By Andrea Sachs
Not to brag, but as a real-life childless cat lady on the UWS, I am supremely qualified to write this story. Yes, I check all the boxes: over the years, in succession, five rescued cats have spent their coddled lives on West 72nd Street with me. My bona fides include having Chewy.com’s 24/7 help number on my cell phone. As for being childless, it’s neither a badge of honor nor of shame to me. It’s just how the dominoes fell.
Republican vice-presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance, during his senatorial campaign in 2021, famously (and likely to his eternal regret) told Fox News host Tucker Carlson: “We are effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, 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.”
When Vance’s words recently resurfaced, there was an immediate backlash by Democrats, feminists, feline fanciers — and me. The only thing I was personally miserable about was his statement! His popularity in the polls plummeted dramatically, and he almost drowned in a sea of cat memes on social media. Clearly, this was dangerous territory for an opinionated politician. As of 2020, nearly 47% of American women did not have children. Not to mention the fact that there are 47 million households in this country with pet cats.
Prolific author Gwen Cooper might well be called the literary patron saint of this cat-loving female cohort. If there were a Nobel Prize for cat literature, Cooper would have a lock on it. Her New York Times bestselling memoir about her blind cat, Homer’s Odyssey: A Fearless Feline Tale, has been published in 24 languages and has more than a million books in print worldwide. That’s not kibble, baby! Sorry — too many other bestselling titles to mention here. Cooper describes her 16-year marriage with writer Laurence Lerman as “happily child-free.”
I reached out to Cooper for her thoughts on this campaign controversy. Naturally, she came out with both barrels blazing: “I find it telling that Vance was referring to both Democrat women and men [Pete Buttigieg] in his original quote — the very clear implication being that the only thing more insulting than comparing someone to a woman would be comparing them to a woman with cats. Ultimately, I fully expect people to make voting decisions based on the top of the ticket. Nevertheless, Vance’s attack on women who rescue animals is indefensible.”
It’s true that the PR for my sisterhood hasn’t always been flattering. Historically, witchcraft — a deadly serious criminal matter — was often associated with cats. In a typical case in 1324, Alice Kyteler was put on trial in Ireland for charges that included the accusation that she was in possession of an incubus that looked like a black cat. Legendary UWS author Edgar Allan Poe (who wrote the poem “The Raven” at his home on West 84th Street and Broadway) was a cat owner who penned a characteristically macabre short story entitled “The Black Cat” in 1843.
My own love for cats, which has resulted in an apartment full of cat tchochkes and art, has enhanced and informed my life. Too much so? Just after 9/11, I was lucky enough to interview Jane Goodall, the famed primatologist. Out of curiosity, I slipped in a personal query. “Why are pet owners so fond of their pets?” She looked at me like I was clueless, then declared in her distinctive British accent, “Because we’re animals, too.”
Got that, JD?
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here.
Truth! Great essay, Andrea!
As a childless dog lady (who also lives on West 72nd) I am offended that J.D. Lance excluded us in his insult.
Haha. Sounds like a Dorothy Parker quote. : )
None of us are immune from making in-artful remarks for which we regret afterwards. That said, the substantive question when it comes to presidential and vice presidential candidates should not be based on an insensitive comment but rather, “Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?”
It was not one comment. He has no regret for it. It is a sincere, consistent expression of how he genuinely thinks. JD Vance has a deep contempt for women who fall outside of his idea of what women’s roles (baby incubators, mothers, caretakers) should be.
As far as the 4 years ago comment, I don’t know a single person ISN’T isn’t better off in 2024 than 2020, a year of catastrophically mismanaged global pandemic and resulting economic meltdown.
The problem is that it was not one insensitive comment but emblematic of how Vance sees women and people in general, as well as his and Heritage Foundations’ 2025 plans for us.
and although I agree with Emma below, I would also note that we ARE better off than we were when Trump was in office 4 years ago. In every way possible, including but not limited to the effort to save democracy.
I have never understood this as the political question we should be asking ourselves even though people say it all the time. You can be better or worse off having absolutely nothing to do with the president or any other politician. To me the question is whether you want your country led by racists and sexists and religious bigots.
Four years ago we were still in the beginning stages of COVID. Considering where Biden/Harris started, I’d say quite a lot was accomplished.
