The inconsistencies of JD Vance

He really seems to be a broken man, who retreats to the worst of his adopted Catholic faith to justify his rapacious hatred of women.

There are many, many things to ridicule JD Vance over, his inability to operate his human mask, that caterpillar he wears on his face to hide his resemblance to an adult version of a Cabbage Patch Kid:

JD Vance’s kindergarten school picture

But today, I am going to pick apart some of his “beliefs”.

JD Vance is a late in life convert to Catholicism, and while I won’t speculate on why he abandoned his Protestant roots and go all in on Savior wafers and sweet wine ceremonies, it is sufficient to note that he is all in on a lot of the fucked-up things that Catholics believe.

I bring that up to set the stage for today’s topic: the inconsistencies of his “family” positions. Vance has stated the following in repeated interviews and settings:

1. Women (and men) who don’t have children should have no stake in how the country is run. Or, he thinks that parents should get extra votes to submit for their offspring, thus over weighting family units.

2. Teachers should only be allowed to teach if they have children.

3. Only one parent in a family with children should work, the other parent (presumably he means “mothers”) needs to stay home and rear the children.

A lot there to unpack, so let’s dive in.

Taking Vance at face value, he is saying that teachers must have children to be qualified to “teach” children, and also believes that only one person in a family should work, and that the non-working parent should be solely focused on raising their children and maintaining the home and hearth.

I will inject that I also suspect that Vance believes that teaching is a “woman’s” job. Why? Because he is your classic Silicon Valley Broligarch¹ who has a natural dismissive position to women because they are members of the He-Man Woman Hater’s Club:

But he also wants to push the patriarchal view that his cohort holds near and dear to their hearts.

So, women are teachers, it is a role beneath the dignity of men, so implies Vance.

But his hatred for single women who have a bunch of cats, means that is not a cohort to recruit teachers from, because if you mandate that teachers must have children to be qualified to teach children (I presume that these parents with kids that have no educational background let alone an MFA in Education, credentials that are often mandated for teachers) and you think that teaching is women’s work, and you think that the non-working parent (aka a Man, since he’s strictly against gay unions and marriages) needs to do the household tasks of raising his children.

If he truly believes this, then surely to facilitate this single earner family structure where the breadwinner is the woman, a teacher, then he is all in on making the starting salary for teachers to be a minimum of $120K per annum. Current average teacher salary is $68K, but that includes states that actually fund their education system better, like California², New York and New Jersey.

If you’ve gotten this far, you are probably wondering how this pathetic troll’s head doesn’t blow up due to the inconsistencies.

But I am going to just let you in on a secret. He just hates women. Women scare him. He tosses his wife under the bus, and he is just fucking creepy.

I’m looking forward to the Veep debate where Coach Walz disciplines widdle JD into the last millennium.

1. I so wish I had coined this phrase, because it is genius, but I first heard it on Ed Zitron’s podcast “Better Offline” - and you should listen to that.

2. Even a relatively well-paying state like California, where the average salary is $90K, that is not enough to buy housing in most cities, let alone support a family of 4

---