J.D. Vance Hates Women...Everything is Context
J.D. Vance Hates Women...Everything is Context
Kamala HQ and the media have been on a coordinated campaign to paint J.D. Vance as anti-woman but the context says otherwise
The Democrat presidential campaign was on life support, and before Biden could drag down the entire Democrat party, the leadership and donor class coordinated a campaign to figuratively push him down the stairs and off the ticket.
In his place, they anointed the Queen of Kamalot, Vice President Kamala Harris.
Harris and the Democrats mobilized. First, they jumped on the phone to capture Biden’s delegate votes. Then, they began the Kamala rebrand. The rebrand was Kamala isn’t weird with her words, salads, and cackle; that is part of her charm; she is like the fun-drunk aunt. Kamala is brat
The next step was to distance her from the biggest issue plaguing the Democrats: the border. They pulled their best Jedi mind trick skills and commenced to gaslight all of America that Haris was never the “border czar,” even though every news outlet called her the border czar when Biden put her in charge of diplomatic relations in the Northern Triangle.
Finally, while Harris has been hiding behind teleprompters, avoided questions from the press, and has yet to sit down for an interview with a single news organization, every left-leaning news commentator and Democrat put the word out. J.D. Vance is weird.
The Coordinated Attack on J.D.
A coordinated attack on J.D. Vance commenced, and social media was littered with clips of his past interviews. Some of the clips were from his 2022 run for Senate, and some were from when he was promoting his memoir Hillbilly Elegy and has no known aspirations for public service.
An interesting detail about these clips is that they were all either taken out of context and blatantly misrepresented what J.D. Vance was saying, kind of like a cheap fake.
Of course, the goal is that most people will not make the effort to find the original source and will take the clip and the misleading commentary that is included with it and believe it at face value. The hope, of course, is that the inevitable virality of the cheap fake will drown out any fact-checking.
Not everyone has the time or skill to scour the internet in search of an original source that will provide the full context of these clips. Fortunately, I do, and you, my friends, get to benefit from my free time and obsessive need to know the truth.
Let me tell you, it wasn’t easy to find these edits and where they originated from. One of them I found only because of a link in a random article that sent me to an unlisted Vice video on YouTube.
For each of the viral clips, I will provide the clip, the commentary provided with the clip, the original source, and a short explanation of the clip once the full context is provided.
It is up to you whether or not you agree with Vance, but at least the next time you are confronted with someone saying something such as, “Vance says women without kids should have less of a vote,” you will be able to provide the full context and open a person’s eyes to how Democrats manipulate.
No Kids, No Vote
Kamala HQ edited this video to remove all context and suggest that Vance and, in turn, Trump are trying to take voting power away from Americans who do not have children. But is not quite that simple.
The post came out at the same time as the “cat lady” clip, creating a narrative that Vance and Trump want to limit the voting rights of women without children.
The clip originates from a speech Vance gave in 2021 at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The speech focuses on the birth rate crisis and the need for Americans to have more children to ensure a strong society and economy.
The Edit
When viewing the clipped portion of the speech in its full context, he argues that the lower number of children compared to the voting population means that younger generations have less influence over their future, especially when accounting for people who make the choice not to have children.
The Context
He notes that some Democrats are advocating lowering the voting age to sixteen. Instead of lowering the voting age, Vance suggests that parents should vote on behalf of their children, which means the interest of the children will be accounted for in elections.
The Cat Ladies
Oh, the infamous “cat lady” clip. Admittedly, the “cat lady” clip isn’t good, but let’s provide some context.
One focus of the Kamala Harris campaign is to paint Trump and Vance as anti-woman and paint them as wanting to restrict women's rights.
This one is really tricky because to understand the full context of this clip, you have to already know the context of Vance’s speech at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute; otherwise, very relevant information is missing.
The clip comes from an interview Vance did with Tucker Carlson in 2021 while he was running for Ohio Senator. In it, he responded to criticisms of his speech at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
The Edit
If you watch the entire Tucker interview and his remarks during his speech at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, you'll see that his mention of "cat ladies" specifically referred to Democrats in power who do not have children. He finds it odd to support politicians without children who are part of a party whose policies he considers anti-child, and as a result, they are more likely to enact policies that are not in the interest of future generations.