Some of our LOCAL pols, OTOH …
Childless cat ladies unite! I’m also offended that JD Vance..will that be his name next year…feels that children are better off watching their mothers being brutalized! He seems to be a card carrying member of the “keep the women bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen” brigade.
Vance and Trump are a pair of authoritarian theocratic men whose thirst for power, if they get it, won’t be quenched unless they have it all. Men will not be immune.
With all due respect, JD Vance’s comment is “much ado about nothing”. Need to get past that and focus on which direction America is going based on the results of the election.
That may be so, however who could possibly resist the temptation to make it much ado about something? It’s just too delicious to let it go.
The illustration at the top of this piece is brilliant. What’s the source?
I really enjoyed his book Hillbilly Elegy and am glad he is a candidate who could help run our country a bit more effectively than the current administration. Soundbites are soundbites; I hope people can start looking at policy.
His policies include opposing IVF, abortion.
Trump is directly responsible for cratering the economy because he refused to take COVID seriously. If completely botching COVID and the January 6th insurrection are evidence of effective handing of the country, then I’ll take whatever Harris is offering.
It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that some childless cat woman (or JD’s wife, whom I just can’t make sense of) ghost-wrote the book for him. I’m just saying…
If policy includes Project 2025 or big parts of it, that’s a NO for me!
Stop scaring yourself with the project 2025 boogeyman—nobody is implementing it
We don’t know this. And we don’t know that they won’t implement some of it, or similar policies even if not worded just as in P 2025.
Glorious artwork.
Great piece! & best written piece i’ve ever read in here. Thank you n
Reply to Sue: We ARE looking at policy. HIS proposed POLICIEs are the problem.
Oh my goodness I’m a member of that club I never signed up for, and living on the UWS! So proud of my fur baby I show off his picture constantly! Proud of my label, where can I buy the T shirt? Lol. At least I’m not a krazy cat lady anymore, we have a New label. You know Taylor Swift is also a proud famous member of the club. (3 fur babies) although not sure if all of many many homes if one of these homes she resides in are on the UWS.
Nice essay. Thank you.
The idea that this patriarchal country, which has never had a female president, is run by women (married or not, with or without cats) is absurd to begin with, particularly coming from a rich, white privileged man.
A single sentence does not determine my political opinions.
You’re right. It’s all the other sentences out of his mouth that cement my disdain for him.
Excellent article, Andi!!!
Wow he really got under ppls skin since the reaction just goes on and on—the spirit of what he was saying is that ppl with children and grandchildren have a bigger stake in the future and should have more of a presence in decisions for the country’s future—he could have just as easily said dog moms—amazing that this piece is out in WSR a month after his comments hit the news and they are still being ruminated on
The Washingtons (George and Martha) had no kids. Try again on that “stake” thing. I have just as big a stake with my five nieces and nephews and their kids. Oh wait — do I have as big as stake as the Menendez parents? You bet I do! If you watched the crime channels, you’d know plenty of parents kill their kids and plenty of kids kill their parents. The notion that there is any validity in the stupid Vance comment or that I am less of an American or deserve less benefit is so sad … for anyone who bought into it.
Perhaps the reason why people are still upset is that what he said and what it represents is deeply insulting to people? The amount of say someone should have in the country should not depend on whether they have any kids.
Unless, of course, you believe that there should be classes of citizens.
Are you joking? Different “classes” already exist. The amount of say already depends on something as trivial as where someone lives. The Electoral College makes my vote a joke in value, compared to that of someone living in Wyoming.
Great! Brewer, Hochul and AG James are the stars that prove NY knows the answers for all of America and should be given complete control.
Can you afford more cat food then you could 4 years ago ?
Can you afford more cat litter then you could 4 years ago ?
No one thinks about the cats.
Wonderful article, thank you.
It’s deeply troubling when newspapers solicit comments from their readers, claiming to value diverse perspectives, only to delete those that don’t align with their own views. This practice undermines the very foundation of free speech and open discourse, which are supposed to be the bedrock of a free press. By selectively silencing dissenting voices, these publications not only betray the trust of their readership but also contribute to the erosion of public confidence in the media. It’s a manipulative tactic that distorts reality, fostering echo chambers rather than fostering genuine dialogue and understanding. Such actions are a disservice to journalism and the public it is meant to serve.