George Washington didn’t have biological children. So, why is the criticism of Kamala Harris touching such a nerve?
George Washington didn’t have biological children. So, why is the criticism of Kamala Harris touching such a nerve?
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.
Because it's fore-fathers ya dolt! Do I have to explain everything?
I also appreciated this particular nugget in the article:
While Harris has not personally given birth, neither has any other occupant of the White House.
While Harris has not personally given birth, neither has any other occupant of the White House
Though LBJ once came close after a particularly hearty meal, according to an aide who was present at the meeting
Doesn't the entire first family live in the White House? Not to mention servants and the like. I get what they're going for, but occupant is one of the few words they could have chosen that could not be more inaccurate.
Did they play golf or something?
Because for the standard conservative there are only two genders, Penis and Baby-Machine
Explains why so many of them are dicks.
Also fun fact: those aren't mutually exclusive either! One can be both a baby machine and a dick!
Also sheds light on their fixation on penises as well. The whole 'buying a big truck to make up for smol pp' is a very conservative tradition
Because she's a woman, female, and as far as the right is concerned, her sole purpose in life (besides serving under the men in her life) is to bear children. They think women are breeding cattle, property of the primary man of their life.
It’s why they hate abortion. It’s like putting your dollar in the vending machine and the baby doesn’t come out.
Attacking the 'childless' is just another front of their culture war.
In another Lemmy post highlighting an article where Pete Buttigieg says America is ready for a gay man to be Vice President, I made this comment:
Still waiting for Americans to be ready for a Trans Atheist Single Childless Woman of Color President.
Obviously, this statement is, at least somewhat, hyperbole, but I made that statement to point out that I'm waiting for us all to grow the fuck up. Until we are able to accept and nurture a society that would willingly elect a Trans Atheist Single Childless Woman of Color as President of the United States Of America, based off of what they can contribute back to humanity as a whole (or, at the very least, I guess the nation state of the USA), then we truly are more akin to a bunch of high schoolers playing a popularity contest for who gets the nuclear access codes than adults participating in a mature and healthy electoral process.
Still waiting for Americans to be ready for a Trans Atheist Single Childless Woman of Color President
Tbh, I'd settle for either one, or even a religious person who keeps their religion out of their politics, including speeches.
As long as that person was also good at the job and had good policy priorities, of course.
what they can contribute back to humanity as a whole
You really are right about this, we want good leaders with good plans. Humans, who can be humans. If we can elect religious folks (Biden) who don't push that everyone must be that (I don't feel that he has), it is just the same with a "Trans Atheist Single Childless Woman of Color" because of that same thing. It's good to have diverse leadership. It seems that some of these hate groups are wrapped up in believing something like if we let one in, we let them all in. We're all here, together, and it can be fine.
it isn't
Because, woman. In the land of the free.
Because she's not them.