Let’s Imagine That Trump Had No Children (Like Kamala)*

What we see here, again, is the self-righteous moralism of a right-wing that accepts only one family model: the woman at home, in the background, endlessly bearing one child after another, like a rabbit (not of the Playboy variety, but as a creature of nature).

In such a hypothetical — and, for humanity, preferable — scenario, a Donald Trump without direct descendants would never become a political issue, for two reasons. First, while the left can be quite moralistic, this is not one of those times. Second, Trump is a man, and, as such, is protected by the cultural norms insofar as family obligations are concerned, which define a woman’s role in narrow, traditional, terms. What is seen as worthy in a man — that he is “focused,” or “thinks only of his country” — becomes a negative characteristic in a woman — “too cold,” “too ambitious," “if she won’t take care of kids, how can she be trusted to care for others.” Incidentally, it’s curious to note that those who think that way apparently have no problem with priests being unmarried and having no children.

It’s no surprise that Kamala Harris has been attacked by Republicans for not having biological children of her own and is therefore not a mother in the biological sense, has never been pregnant, or given birth — such a scandal! The self-righteous moralism on display here is worthy of criticism for a number of reasons. First, many women are unable to become pregnant no matter how hard they try because of infertility problems — theirs or their partner’s. To bring up this issue for pure political advantage reveals a crass lack of sensitivity, something you might overhear in a barroom argument. Second, Harris is the mother of two stepchildren, daughters from her husband’s first marriage, quite a normal situation in the world outside the self-righteous bubble of the right’s “Christian nationalism” — a term that is as much an oxymoron as the term “Communist capitalism.”

And given what we know of Trump’s family history, can anyone really doubt that Harris is a more attentive and empathetic caretaker than her adversary? Our family profile is not determined by biology, but by what we choose to do, and there are women who have not had children because they have chosen to take care of their elderly parents, engaging in a personal sacrifice that is entirely alien to Trump and other men likewise suffering from a kind of sclerotic masculinity.

And so, we must return to the issue at stake. What we see here, again, is the self-righteous moralism of a right-wing that accepts only one family model: the woman at home, in the background, endlessly bearing one child after another, like a rabbit (not of the Playboy variety, but as a creature of nature). Any woman who defies this model — whether it’s by being a country’s leader or not having biological children — is obviously a threat to those who live in a reactionary utopia, wishing for a return to 1950 or, perhaps, Gilead.

No one ever asks men how they manage to reconcile their career with family life. Earlier this year, I published a novel that is being considered revolutionary in the field of Portuguese literature, a 700-page story of a suicide, that has even led to some discussions about a screen adaptation. I gave many interviews, and had lots of personal discussions, but no one ever asked me how I managed to reconcile my work at this newspaper and the writing of a novel with my role as the stay-at-home parent and principal caretaker for my daughters. People reserve that question for women. On a personal level, I see the failure to ask that question as an injustice, and it’s difficult to articulate how it makes me feel. But I also know that what is at play here is, above all, a structural injustice that is devastating for women.

*Editor’s Note: This article is available in its original language with a paid subscription.