Yes, I Do Have a "Direct Stake in the Future"

Well, this is certainly not what I had planned to write about this week.  I wanted to write some educational wonky stuff in preparation for the coming year.  I generally try to keep this blog about education rather than politics.  But every once in a while, the two worlds overlap, like the debates sparked after school shootings or book banning arguments. Vice presidential candidate JD Vance's comments about childless women qualifies.  As a middle aged single virgin, this is also something on which I feel fairly qualified to offer perspective.

For those who may have been living under a rock for the last week, let me catch you up.  When President Biden stepped away from his run for re-election and endorsed Kamala Harris, the Trump/Vance campaign found itself scrambling for new talking points. They couldn't call her old or question her cognitive abilities, and I guess they didn't have time to research things of substance.  So, what did they go to? She isn't qualified because she hasn't given birth to children.  Setting aside for the moment that none of our Presidents have ever given birth to children because they were men and that George Washington, James Polk, Warren Harding, James Buchanan, and Andrew Jackson didn't father any, let's look at Vance's twisted logic.  The statement was first made in 2021, when he was running for the Senate.  In it, he said to Tucker Carlson, 

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

The majority of the backlash over this statement has focused on the "cat lady" part, leading to some pretty fabulous memes.  A number of women from both sides of the aisle have taken to social media to point out that not all women are childless by choice and that being childless doesn't necessarily make you miserable.  Adoptive parents and step parents have made the case that they love their kids just as much as anyone who has given birth to theirs.  Vance claims to have been misquoted by the left, but given the fact that what is being shared is video of the Fox interview, that seems farfetched at best.  

Supporters of Vance have doubled down on the part about not having a direct stake in the future.  Since some of them have said it directly to me, a childless woman (who also happens to have one cat), that's the part I would like to address.    

My call to singleness was unexpected.  I very much wanted to be a wife and mother and assumed throughout my twenties that it would happen one day.  But God had other plans for me.  When He led me in this direction, I did not become miserable in my own life. I thought, "Well, that's good to know.  I can start making plans around that."  I bought a house because I no longer felt the need to wait until I was sharing a mortgage.  I did not go get a bunch of cats because I had one and it didn't occur to me to think my now permanent single state required more than that.  

Most importantly to this discussion, I didn't quit my teaching career.  I dove deeper into it than ever, knowing that the way God would use me to touch the future was through other people's kids.  I sponsored clubs, continued to grow in my role as yearbook advisor, read more about cognitive science, and volunteered to chaperone most things.  In my 25 year career, I have taught nearly 3000 students. I have taught entire families, one sibling after another.  Many of my students have kids of their own, and I have had secondary impact on them. My "direct stake in the future" wasn't expressed through a small number of kids in my home but through a large number of kids in my classroom.

You might be thinking, "Okay, but you are just one weirdo. Most people who have no children don't think the way you do."  Agreed.  I'm strange, but let me give a few examples of other strange and childless people whose impact on the future we are still benefitting from.  

• Shall we start with the obvious?  Jesus Christ himself had no children.  Okay, that's cheating, I know.  I get that's a little different because He was Divine.  How about the apostle Paul?  He not only viewed Timothy as a non-biological son, but he certainly cared deeply about the future.  Far from the JD Vance perspective, he thought being single and childless gave him more of a stake in God's mission and advocated that others be like he was in order to fulfill God's purposes.
• Isaac Newton certainly had an impact on the future, given that we still teach his work over 400 years after his death.  He never married or fathered a child.  Vance might have considered him week or miserable, but without him, we would have little understanding of physics today.
• Artists like DaVinci and Michelangelo considered their works of art to be their children, and those works are still inspiring people today.  If they had children, would we have The David, The Pieta, or The Last Supper?  Maybe.  But also, maybe not.  God had a different purpose for them than he does for many.
• CS Lewis was well into middle age when he met his wife, Joy.  He raised her sons after her death, but JD Vance would say that doesn't count (at least that seems to be how feels about Kamala's step children).  Yet, even before he met her, he was the author of many children's stories, science fiction, and theological masterpieces. He very much understood his stake in the future.
• If you have ever been through a natural disaster, had a home fire, or needed blood, you have benefitted from the American Red Cross.  It was founded by Clara Barton.  She had no children, but she clearly felt some "direct stake in the future" and had a direct impact on it.
• Women like me only have the right to vote in elections like the one in which JD Vance is running because of women like Susan B. Anthony, who wanted voting rights, not only for herself, but for women in the future, in spite of not having given birth to children.
• More recently, theologian John Stott chose singleness.  While he recognized that it was "no higher or holier vocation than marriage," he also said, "If marriage is good, singleness is also good. It's an example of the balance of Scripture."  For a full interview with him on this topic, click here.
• Dolly Parton and her husband never had any children, yet she has done more for children's literacy than anyone since Barbara Bush.  Why would she care if children read?  Because, she doesn't have the short sighted view that she will only care about that which directly affects her.
• And, of course, there are countless nuns and monks and priests who have forgone marriage and children to focus on the future.
• There is one that JD Vance doesn't seem to mind (or at least hasn't mentioned publicly).  Lindsey Graham has never been married or had children.  I would assume that his two decades plus in the Senate means he believes he has some stake in the future.  One would think he might speak out about the Vance statements, but he sold out to Trump world some time ago; so I wouldn't hold my breath.
  
