The Right’s Fixation on Childless Women: A Tool for Upholding Capitalist Norms

[Social Media]

 

A woman without biological children is running for high political office, and predictably, this aspect of her life is being used against her. Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. presidency, has faced scrutiny over her lack of children. Conservative figures like lawyer Will Chamberlain have argued that Harris “shouldn’t be president” because she doesn’t have “skin in the game.” Republican vice-presidential candidate JD Vance has gone so far as to dismiss Harris and other Democrats as “a bunch of childless cat ladies miserable at their own lives.”

 

This obsession with women’s reproductive choices is not just an American phenomenon, though it is particularly pronounced in the U.S., where right-wing movements are deeply fixated on women’s roles as mothers. This mindset was also evident in the 2016 Conservative Party leadership race in the U.K., when Andrea Leadsom suggested that her opponent, Theresa May, was less invested in the country’s future because she didn’t have children. “I feel that being a mum means you have a real stake in the future of our country,” Leadsom stated, implying that childless women are less qualified to lead.

 

The fixation on whether or not a woman has children is not simply a matter of ideological debate. It is a reflection of a deeper, more insidious belief that a woman’s worth and credibility are tied to her ability to reproduce. JD Vance’s comments reveal this mindset clearly. He claims that childless leaders on the left are “trying to brainwash the minds of our children,” suggesting that their lack of biological offspring makes them untrustworthy or incapable of understanding the needs of future generations.

 

This line of thinking is rooted in a traditional view that struggles to see women as anything other than potential mothers. It is a perspective that persists even in supposedly progressive societies, where women who choose not to have children—or who cannot have them—are often viewed with suspicion or contempt. The higher a woman rises in the professional sphere, the more likely she is to face questions about her childlessness. Society seems to demand an explanation, as if a woman’s value is incomplete without motherhood.

 

Behind this obsession lies an uncomfortable truth about how capitalist societies function. Women who do not have children are less likely to be confined to the domestic sphere, where they provide unpaid labor that supports not only their families but also the broader economy. As writer Helen Charman argues in her book Mother State, motherhood is not just a personal experience but a political one. The work of raising children, which is foundational to society, is often unequally shared and undervalued, yet it is essential to maintaining the status quo.

 

A woman who does not bear children disrupts this system. She is less likely to stay at home, providing free care that underpins the economy. Without such women, the lack of adequate parental leave, childcare, and eldercare in capitalist societies becomes glaringly obvious. The absence of this “free” labor challenges the inequitable economic arrangements that many societies are built upon. As Charman notes, “Nurture, care, the creation of human life… have more to do with power, status, and the distribution of resources than we like to admit.”

 

This view reduces the decision not to have children to a matter of personal selfishness, ignoring the broader social and economic factors at play. The lack of affordable childcare, the absence of support networks, and the financial risks associated with motherhood are often downplayed in favor of a narrative that blames women for choosing not to have children. As Charman points out, assuming that motherhood happens without consideration of these factors is a “useful fantasy” that supports the existing power structures.

 

The discourse surrounding childless women is often binary, ignoring the complex realities of women’s lives. Many women who do not have children have experienced pregnancies, miscarriages, and abortions. Some have stepchildren, like Harris, but these relationships are often dismissed as irrelevant. Others extend their nurturing roles to the children of friends and family. Yet, these experiences are frequently overlooked in favor of a simplistic narrative that equates motherhood with a woman’s ultimate purpose.

 

Credit: The Guardian 2024-09-03

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

[Tug]

Well the lady’s have voiced their opinion on this issue it is as follows…WE ARNT GOING BACK….they seem pretty clear on that one lol 😂 I suggest the republicans listen up because after the election they will have to pick up the pieces and rebuild their party.

[Chomper Higgot]

Whatever else it is, it’s an attack on 50% of the electorate.

 

Like so many rightwing fixations, it’s

 weird.

 

 

[JonnyF]

47 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Whatever else it is, it’s an attack on 50% of the electorate.

 

50% of the electorate are childless women? Fascinating. 

 

47 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Like so many rightwing fixations, it’s

 weird.

 

 

 

What's disappointing is grown adult Democrats repeating the insult "weird" ad infinitum, like the stereotypical mean girl gang in a 90's high school movie. So juvenile. 😃 I bet you do it with a grating Californian accent and vocal fry "You're just like, sooooooo weird". 😃

[john donson]

don't you like when you are on tinder and a 40+ woman has in her profile if she is not sure about getting kids ?  kinda late for that unless you want the iq of an average somchai

[Purdey]

I guess they'll want to become astronauts and presidents next.

😁

[Cameroni]

Typical pseudo-marxist feminist claptrap from the Guardian. Quite obviously if you have no experience of certain things you will not understand them. Women who have no children of their own, just like men who have no children of their own, will not and cannot understand the challenges families face as well as those who do have children. This is just a very obvious fact. JD Vance is right, if someone has no skin in the game, they should not have the same voting rights. Skewering voting rights in favour of men and women who do have children is a very sensible idea.

 

The future of all countries depends on them having sufficient children, because it is future taxpayers who will ensure that civilization as we know it continues, that the old get medical care and pension, that the health services work. People who don't contribute to that in the same way as families with children do should not enjoy the same voting rights. The falling birthrates and indeed negative birth rates, born out of the selfishness of some, is  a huge problem for the Western countries.

[stevenl]

"JD Vance is right, if someone has no skin in the game, they should not have the same voting rights. "

 

So men should stay away from discussing abortion. Many more examples of the nonsense of your reasoning.

[maesariang]

On 9/3/2024 at 10:44 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Whatever else it is, it’s an attack on 50% of the electorate.

 

Like so many rightwing fixations, it’s

 weird.

 

 

Where did you get 50% from?

[maesariang]

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"JD Vance is right, if someone has no skin in the game, they should not have the same voting rights. "

 

So men should stay away from discussing abortion. Many more examples of the nonsense of your reasoning.

Babies are created using sperm from a man. So they do have skin in the game.

[maesariang]

On 9/3/2024 at 6:57 AM, Tug said:

Well the lady’s have voiced their opinion on this issue it is as follows…WE ARNT GOING BACK….they seem pretty clear on that one lol 😂 I suggest the republicans listen up because after the election they will have to pick up the pieces and rebuild their party.

Trump is the likely winner. Harris is floundering. 

[Cameroni]

15 hours ago, stevenl said:

"JD Vance is right, if someone has no skin in the game, they should not have the same voting rights. "

 

So men should stay away from discussing abortion. Many more examples of the nonsense of your reasoning.

No, there's a huge difference, abortion is an ethical issue.

 

Childless people deciding on policies is a practical issue .

 

Everybody can opine on ethics, but policies that affect families should really be decided by people who have children.

[candide]

I think the real reason is much simpler than that.

They do it because they are lacking arguments against her. 😃