

My first observation was the rapid and hilarious responses of women dancing with their cats to the soundbite of Vance’s claim.  I was reminded of Hannah Arendt’s depiction of power and authority where she wrote that the counter to authority is laughter.  Laughter quickly dethrones a position of authority.  What may have been an insult 40-50 years ago has instead been met with an adoption of the “lifestyle” as a badge of honor.  It represents the freedom to decide one’s life path on one’s own terms, something that has historically been afforded to men and only recently grown legally and culturally for minorities. 

Vance has unsuccessfully tried to rephrase and explain his comment, only to solidify the problematic reasoning from which it emerged.  Let’s begin with the devaluing of those without children and the centering of those with children.  

Ultimately, the position (or implication) is that one has more value as a citizen when one has children, and his comment specifically highlights women which must be noted.   

In my own life, as a woman who became a parent much later, at the tender age of 41, I have been asked if I’ve gained a larger sense of meaning or purpose.  Without question the experience of motherhood has propelled a pleasant and beautiful shift of responsibility and perspective, in addition to loss of sleep.  

But to suppose that a woman who does not have children (or if I had not become a parent) is of lesser importance or experience is an unknowable claim entirely.  I am a parent but I cannot state with certainty that this trajectory of my life is more fruitful or better than if I weren’t.  

It would be unfair and epistemologically incorrect to assert that women without children are also without significant experience, joy, and contributions to their life and community.  Both those with and without children would have to hit the rewind button on their life, live the alternative, and then have some basis for comparison.  John Stuart Mill argued as much in his work On The Subjection of Women; namely, that one cannot invoke the superiority of one’s experience if one has not experienced any other way.  

The opportunities, way of life, and realities are different for sure, but there isn’t any concrete means for determining a “better” course.  

Another problematic idea embedded in Vance’s quip is a profound patriarchal position on women, their role as a citizen and in a family.  By patriarchy I mean the belief that there is a hierarchical order inherent to being a man or woman that should be expressed legally and culturally. He argues he is for family, yet it is clear that he considers only one type of family worthy of advocacy, one in which the patriarchal view of order is lived out.  (I wish a member of the press would ask him to define family for clarification.) 

This one type of family Vance endorses rests on a foundation of a heterosexual relationship whereby women’s function is to produce children. He also opposes no-fault divorce and that view is part and parcel to this childless cat lady remark. 

This is because a patriarchal position centers the man as citizen and leader while women’s function is for the benefit of the men’s flourishing.  His flourishing entails reason, talent, capital, and growth; whereas women’s only possibility of flourishing (and it’s not really flourishing at all), is to serve and support those interests, and to provide his legacy through bearing children.  Women belonging to men is the core principle here.  

Therefore, the sarcastic comment “childless cat ladies” is laced with disgust at the women who opt out of this structure.  By being childless, they are not acting according to their function, an idea we can trace back to Aristotle and echoed by Vance.  Aristotle wrote that the “good” life hinged on establishing the purpose of life and then acting in the direction of said purpose. For men, that meant rational activity. For women, according to Aristotle, that meant reproduction. To be a “good” woman, then, requires having children.

By being single, the woman does not belong to any man and is not employing her being to support the flourishing of a man.  By taking care of a cat, they are content with their own company (another offense to his view of women’s role).  

The main offense for Vance is the notion of a woman acting in the world not as a servant but as a happily autonomous agent.  And yes, this would force one to reimagine how women contribute to society, something he seems unwilling to do.  This reflects his narrow concept of family because he cannot reconcile women’s freedom and interests with the institution of marriage.  His idea of marriage means an eclipsing of women’s agency.   

In his efforts to explain, he claims the Democrats are opposed to family.  Again, his definition of family would be helpful here.  The Democrats have advocated for education, parental leave, school lunches, affordable childcare, and adding preschool to public education.  In all of these positions, the Democrats envision women’s role in the family and society as flourishing in her own right.  Thus, a family dynamic is expanded to include the possibilities of career women, stay at home fathers, two fathers, two mothers, blended families, multi-generational families, single parent families, a husband and wife without children, and so on.  Vance and the like oppose the aforementioned funding because they view women’s job or role as limited to childbearing and domestic life; therefore, the state should not step in and allow for the space for women to contribute and exist outside of the home. 

Here is where his position on eliminating no-fault divorce comes in. (Before no-fault divorce, a person would have to prove the spouse did something wrong and then a judge would determine if that was enough of a reason to grant a divorce. No-fault, on the other hand, leaves the decision up to the individual. That is, one can leave a marriage based on their personal reasons without the need to provide evidence or hope that it would be sufficient enough for a judge to grant the divorce. A notable statistic following the onset of no-fault divorce was a dramatic dip in suicide among women.)

A woman exiting a marriage is woefully problematic for the beliefs of Vance because her agency is not part of his vision of family or society.  In belonging to man she is not equal to man therefore she cannot of her own accord decide to not be married.  Moreover, unmarried men miss out on the unpaid labor of a woman taking care of the home.

No-fault divorce actually respects the institution of marriage by recognizing the two people involved are freely recommitting to their relationship daily.  In other words, the freedom to leave emphasizes that one exercises their choice to stay.  Without the choice to leave, the value and weight to the decision to be in the marriage is lost.  Love implies choice.  If we aim for marriage to be anchored in love, then choice is a necessary condition.

Perhaps the most jarring underscoring idea is that the “wrongness” of a woman being a childless cat lady is that her role in society is to reproduce for the good of the state.  When Vance and others in this framework speak of freedom they do not mean to include women.  The freedom they envision is for the good of men to explore and create.  Women, on the other hand, are to belong to both man and the state.