It’s Politics. What Does Motherhood Have To Do With It?

Whether a person has children or not has nothing to do with her qualifications for political office. Yet for women, motherhood is too often used as an indicator of a candidate’s compassion and concern for the future. While these are laudable qualities, motherhood is not a necessary condition for inhabiting them. When we assume that it is, everybody loses.


via jameleh and licensed through Creative Commons

British Prime Minister contender Andrea Leadsom was recently quoted as saying “that being a mum means you have a real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake.” U.S. Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein seems to agree; on Mother’s Day, she wrote that she wants our next President “to reflect the values that are part of being a mom,” defining those values as “taking care of others and being compassionate, starting with our children.” While Leadsom later claimed that her words were taken out of context, the implied conclusion from both sets of remarks is obvious: women who are not mothers or do not embody a “maternal” nature are less qualified to lead nations.

This isn’t the first time woman candidates without kids have been suspect simply because they don’t happen to be mothers. During the 2013 New York City Mayoral race, Chirlane McCray claimed that her husband Bill de Blasio’s rival, Christine Quinn, would be unable to effectively advocate for child-care issues because she wasn’t a mother herself. Quinn responded:

…to criticize me as not understanding what young families go through because I might not have children, is over the line … I know that young families struggle every day to provide for their kids, make sure they have a good education, and can afford to give them everything they need.

If we take Quinn at her word, it would seem there are mechanisms alternative to motherhood—like reading, talking with constituents, or conducting research—that help political candidates understand their constituents’ needs.

Leaders throughout history easily demonstrate that the capacity for compassion is not limited by parental status. Susan B. Anthony and Alice Paul were both childless and did work undoubtedly with a vision for a better future for women in mind, for example.

One also doesn’t need to have had a specific set of experiences in order to consider the lives of those who do.  President Barack Obama surely doesn’t face hardship paying for medical care, but that hasn’t stopped him from pushing for health care reform. Dr. George Tiller’s gender did not prevent him from advocating for women’s reproductive rights. As a cisgender woman, Professor Melissa Harris-Perry is still an effective ally to the trans community.

There are countless examples of major movement leaders and tireless advocates who have done and still do work motivated not by their own self-interest, but by the desire to leave the world a better place than it was when they inherited it.

The notion that women without children lack compassion and concern for the future isn’t just offensive, though—it is inconsistent with what we know from research on childfree women. In fact, the choice not to have children is often made out of concern for our collective future. In my own study of the childfree, many women cited concern about our population’s wellbeing as an important factor in their decision not to have kids. “I think about stuff like acceptable population levels,”April, a social worker in her late thirties, explained to me. Kate, a partnered woman in her thirties, said she is not having children because “I’m just really concerned about our world.” These and other women note the dangers of overpopulation and say that one reason they’ve chosen not to have kids is to avoid contributing to an already overburdened planet.

The rhetoric employed by Leadsom, Stein, McCray, and others relies on outdated and limiting ways of thinking about gender. It supposes, wrongly, that the capacity to care about others is innately linked not only to being a woman but specifically to being a woman with children. While a person may learn compassion by raising children, parenthood certainly isn’t the only experience that can teach it. We all have an innate capacity for compassion, whether we’re parents or not. We can also learn it from sharing a home with someone, befriending a person whose circumstances differ from our own, facing hardship, or any other number of life experiences.

Criticizing women for not being mothers or not having qualities that we misunderstand to be limited to mothers comes off as an attempt to put us “in our place” at the very time when women in politics are breaking glass ceilings that have been around for decades. Rather than limiting women’s roles and asserting a very narrow vision of how they can or should live their lives, we should celebrate that women have more choices than ever before for the kinds of families they create and the public roles they take on as they advocate for a better future for us all.

Blackstone headshotAmy Blackstone is Professor of Sociology at University of Maine and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network. Find her on Twitter @soc_gal.

ms. blog digest banner


  1. I understand this article is about how female politicians can also be sexist, but there’s a difference between Stein and the others. Stein is very critical of female politicians because they have to adapt to the male-oriented system (even Jo Cox had to adapt). Stein is blaming the victims of patriarchy, rather than patriarchy itself. Stein has called for Hillary Clinton to suspend her campaign because her policies are dangerous, but not said the same of Donald Trump. Stein has been silent on the Republican call to mob violence and the potential execution of Hillary Clinton, even though it’s only weeks after the murder of Jo Cox.

    Yes, female politicians can also be subconsciously sexist, and no one is perfect, but Stein has just gone too far. Back in 2008, when Sarah Palin was victimized by pornography take-offs and sexist attacks, then Senator Obama condemned the behaviour. More recently, Hillary Clinton condemned Donald Trump’s sexist attacks on Carly Fiorina. Yet, Stein has participated in the gender hatred of Hillary Clinton.

    Stein is dangerous on two fronts: Her campaign is a spoiler, that might allow a Republican victory. And Stein is drawing the Hillary Haters into her fold, by refusing to condemn the incitation of mob violence and execution threats to Hillary Clinton. Lastly, Stein has not acknowledged Ms Clinton’s historic milestone, though many Republicans have acknowledged it. Stein reminds me of Christie Hefner.

  2. Emily Douglas says:

    I remember when I was in my early 20s, I had signed up to volunteer coach youth soccer. Just because I used to play and enjoyed working with middle school aged kids. And oddly, nearly every single parent had assumed I had a daughter on the team, and then were dumbfounded to learn that I didn’t and just signed up to coach to help and for the enjoyment.

    That experience has always stuck with me because it made me realize how critical it is for young girls to have female role models who aren’t mothers as well. Back to the “if you can’t see it, you can’t be it.” Why wouldn’t young girls just assume that parenthood is a given when every single teacher, coach, mentor, etc. you encounter is someone who’s also a parent? And the cycle continues.

    Last week, I signed up to coach Girls on the Run again. I coached for a few years a while back and have decided, thanks to this election, that now is a pretty good time to go back. My husband and I chose not to have children. We also chose to get married at city hall, not have a wedding, not do the engagement/wedding ring thing, keep our own names and just being partners and doing whatever it is we decide to pursue any given day, week or year.

    I want young girls to know they have all those choices, and more.

Speak Your Mind


Error, no Ad ID set! Check your syntax!