- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
It looks like a family holiday card except that the woman and children posing with Republican Derrick Anderson are not his wife or his offspring.
Anderson, who running in a close race for Virginia’s seventh congressional district, was seen in another image seated around the dining table with the same woman and three girls.
The images came to light in an article by The New York Times, headlined “G.O.P. Candidates, Looking to Soften Their Image, Turn to Their Wives,” which reported how “male Republicans struggling to appeal to female voters concerned about their records on reproductive rights are unleashing their spouses to make the pitch on their behalf.”
However Anderson, who is childless, engaged to be married and lives alone with his dog, sought to borrow the wife and children from a longtime friend in an apparent effort to appear as a family man.
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
The perpetuation of the myth that you are less of a person for not having a family or children is absolutely fucking disgusting
Quiverfull movement.
But it is hilarious when the person perpetrating it does not have a family or children
Not when those who need to hear it don’t hear it and/or don’t care to hear it
I should preface this by saying this whole idea of renting a family for a photoshoot is just nuts and wrong and wtf on many levels, I’m not defending that.
I will say though this isn’t necessarily about being “less of a person”, I think that’s kind of reductive and may not really describe the guy’s intention.
I recently started a family at 42, so I’ve lived 20 some years as an adult without a partner and children and it’s true that I’ve felt somewhat excluded in some ways not having a partner and children. More-so than anything social, in 2024 it seems like it’s very very expensive to be single. Like there’s a very very narrow line you have to walk if you want to navigate life and be able to retire above the poverty line, and having a spouse is a requirement.
Another aspect is simply that my priorities have changed since having children. I mean I always knew logically or understood academically the issues relevant to families, but now I grok them, I really feel them in a way that I just couldn’t before. That doesn’t make me better or “more of a person”, it just makes my experience different.
Maybe it’s a bit like, as a white hetero male I can imagine what it might be like to belong to a minority, or understand the relevant issues logically, but I can never feel how that would feel.
With all that in mind I can understand how a childless person trying to get elected might think that being perceived as “childful” might make them more electable, but aside from being just weird and wrong it’s unethical and manipulative and naive.
Every single life adds value to the world. Splitting people into groups then discontinuing those groups as less than or useless is a recipe for failure. Anyone who does not see that is not qualified for a leadership position.
Tim Scott gave up the ruse as soon as his Presidential campaign ended. These guys are so stupid and obvious it’s painful.