J.D. Vance, now a prominent figure in American politics, is particularly known for his conservative positions and often provocative statements. A former Marine and Yale-trained lawyer, Vance first gained attention through his book Hillbilly Elegy, where he recounts his journey from Ohio’s working class. While his story of resilience captivated the public and media, his views on social roles, especially those concerning women, have sparked intense controversy. Now serving as the Vice President-elect of the United States, Vance’s ascent has been marked by statements underscoring a rigid view of family and gender roles, attracting both criticism and opposition.
Criticisms of Childless Women and a Traditionalist View of Female Fulfillment
In 2021, during widespread debates around Kamala Harris’s candidacy, Vance did not hesitate to make particularly harsh remarks about childless women. He referred to influential Democratic women, including Harris, as “childless cat ladies,” suggesting they were unhappy and “miserable at their own life.” These comments ignited a media firestorm, with critics highlighting the sexist nature of judging women’s happiness based on their maternal status. According to Vance, professional women “choose a path to misery” by prioritizing their careers over having children, reflecting his belief that the traditional family structure is the foundation of personal fulfillment.
These statements reveal an ideology rooted in nostalgia for traditional gender roles. By asserting that women who do not focus on motherhood risk a life of regret, Vance implies that women’s personal fulfillment is intrinsically tied to family life—a view that directly challenges feminist struggles for autonomy and equal rights.
A Surprising Idea: The Role of Post-Menopausal Women
In a 2020 podcast, Vance made another unexpected suggestion: he claimed that taking care of grandchildren is “the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female.” He argued that once motherhood is complete, a woman’s role should remain family-centered, a view that significantly limits the potential roles of older women. This statement was criticized as paternalistic, with feminists condemning it as an attempt to impose restrictive expectations on women’s societal contributions.
Unwavering Opposition to Abortion, Even in Cases of Rape or Incest
Vance is also known for his uncompromising stance on abortion, supporting strict anti-abortion laws with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. He views these exceptions as “somehow inconvenient” that, in his words, diminish the sanctity of life. This position has drawn fierce backlash from women’s rights organizations, who argue that it denies fundamental rights and disregards the trauma that survivors of sexual violence may endure.
This ideological rigidity, seen by some as extreme, underscores Vance’s desire to control women’s reproductive lives, imposing obligations that disregard personal choice and mental health. By refusing exceptions in such sensitive cases, he reinforces a reductive view of women and their rights, especially in the most distressing situations.
A Troubling View on Marriage
Regarding marriage, Vance goes to great lengths to defend an extremely conservative perspective. He opposes no-fault divorce, which allows couples to separate without serious cause, and has even suggested that couples need to be more willing to stay in unhappy marriages for the sake of their kids—and seemed to suggest that in some cases, “even violent” marriages should continue.
Such statements have alarmed many observers, who see them as endangering women subjected to domestic violence. By downplaying the importance of personal safety and prioritizing marriage preservation, Vance sends a clear message about his social priorities, where the family’s well-being takes precedence over individual security.
Radical Pro-Family Policy Proposals
Vance does not limit himself to rhetoric and seeks to enact reforms. One of his most controversial proposals involves increasing taxes on childless individuals while granting extra votes to parents in elections. According to him, families with children have a greater stake in the country’s future and should therefore hold more electoral power. This idea has been widely criticized for its discriminatory nature and its narrow view of citizenship.
In sum, J.D. Vance embodies a political figure with deeply rooted convictions within a conservative movement that places traditional family structures at the heart of society. His remarks, ranging from critiques of childless women to a rigid vision of family roles, illuminate a worldview that stands in stark opposition to gender equality efforts. For his critics, these sexist and regressive ideas reflect more than a personal viewpoint; they could lead to concrete and troubling consequences for women’s rights in the United States.