As demonstrated through years of both sexist dog whistles and vile policymaking, Republicans and the far-right influencers who increasingly guide them are determined to impose forced pregnancy and parenthood on every woman in the U.S. until we're all pregnant in the suburbs raising 17 kids. So, unsurprisingly, it barely took 48 hours after Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential race for the right to begin attacking presumptive Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for being, God forbid, "childless"—a line of attack that Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance himself rolled out against Harris as early as 2021, while also arguing people without children deserve less political power. (More on that shortly.) For starters, Harris isn't childless. She's the stepmother of two children. But because she doesn’t have biological children, right-wing influencers insist she’s an unfulfilled woman who can’t be trusted to be president, because without (biological) kids, how could she possibly give a shit about the future of this country?? Props to Will Chamberlain, a conservative lawyer and inexplicably popular social media influencer, for emerging as one of the first idiots to bravely step up and observe that Harris has no biological children. “Really simple, underdiscussed reason why Kamala Harris shouldn’t be President. No children," he tweeted at 6:31 p.m. EST Sunday night. Unfortunately, one tweet wasn't enough, so he went on to argue that stepchildren "don't count" (party of family values, huh?), and claimed that “the concerns of parents and families will always be abstract to [Harris]”—as if presidents who don’t have cancer are uninvested in curing cancer. Mind you, the majority of Congress is parents and grandparents who've yet to lift a finger on climate change. Chamberlain also suggested his misogynistic bullshit was not misogynistic at all because he's made similar observations about former Republican presidential candidate, Tim Scott. I guess we'll just have to take his word on that! But even if Chamberlain doesn't consider his comments to be gendered, other voices on the right made the same argument, just with more full-throated sexism. JD Vance says women who haven’t given birth like Kamala Harris are “childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives,” and have “no direct stake” in America. pic.twitter.com/3DJY3pQTGe — Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) July 22, 2024 On Monday, far-right influencer (which is frankly a generous term for this unabashed, terminally online white nationalist) Laura Loomer used some especially gross terms to similarly attack Harris for being "childless." “It’s time for Republicans to start talking about [Harris’] sexual history and the reason why she likely doesn’t have any children of her own. I’m willing to bet she’s had so many abortions that she damaged her uterus. A woman who has no biological children of her own should not be allowed to make decisions in the White House for your children,” Loomer wrote in a sprawling, article-length tweet that reads like digital bile. She further called on Republicans to "run with this messaging" and argued, "Harris has zero investment in the future but she wants to determine our future.” (I'm tempted to join her in asking Republicans to go this route, which will surely do wonders to persuade suburban swing voters they aren't sexist extremists.) “It’s about measuring women’s worth by their ability to bear children, trying to punish those who don’t," Nicole Regalado, vice president of campaigns at the women’s rights organization Ultraviolet, told Jezebel. She further explained that even if Republicans and right-wingers frame their critique of non-parents as gender-neutral, this remains not only “a sexist attack,” but “the exact line of thinking that led to abortion bans." Meanwhile, right-wing hacks like Milo Yiannopoulos…
