Kamala Harris Is A Stepmom — Does That Mean She’s Not Fit To Govern?

It’s been about 24 hours since President Joe Biden announced he was ending his reelection campaign and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, who has since become the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic ticket. And I’d say it didn’t take long for the misogynistic attacks to begin, but let’s be honest here: Have we ever really been without them? Take for instance a recently resurfaced clip from 2022 in which then-Senate candidate, now-VP candidate J.D. Vance spoke with (who else) Tucker Carlson repudiating Harris for her lack of... children.

We’re effectively run in this country via the Democrats ... by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too. It’s just a basic fact. You have Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC, the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. How does that make any sense when we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t have a direct stake in it.

In recent days, similar sentiments targeting Harris’ lack of biological children have popped up on X, from both anonymous users (“Kamala Harris has no children because of the numerous STDs she had as a prostitute”) and conservative pundits like Will Chamberlain (“Really simple, underdiscussed [sic] reason why Kamala Harris shouldn’t be President No children”) and Laura Loomer, whose claims I can only describe as completely unhinged.

(I don’t even know where to begin fact-checking that last one, but I do feel it important to point out that abortion, even multiple abortions, does not generally affect fertility.)

There’s a lot to unpack here, and none of it is terribly pleasant, but let’s dive in anyway...

This argument is shocking but not terribly surprising.

Using a woman’s fertility as an important measure of her womanhood and worth as a person is a lynchpin of far-right conservative ideology, and not just in their aggressive anti-choice policies. Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, for example, saw motherhood as a woman’s natural destiny, a role that should supersede all others. (This is, of course, ironic considering she herself had a vibrant career as a pundit while she railed against working women.) In her book The Power of the Positive Woman, she argued, “it is ludicrous to suggest that [other jobs] are more self-fulfilling than the daily duties of a wife and mother in the home.” (Vance would repeat this sentiment in 2022.) Sarah Palin tied conservative politics to concepts of motherhood, coining the term “Mama Grizzlies.”

And yet another element of conservative politics is the idea that, since a woman’s chief role in life is to mother children, she should be doing that instead of working outside the home. So, OK, let’s take this to its logical conclusion: Women who have children need not apply because they should focus on raising them, and women without children also need not apply because they don’t have a “direct stake” in the future you’re trying to build.

So where does that leave women as a group...?

Funny how this “concern” only seems to be leveled at liberal and progressive women in government and media...

As far as I know, this talking point hasn’t been used to argue against the political ambitions of Alabama Kay Ivey (Republican governor of Alabama, no children), Elaine Chao (former Republican cabinet member under two different presidents, no children), or Condoleezza Rice (former Republican secretary of state, no children). It’s not something child-free pundits like Ann Coulter or, indeed, Laura Loomer, get criticized for. It’s almost as though if you’re willing to work for the agenda of the people making these arguments, you get a pass. Imagine.

Not having biological children doesn’t seem to be an issue for conservative opinion on the likes of Matt Gaetz, to say nothing of former presidents George Washington, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, James Buchanan, or Warren G. Harding. LOL, JK, we all know we’re not judging men by their fertility. That’s a whole different standard. A second standard: a “double standard,” if you will.

Kamala does have kids.

Her husband, Doug Emhoff, has two children (Cole and Ella) from a previous marriage, now adults. The two even have a nickname for Harris: Momala. In her first speech as Biden’s running mate, she said, “I’ve had a lot of titles over my career, and certainly vice president will be great, but ‘Momala’ will always be the one that means the most.”

Anyone who has had a wonderful stepparent or has loved a stepchild can attest to the fact that the stepparent-stepchild relationship can be as real, and wonderful, and meaningful as a relationship with a biological parent or child. To diminish this experience — to deny the importance of stepparents in the lives of the children they choose to welcome into their hearts — is not only laughable but insulting. (And, considering more than 30% of Americans have a step-relative of some sort, sure to make many voters bristle.)

Further, dismissing non-traditional moms like Harris puts all non-bio moms into question — that includes stepmoms, moms who adopt, moms who foster, moms who use surrogates, and a lot of queer moms, too.

Assuming one can only care about the future if you have a “direct stake” in it is telling on yourself.

When I hear arguments like this — that assume a person can only be truly invested in issues that personally touch them — I don’t think of that as a “gotcha,” I think of it as a troubling confession, especially from a politician. It feels like an admission from the person making the argument that they can only fathom truly caring about the people they know and love. That they care about the future because they see a version of themselves in it. Certainly I’m not saying that children can’t or don’t motivate a person to feel more invested in a cause. But I would hope that anyone seeking a position of power can imagine caring about all children, even if they’re not biologically connected to you.