Vance’s Latest Misogynistic View

[Anonymous]

Why does he say everything in the worst possible way? Nothing wrong with grandparents help with the next generation. But why say it like that? Also, given that he has also said that women staying home with their babies is a socially good thing, why did that not apply to his family? Did he suggest to his wife that she turn down the clerk job? Why or why not?

He's a big fake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me any dating history of his prior to meeting his now wife when he was like 28 years old. He's a wacko incel in some sort of arranged marriage. When you miss out on dating in your formative teens and 20s, you're forever a weird creep.

100% an incel until he met his wife in his late 20s, a match arranged by their creepy right wing gatekeeper professors.

I know they’re just goofing around in that picture but.. what is happening there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me any dating history of his prior to meeting his now wife when he was like 28 years old. He's a wacko incel in some sort of arranged marriage. When you miss out on dating in your formative teens and 20s, you're forever a weird creep.

100% an incel until he met his wife in his late 20s, a match arranged by their creepy right wing gatekeeper professors.

That guy is the walking personification of "Nice Guy in the Friendzone"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think he was trying to make the point that caring for a child is important and worth taking time off from even a high level profession, but if so he did a horrible job of conveying the thought. Instead of being relatable, he's revolting.

Also it's not the sole purpose of post menopausal women and is pretty elitist because most people are forced to choose work over staying with a child.

Stop making excuses for him. We shouldn’t have to decode what Vance and Trump mean to say. JD doesn’t want to be relatable to any group other than very conservative Christian extremists. He certainly behaves like an incel. Presents as an alpha. I really believe he’s dangerously repressed, and desires to be a woman. Possibly sexual abuse as a child. Wonder how influential his church clergy was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his core premise—- it’s much better , in most cases, for a child to be raised by parents/grandparents vs daycare. Universal daycare is what is eww in this discussion.

I do too. Totally.

I would also like to point out that this audio is clearly edited... who knows what is spliced or missing. And, it is an article from Salon, so that makes it even more questionable.
Having said that, if advocating for having a grandparent assist with the care of a newborn infant is misogynistic, call me a misogynist. I like when he pointed out that she could have just continued working and given some of her salary to help them out, but she chose to help with the care itself.
And, I say this as someone who is currently in this exact position.... and I'm not Indian. A grandmother who is lucky enough to help with the care of her grandchild during the critical first years of development. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

That's wonderful but many grandparents are still working, many are infirm, many kids have moved far from home so the grandparents aren't there to help, my own parents have a little of both - my father is still working and my mother has a debilitating disease that would make it impossible for her to have helped even if the kids were still close by enough for them to help to the degree that daycare wouldn't have been necessary.

But it's nice that you've figured out all the secrets to life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his core premise—- it’s much better , in most cases, for a child to be raised by parents/grandparents vs daycare. Universal daycare is what is eww in this discussion.

I do too. Totally.

I would also like to point out that this audio is clearly edited... who knows what is spliced or missing. And, it is an article from Salon, so that makes it even more questionable.
Having said that, if advocating for having a grandparent assist with the care of a newborn infant is misogynistic, call me a misogynist. I like when he pointed out that she could have just continued working and given some of her salary to help them out, but she chose to help with the care itself.
And, I say this as someone who is currently in this exact position.... and I'm not Indian. A grandmother who is lucky enough to help with the care of her grandchild during the critical first years of development. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

That's wonderful but many grandparents are still working, many are infirm, many kids have moved far from home so the grandparents aren't there to help, my own parents have a little of both - my father is still working and my mother has a debilitating disease that would make it impossible for her to have helped even if the kids were still close by enough for them to help to the degree that daycare wouldn't have been necessary.

But it's nice that you've figured out all the secrets to life.

^ Me again - and some just don't WANT to move from full time work into full time childcare, even if those kids are their grandchildren. Some people have worked really hard for decades and want some time in retirement to enjoy themselves. They have earned the right to do that!

[Anonymous]

I hate him more than Trump! I didn’t think that was possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his core premise—- it’s much better , in most cases, for a child to be raised by parents/grandparents vs daycare. Universal daycare is what is eww in this discussion.

