George Washington didn’t have biological children. So, why is the criticism of Kamala Harris touching such a nerve?

In the past week, old comments by Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance about people without children have resurfaced, offending huge swathes of the American public.

In a 2021 interview, Vance described Democrats as “a bunch of childless cat ladies”, directly referencing Vice President Kamala Harris, who has two step-children with her husband Doug Emhoff.

The comment has garnered criticism from the likes of Jennifer Aniston and Meghan McCain, daughter of the late Republican senator John McCain. Many critics have pointed to billionaire Taylor Swift who is 34, unmarried, without children, and a famously devoted owner of three cats.

Vance quickly clarified that his comments were meant to be sarcastic, but he doubled down on his argument that the left was pursuing “policies that are profoundly anti-child”.

So, why are these comments angering so many people, particularly women, across the political spectrum?

Vance’s views have racialised undertones

Vance’s pro-natalist views are not new.

He has lauded efforts by authoritarian Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to boost his country’s birth rates, which include financial incentives for couples who have children.

He has suggested Americans without children should be taxed more than those with children and giving children the vote, which parents would exercise on their behalf.

Above all, Vance believes people without children do not have “an investment in the future of this country” and so should have less of a say.

In lamenting the declining birth rate in the United States, Vance also flirts with a racialised political view that opposes immigration and criticises minority birth rates, encapsulated in the far-right “Great Replacement Theory”.

He has condemned Democrats for believing they can “replace American children with immigrants,” even as his Indian-American wife Usha, the daughter of immigrants, has been targeted by white supremacists.

The irony here is the Republican Party opposes many government policies that support parents and children, such as protections and accommodations for pregnant workers, expanding Medicaid coverage for postpartum people, universal child care and government-funded pre-kindergarten, and benefits that would reduce child poverty, just to name a few.

Complex presidential families

Republicans have long insisted they are fighting to defend traditional family life, envisaged as the heterosexual nuclear family depicted in the television show Leave it to Beaver in the 1950s.

However, the lives of past US presidents demonstrate the ahistorical nature of these claims to defend tradition.

While Harris has not personally given birth, neither has any other occupant of the White House.

Five US presidents did not have any biological children, including George Washington, the “father of the nation”, who, like Harris, was a devoted step-parent.

Pregnancy and birth has always encompassed risk. Shame and silence have often surrounded experiences of infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal death, making these events family secrets.

However, we know that Ronald Reagan and his first wife Jane Wyman, John and Jackie Kennedy, and Michelle and Barack Obama experienced such heartbreak.

Presidents have always had complex personal and family lives, including:

Former presidents have adopted children and raised step-children, too. Trump, notably, has five children from three different marriages.

Not just an American problem

Vance’s comments reveal much about the enduring stigma surrounding women, particularly those in positions of authority and leadership, who do not have children. And this scrutiny of the reproductive lives of female leaders is not restricted to the US.

In Australia, a Liberal senator once claimed that former Prime Minister Julia Gillard was not fit to lead the country because she was “deliberately barren”.

Similar attacks were lobbed at New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark. In the UK, both Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon endured speculation and negative commentary about not having children.

Yet, when New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had a baby in office, she was also criticised. And when Ardern resigned from office, a BBC headline asked the sexist question, “Can women really have it all?”

And the idea that good leadership requires biological children has rarely come up in discussions of childless male leaders such as France’s Emmanuel Macron or Japan’s Shinzo Abe.

Nor are male leaders questioned about their levels of engagement as parents. Political scientist Jessica Smith argues men in politics still have an automatic “opt-out clause” around discussions of family.

Biology as destiny

In 2024, it’s beyond comprehension to suggest that a person who is unable to become pregnant or who elects not to would be any less committed to society than a parent.

Yet ugly, gendered assumptions persist. They are deemed selfish, “unnatural,” “unwomanly,” immature and having hatred towards children.

More broadly, many women in the West, whether they have children or not, believe Vance is merely saying out loud what many people silently think. Too often, women are judged solely through a biological lens. Our value, our ability to contribute meaningfully to society, is reduced to our ability to reproduce.

Nothing else we do matters. In Harris’ case, this means being a “Momala” to her stepchildren, a beloved aunt, a “Big Sister General” and a spouse, in addition to being a woman of colour who has shattered multiple glass ceilings.

In the West, women and people who can become pregnant live in an unprecedented moment. The cumulative effect of the sexual revolution and feminist and LGBTQ+ movements has given us the ability to choose how we live and love.

Despite the rolling back of abortion rights in the US, women today have a level of control over their lives that was unimaginable in 1946, the year Trump was born.

As Vance’s views on this and other issues make clear, however, it is precisely this agency that many conservatives want to restrict or take away.