  
  

Why is this hard for so many to understand?  Because we focus on our own experience, and 90% of adults have the experience of having children.  I focused on my experience earlier, and so has everyone in this conversation online. Those who are parents describe their experience of having a different view of the future after they had children.  I have no doubt that is true.  In every conversation I have ever had on this topic (and there were many prior to this week), I have acknowledged that people with children of their own have a perspective I do not have; so I get that.  Those who have suffered infertility and miscarriages have talked about how that experience changed them, and that is certainly true as well because their view of the future as it pertains to their children is eternity rather than a few decades.  Those who have adopted, fostered, or in some way raised the children of someone else have shared their experience, discussing how different it is to have choice rather than biology deepen their love for their children, and I have no problem recognizing the beauty of that.  

The world is made up of more than one perspective, and that is what JD Vance doesn't understand.  He believes his experience should be the universal experience because he cannot conceive of people who managed to have a view of the future that involves their legacy rather than their progeny.  

You may wonder where the overlap is with education.  Many of your kids teachers are people who have not had children.  Some want kids and just haven't had them yet, especially if they are younger.  Some, like me, have found other people's children to be their calling.  Whatever your interaction with these teachers is, please don't assume that they don't understand children just because they don't have them at home.  It's easy to do and it seems to win arguments, but it hurts them deeply, whether it comes from parents, colleagues, or supervisors.  

I was once in a faculty meeting where the discussion was about homework.  The head of school I had at the time looked at us and said, "If you aren't a parent, you'll NEVER understand."  I put the emphasis on never because he did.  That word was like a dagger in the middle of the sentence.  I had only recently recognized my call to singleness and was accepting that, by not having family concerns, I could focus on becoming the best teacher I could be.  I tried to explain it to him (that was before I realized he was a person who doubled down on things rather than moderate them).  I told him it was like he was saying, "Oh, that call of God on your life?  Yeah, you can't be good at that either."  But, it fell on deaf ears, and there were definitely more statements like it in future meetings.  While that statement felt like he found the soft part of my heart and jabbed it with a sharp stick, my pain was small compared to that of the two teachers weeping in the row behind me.  One was a man dealing with his wife's infertility and had just begun the adoption process.  The other was a woman who had experienced a miscarriage just three weeks before this meeting.  My point is not that you don't have a different perspective if you have had a kid crying about homework at the kitchen table; my point is that you don't know what someone else's experience is when you say things like, "you'll NEVER understand."  So be careful with that.

I got it from colleagues and parents throughout my twenties and early thirties.  It seemed to settle after I turned thirty-seven.  I think some people didn't assume I was single and childless at that point, and I also think my reputation did me a lot of favors because I had been at the same school for so long that people better understood my heart for their kids.  But, it shouldn't take that long, and the teacher shouldn't have to prove their love of kids to you after choosing a career in education when they could have worked fewer hours for more pay in another field.  If your child is in the classroom of a teacher who doesn't have children of his or her own, be grateful for the kind of time that teacher has to devote to your child.  Don't use it against them just because it is a card you can throw down when you disagree about a policy.  

Every living human has a "direct stake in the future" because we are all part of mankind.  JD Vance and his apologists don't understand the basic concept of how interconnected all humans are, so I'd like to end with the words of someone who did.  John Donne wrote these words about being "involved in mankind" in 1624.  Maybe JD Vance will like them since Donne fathered 12 children and, as far as I know, didn't have any cats, making him worth listening to.