Days after Kamala Harris emerged as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the US President’s post, pitting her directly against Republican candidate Donald Trump, some unfortunate comments made by Trump’s running mate J D Vance started making headlines.
Speaking about Harris and other Democratic leaders in a 2021 interview, Vance had said the US was being run 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”.
Harris is the Vice-President of the most powerful country in the world, a former senator from California and a former attorney-general of the same state. She is also the daughter of migrants, a woman of colour, someone who got married for the first time at the age of 50 and has no biological children.
Many Right-wing politicians and commentators have taken Vance’s comment and run with it. In their opinion, Harris is “miserable” despite the fact that she has a tremendously successful career, is happily married and has two step-children, who have often spoken of how fond they are of “Momala”.
Vance’s comments, and those of the fossilised logs who parroted him, are not surprising in the least as Republican leaders have made no secret of their antipathy towards female agency and joy. They are suspicious of women who are childless by choice, who believe that they have their own value and worth despite not being mothers, who seek fulfilment and meaning in life differently than others, and who are bewildered at being the object of pity or slander for making a choice that is, ultimately, extremely personal and only theirs to make.
This is famously not the first time Republicans have come after women’s choices. After successfully gutting abortion rights in 2022, Right-wing leaders in the US have openly spoken of their plans to ban multiple forms of contraception, as well as IVF. They presumably don’t want women to have any sexual or reproductive rights.
There isn’t enough ink in the world to write about the unrealistic standards a woman in public life is held to and the depths to which her actions are scrutinised, compared to male politicians who have to just manage the tough task of not dozing off at the podium during a debate. But beyond the undeniable misogyny and sexism, there is another issue with Vance’s comments.
They are not only offensive to independent women everywhere, they are also offensive to cat parents and cats. Just like such diatribe is always directed towards “childless women with cats”, not “childless men with cats”, why are only cats and cat parents subjected to such ridicule and stereotyping? What about childless women who have pet dogs or hamsters or even a pet horse. Why is it always poor cats that patriarchal or misogynistic men and women hyper focus on?
Is it because dogs are more affectionate, loving and loyal, so there is some inherent credit in having one as a pet? Is it because dogs, much like children, offer unconditional love and a certain gaiety to everyone around them? I am, in no way, comparing keeping dogs with the experience of having children. I am simply wondering how cats attract such a bad reputation, to be forever associated with a group of women who are no doubt living their best lives, but are still treated as ‘incomplete projects’ by most of society.
Is it because all cats secretly hate their owners, respond to all forms of affection with contempt and act like they are plotting to murder you and take over your empire? Is it because cats are considered cold and uncaring, the same traits society gleefully attributes to their ‘miserable’ female owners?
Such pedantic points about pet hierarchy aside, the issue boils down to a somewhat tedious homily. Most women, just like most men, live lives that are a tapestry of complex choices, personal convictions and unwinnable circumstances. There is no linear equation to living life, where just because having children equals massive joy, childlessness equals pure despondency.
Unlike what many think, women who don’t fit in socially sanctioned, prescriptive roles don’t really spend all their time being miserable or feeling sorry for themselves. Yes, some of them do spend an inordinate amount of time wooing their perpetually offended cats, but let me tell you, they do so happily!
Women whose life choices you don’t approve of, or understand, also live rich, fulfilling and complicated lives. Constantly attacking them for those choices and projecting your misery on them doesn’t dent their happiness, but it does reveal a gaping hole in your otherwise well-manicured existence.
The writer is a Delhi-based journalist
Usha Vance and her husband Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), former President Donald Trump’s choice for running mate, on the first day of the Republican National Convention at Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, July 15, 2024. (Photo: The New York Times) 
Share