I do too. Totally.

I would also like to point out that this audio is clearly edited... who knows what is spliced or missing. And, it is an article from Salon, so that makes it even more questionable.
Having said that, if advocating for having a grandparent assist with the care of a newborn infant is misogynistic, call me a misogynist. I like when he pointed out that she could have just continued working and given some of her salary to help them out, but she chose to help with the care itself.
And, I say this as someone who is currently in this exact position.... and I'm not Indian. A grandmother who is lucky enough to help with the care of her grandchild during the critical first years of development. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

That's wonderful but many grandparents are still working, many are infirm, many kids have moved far from home so the grandparents aren't there to help, my own parents have a little of both - my father is still working and my mother has a debilitating disease that would make it impossible for her to have helped even if the kids were still close by enough for them to help to the degree that daycare wouldn't have been necessary.

But it's nice that you've figured out all the secrets to life.

^ Me again - and some just don't WANT to move from full time work into full time childcare, even if those kids are their grandchildren. Some people have worked really hard for decades and want some time in retirement to enjoy themselves. They have earned the right to do that!

I really judge people who make their elderly people work hard, especially women. It's like saying that person is just meant to serve and doesn't deserve their own time and life and doesn't have value aside from being family help. And I say this as someone who has a great mom and LOVED my grandparents. They still did not raise me or do the bulk of the work.

[Anonymous]

The wording of this statement is just bad and it gives the left great content to create political attacks. However, the statement itself if consistent with commonly accepted human evolutionary theory regarding the grandparents providing a survival advantage for grandkids.

[Anonymous]

I love that the nitwit right wing sycophants and JD's enabling wife have to keep rephrasing what he "really meant" -- as if this dweeb isn't a middle aged TRAINED LAWYER WITH A DEGREE FROM YALE LAW SCHOOL. Trained lawyers are very, very deliberate about how they speak and know precisely what words mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me any dating history of his prior to meeting his now wife when he was like 28 years old. He's a wacko incel in some sort of arranged marriage. When you miss out on dating in your formative teens and 20s, you're forever a weird creep.

100% an incel until he met his wife in his late 20s, a match arranged by their creepy right wing gatekeeper professors.

That guy is the walking personification of "Nice Guy in the Friendzone"

Yep and like all of these fake nice terminally in the friend zone incels, there is deep rage lurking beneath the surface. He truly hates women, especially white women (mommy issues + all the women who ignored him in his hometown, at OSU, and YLS before Usha).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he was trying to make the point that caring for a child is important and worth taking time off from even a high level profession, but if so he did a horrible job of conveying the thought. Instead of being relatable, he's revolting.

Also it's not the sole purpose of post menopausal women and is pretty elitist because most people are forced to choose work over staying with a child.

Stop making excuses for him. We shouldn’t have to decode what Vance and Trump mean to say. JD doesn’t want to be relatable to any group other than very conservative Christian extremists. He certainly behaves like an incel. Presents as an alpha. I really believe he’s dangerously repressed, and desires to be a woman. Possibly sexual abuse as a child. Wonder how influential his church clergy was.

+1. There is a reason they use language like this. It's not simply a matter of being inartful. It's because they want to appeal to groups that are absolutely poisonous when it comes to gender equality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wording of this statement is just bad and it gives the left great content to create political attacks. However, the statement itself if consistent with commonly accepted human evolutionary theory regarding the grandparents providing a survival advantage for grandkids.

Come on. Speak like a normal human. It sounds like your brain is rotting in redpill nonsense when you start talking about the world through "evolutionary theory" and "survival advantage."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wording of this statement is just bad and it gives the left great content to create political attacks. However, the statement itself if consistent with commonly accepted human evolutionary theory regarding the grandparents providing a survival advantage for grandkids.

Come on. Speak like a normal human. It sounds like your brain is rotting in redpill nonsense when you start talking about the world through "evolutionary theory" and "survival advantage."

Look on the bright side - Vance believes in evolutionary theory!

[Anonymous]

I dunno, I kinda love this.

(Because every time Vance opens his mouth he sounds worse, and it's driving Trump batsh*t crazy. Stellar choice, DJT Jr.!)