It Takes a Village: A Stakeholder View of the ‘Childless Cat Lady’ Narrative

​Does a daycare provider have less of a stake in our country’s future than the parent dropping off their child? Of course not, but that’s what you might infer from JD Vance’s now infamous ‘childless cat lady’ comment. With a single phrase, he revealed his assumptions about who has a “direct stake” in the future of this country. While much has been written about the stigmatization of people who choose not to—or cannot—have children, to me the most harmful aspect of this rhetoric isn’t directed at the childless, but at those who work in caregiving and social services: teachers, childcare professionals, healthcare providers, therapists, hospice workers, and so many others. 

Ranking who has a greater stake in something isn’t just complicated—it threatens the very foundation of fairness. In my marketing class, we discuss stakeholder theory, which suggests that organizations should consider the interests of all parties who affect—or are affected by—an organizational decision. To illustrate the concept, I ask my students to identify the stakeholders of Auburn University. They begin with the obvious: students, faculty, staff, alumni. When I encourage them to dig deeper, they start listing parents, local and state government, media outlets, apparel manufacturers, donors, and companies that hire Auburn graduates. Eventually I push them to come up with local construction firms, the nearby Kia auto plant, Mama Goldberg’s Deli, and Chick-Fil-A. By that point, the lesson is clear: stakeholders extend far beyond the obvious players.

Next I ask them to rank these stakeholders in order of who has the greatest to least stake in Auburn. I’ve never seen two lists that match because it is impossible to say who has a bigger stake in something. This is precisely where JD Vance’s argument falls apart. Our individual contributions to society are interconnected and overlapping—you can’t tease them apart. But one thing is certain: if having children gives people a unique stake in the country, then surely raising and caring for those children does too. 

We even have an expression for this: “It takes a village to raise a child.” It is, therefore, hypocritical to support childbearing while ignoring childcaring. But that sentiment was conspicuously absent from his narrative (though he later suggested that “maybe grandma and grandpa wants to help out a little bit more).” In truth, it doesn’t just take a village to raise a child—it takes a village (family, friends, communities, institutions) to care for a person throughout their entire life. This is where we fall short. A society signals how much it values people’s work by how it compensates them. The average hourly wage for caregivers in the United States is $16.11 with childcare workers making considerably less at $13.42. (Those numbers fall to $12.90 and $11.00 here in Alabama). Care work, social services, and education are all clearly undervalued—despite being fundamental to the future we claim to care about. If we want daycare providers to feel invested in the future, we need to show that we’re invested in theirs.

A final problematic implication of Vance’s comment is that people only care about their own progeny, as if a person’s stake in the future is limited to their biological offspring. That’s not the reality I see, and I don’t think it is the kind of world most people want to live in. When you base “stakeholding” on biology, it reinforces the generational wealth and inequality gaps that already divide us. The goal, I hope, is to improve the future for everyone.

Having a stake in that kind of future can take many forms. It might mean dedicating your life to healthcare, education, or humanitarian work. It could be acting as one of the 100 million adult caregivers in the U.S. It may involve working to address climate change or volunteering in your community. It could be any number of things we all do because we are invested in the future. And, of course, like my mom and dad, it can mean raising seven kids. This isn’t about diminishing the importance of families or having children. It’s about understanding that the stakes are collective, not individual, and that if we belittle the villagers, we risk losing the village.