America's cat ladies would like a word with JD Vance

Recently, I met one of my goddaughters at a little cafe, and we talked all afternoon about everything: her partner and his daughter, her work, her travels, my volunteer work with refugees and so on. We visited her apartment, where I smiled to see a snake and a gecko she had rescued. Although I didn’t give birth to her, she and I are bonded for life.

Vice President Harris tells a story of her birth family taking in and protecting a friend who was being abused by her biological father. Our country would be much the poorer without the many wise adults — female and male, coupled and single — who care for, protect, and mentor their real or virtual nieces and nephews, even if they are unrelated by blood.

Kathryn Tobias, Cheverly

The choice not to have a child is very personal and certainly no sin. Painfully, some of us were not able to have children for various reasons. It does not make us miserable people — trust me on that one.

Many of my childless friends, as well as myself, have a real love of life. We are productive and smart, and we love other people’s children and care that they all succeed. Children are our future, whether they be of our own womb or that of another. It doesn’t matter! We get that, and we love and cherish the children of others because we hope that our examples will help them grow into kind and charitable adults who may one day actually run this country.

Personally, I think it’s quite plausible that JD Vance could learn a few things from us “childless cat ladies.”

Donnalee Shapiro, Smithtown, N.Y.

Reading Karen Tumulty’s July 29 op-ed, “Vance is giving Republicans buyer’s remorse,” made me wonder if The Post has noticed the Facebook group “Cat Ladies for Kamala Harris.”

The list was created just recently and already has tens of thousands of members. It mostly consists of meme posts, but people are breaking out to Discord and other platforms to organize fundraising, calls and other get-out-the-vote efforts.

JD Vance made a seriously bad choice to double down on his remarks about cat ladies. The internet is for cat memes, after all. And the power of this specific meme to energize women seems impressive.

Christie Ward, Santa Fe, N.M.

Love is the joy of our existence projected beyond ourselves. Love may be given to a person, a belief, a pet or even a thing. The act of giving it or receiving it reaffirms our worth and helps us find happiness and meaning in a universe that at times seems indifferent or even hostile to our existence. When we are young, we need to receive love to survive. As we enter adulthood, we need to share love to make a family. As we age, we need to give love to achieve enlightenment.

In the past, several of my critically ill patients have asked to leave the hospital to care for a beloved cat or dog, and would stay only if I could reassure them that their pet was cared for and safe. There is a purity to love, which is not cheapened by who receives it. Thirty-five percent of adults who are single and have not been married have never been in a committed relationship. Are they not worthy to give or receive love from a cat or a dog? Is the joy of their love any different from your love? Aren’t their contributions to society valid?

People who love are happy, kind and productive. Love is not a zero-sum game. It is not diminished when received by greater numbers. There is enough for everyone. Let us celebrate it, wherever it is found.

David Lowe, East Greenwich, R.I.

Dear Mr. Vance,

I would like to introduce you to Peanut, our 3-year-old rescue cat. She lives in Maryland with me; my wife, Paulette; and her three feline siblings: Oscar, Chloe and Ollie. We rescued these abandoned cats to give them a safe, loving home. They are family to us. Perhaps you might want to apologize to the millions of cat lovers who were offended by your disparaging comments about childless cat women.

Mel Tansill, Catonsville, Md.

I am a 72-year-old retiree who has no children of my own. But every June on a particular Sunday, I receive a text message from a mom whose two sons were my advisees in boarding school. The message simply says, “Happy Father’s Day.”

In JD Vance’s eyes, I am a person without children and hence supposedly with no stake in the future of the country. But while I am certainly no Mr. Chips, who said on his deathbed that he had thousands of children, all of them boys, I have taken my turn at plenty of parenting, and I remain invested in the lives of my former students. Vice President Harris is a mom. Pete Buttigieg is a dad. Mr. Vance is an unprincipled opportunist.

W. Edward Blain, Roanoke

There are a lot of ways to criticize JD Vance’s “cat ladies” remark. But I’ve noticed no one has pointed out that his underlying premise of women — childless or not — controlling our government and our “corporate oligarchy,” as he put it, has no basis in reality.

As of June, only 52 of the Fortune 500 companies are led by women, or 10.4 percent. Just 25 percent of senators and 29 percent of House members are women. As of October 2023, 68 percent of sitting federal judges were men. That hardly looks like control, but these numbers certainly are not surprising given the patriarchal society we live in.

So, Mr. Vance, before you start claiming that childless women do not have a sufficient stake in our country and economy to be running them — a profoundly bizarre and sexist point of view — know the facts as to whether they actually are running things. Of course, facts may be beside the point of Mr. Vance’s argument.

Joni Jacobs, Clear Lake, Iowa

Recent reporting of comments from vice-presidential candidate JD Vance about “childless cat ladies” highlights the meanness of this politician. His supporters brush off such comments as “only a joke,” with Mr. Vance himself saying: “Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment. I’ve got nothing against cats.”

I have been telling my friends for years to beware of politicians who resort to sarcasm. Sarcasm is described as hostility disguised as humor, though I would add that it is, just as often, an after-the-fact defense of mean comments. Of course, Mr. Vance is now working with Donald Trump, the master of the “it was only a joke” defense. Beware of politicians making fun of others. Their underlying hostility is no joke.

Bill Fogarty, Arlington

With regard to JD Vance’s proposal that people with kids should get an extra vote, perhaps he should think about giving that vote to the person who earned it: the woman who gave birth to the kid. If Mr. Vance’s argument is that only procreators should have a stake in the future, why not follow that idea to its logical conclusion and declare that the woman who carried the child for nine months and labored to deliver it has a greater stake than the man who merely got her pregnant — and, as such, she should get the votes and the say in politics that comes with them.

Linda Falcao, North Wales, Pa.

We should be careful not to dismiss the idea of providing some voting power to children — to be exercised by their caregivers — simply because JD Vance presents the idea as a way to effectively penalize families that don’t or can’t have children. Such a proposal would ensure politicians have incentives to support spending and policy initiatives that benefit future generations. It would not be a bonus for becoming a parent, as Mr. Vance suggests.

Mr. Vance may have a narrow-minded idea of what families should be. But his bad reasoning should not keep us from considering what might be a good policy.

Jason Morgan, Vienna