JD Vance Claims America Is ‘Anti-Child’ Due to Frustrations with Kids on Airplanes

Recently, J.D. Vance made a striking assertion, stating that America is “pathologically anti-child” and “anti-family.” His basis for this declaration seems to stem from instances where individuals express irritation with children who misbehave in public spaces like airplanes and trains.

Since being selected as Donald Trump’s running mate, Vance’s viewpoints regarding children and families have come under intense scrutiny. He not only identifies as “pro-life” but also promotes the notion that everyone should have children. He has frequently ridiculed those who choose not to procreate, including labels like “childless cat lady” directed at Kamala Harris, and has even suggested that parents ought to have greater voting power compared to non-parents. Vance has even gone so far as to term those who decide against having children for various reasons as “deranged” and “psychotic.” While the trend of declining birth rates is evident, many view this shift positively, seeing it as an indication of women’s growing autonomy in managing their reproductive choices and futures.

Regrettably, figures like Vance represent a faction of Republicans who are intent on shaming both women and men for opting out of parenthood. They often propagate negative stereotypes, painting these individuals as bitter, “deranged,” and self-centered. Recently, Vance attempted to incite concern over America’s alleged “anti-child” and “anti-family” stance, though the evidence he offered to support this claim was quite peculiar.

J.D. Vance presents questionable evidence for America’s “anti-child” sentiment

In a recent interview with The New York Times, Vance faced criticism for his remarks about women without children. He attempted to clarify his statements, arguing that they were misunderstood and that he was trying to highlight what he perceives as a societal issue. Vance expressed, “What I was definitely trying to illustrate ultimately in a very inarticulate way is that I do think that our country has become almost pathologically anti-child.” To support his assertion, he shared a personal anecdote from his law school days when he observed a young woman boarding a train with several children.

He described her as a “young Black female,” probably around “21 or 22,” and mentioned that she appeared to be financially constrained but was handling her children, who he labeled as “complete disasters,” with remarkable patience. Vance lamented how onlookers showed disdain, glaring at her as her children acted out. This experience, according to Vance, marked a revelation about America’s troubling “dark” and “pathological” frustration with children. He remarked, “It just sort of hit me like, OK, this is really, really bad. I do think that there’s this pathological frustration with children that just is a new thing in American society. I think it’s very dark.”

Later in his remarks, Vance reiterated his views about America being “very anti-family” and “very anti-child,” pointing to experiences when parents travel with children. He explained, “And you see it, I think, if you take your kid on an airplane. You see it if you take your kid to a restaurant, and people huff and puff at you.” Essentially, his entire premise rests on the notion that America reveals a disturbing anti-child and anti-family sentiment simply because some individuals show frustration when children misbehave in public spaces. He further used his “anti-child” argument to rationalize disparaging comments regarding those who choose childlessness.

It’s striking that a Vice Presidential candidate could not substantiate his claims about America’s supposed aversion to children with more substantial reasoning. He neglected to mention declining birthrates or cite any serious societal attitudes toward children. Instead, he hopes to convince the public that America has a serious anti-child problem because certain people, understandably, become frustrated by misbehaving kids in public settings. While it’s true that some may overreact to such situations, it doesn’t inherently label them as anti-child. Even parents can become exasperated by other children’s behavior. Sighing or casting annoyed glances is merely a human reaction; patience and understanding can falter in challenging situations.

Vance’s implausible arguments illustrate that his claims regarding anti-child sentiments are merely sensational myths. He is eager to portray those without children as malevolent and antagonistic toward families, failing to recognize that the most genuinely anti-child individuals are often those who are parents themselves. Real concerns stem from families like the Franke, Turpin, or Duggar families, who have numerous children yet engage in abuse, neglect, and exploitation. These are the true anti-child individuals we should prioritize addressing, rather than those who opt against parenthood or express annoyance about an unruly child on a flight.

Source