The Context
He was not specifically targeting women or couples who have no children, and if you watch his original speech, he specifically says that he is not speaking of them or people who are unable to have children by no fault of their own.
Punish Those Without Children
This post focuses on Vance's desire to “punish” those who do not have children. However, if you watch the clip without being primed by the commentary, it’s clear that Vance is discussing child tax credits. It’s kind of weird to be attacking Vance for wanting to put more money in the pockets of families.
The government has long used taxes as a form of penalty and tax breaks as a form of reward. In this clip what is being discussed is the use of child tax credits to aid the financial burdens of those who have families.
The Edit
It is an odd line of attack, considering that Harris has previously proposed something similar and, in fact, has a history of supporting a permanent child tax credit.
Vance viewed this attack as a criticism of the child tax credit and, during interviews on Fox News and Megyn Kelly, called out Harris’s campaign for opposing it. This prompted Harris’s campaign to have to clarify its support for the tax credit.
In the end, it appears that this attack was more about policing speech than having an issue with his position.
Women Should Take a Beating for the Sake of the Kids
It’s clear that the Harris campaign wants us to conclude that Vance is a misogynist. A misogynist who thinks women should remain in abusive marriages and endure violence for the sake of their children.
Vance attended a forum at the Pacifica Christian High School in Orange County, California, and one of the questions he was asked focused on fatherlessness and J.D. Vance’s experience of growing up in a home without a consistent father figure.
He is sharing his concerns about how culture has become dismissive of marriage, viewing it as just a contract rather than a commitment, and if you are unhappy, you can simply move on, resulting in the breakdown of the family structure over time.
The Edit
In context, he advocates that our culture should view marriage more as a binding commitment rather than a contract that can be canceled and truly evaluate if a marriage is worth saving because a two-parent household is objectively better for children. This should not be a controversial take, considering there are many independent studies to back this up.
The Context
The question also asked him to account for his personal experience growing up in a broken home. Therefore, he shares his personal experience of growing up without his father and being raised by his grandmother while recognizing that his grandparents had a tumultuous relationship. He critiques the cultural dismissiveness of marriage and how it impacts children.
Vance Wants to Go to War Against the Childless
Staying with the view that Vance hates women and thinks they are only valuable if they have children, he now also wants to "go to war" with them.
The clip comes from an interview Vance did in 2021 on The Federalist Radio Hour. In it, Vance responds to a question about the future and the importance of having children for the future of America.
The interesting part of this clip is that if you watch it and put the post-commentary aside, most of the clip critiques two writers who published articles for Mother’s Day that were obviously anti-child.
The Edit
The comment about "going to war" is a colloquialism in which he specifically says we need to “go to war against the anti-child ideology” and its pervasiveness in the media. He does not say we need to “go to war” against childless people.
The Context
His point is that Americans should not be accepting of the rise of anti-child ideology and messaging in the mainstream media.
Hi there, news junkies!
I love keeping as much content as possible free for everyone, but creating in-depth recaps like this takes a lot of time and effort. If you enjoy my work and want to support it, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
And here’s a little promo I’m running until August 30th – you can use this discount to get two months free!
Thank you for your support, and happy reading!
Conclusion
J.D. Vance is a smart guy—like a really smart guy. But like Trump, he also plays off his audience, and this has resulted in some frank conversations that, although likely well received by the audience he was speaking to at the moment, have provided ripe clipping opportunities that are not well received on a national stage. If the campaign does not deal with this issue, it could absolutely be a turnoff to undecided women.
Most people don’t have the time or energy to search the internet for the original sources of clips to understand them fully. If you take the time to watch these interviews, you might like Vance or you might not. However, it is clear that the message that Democrats are trying to convey—that Vance is misogynistic or anti-woman—is inaccurate.
The Harris campaign attempts to frame Vance’s views as if he views women as second-class. However, when you look at Vance’s life, it is clear that is not the case, considering he has supported his wife as a successful attorney and mother. Also, when watching the clips in their full context, it is clear that Vance is pro-family and views children as a vital part of maintaining a thriving society and economy.
The question is, is the Harris campaign simply playing the game of politics, or do their attacks on Vance stem from a belief that pro-family positions are anti-woman because children hold women back from succeeding?
How do you see Vance in his full context? I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
