Crossposted at The Feminist Agenda.
Now that the birth of Nadya Suleman's octuplets has become old news, I've been thinking about the lessons feminists can learn from the news coverage and blog posts and comments concerning it. Most people come down strongly on one side or the other - either Suleman is irresponsible and self-serving, or we should all just back off and shut up already about what a private citizen chooses to do with her uterus. But to me the polarizing effect that this story had was not its most interesting, or disturbing, feature. What really disturbed me was the plethora of mental health speak surrounding the story. An average of 78% (8 of 11, 7 of 8, and 5 of 7) of the Google news hits on the Suleman story on three different days speculated about Suleman's mental health, used terms like "crazy," "unstable," and "obsessed" to describe her, and consulted "psychiatric professionals" who conjectured freely about her mental health without ever meeting with Suleman or reviewing her health record. In fact, even in the comment threads on several feminist blogs, commenters referred to Suleman as "crazy" and "obsessed." This is an issue that should be of deep concern to feminists.
The linking of poor mental health with reproductive attitudes that do not align with current societal norms is an old tool in the patriarchal arsenal of controlling and containing women's reproductive behavior. In Homeric epics, women who didn't want to reproduce, even during times of war or social unrest leading to scarcity and deprivation, were generally characterized as "unnatural." During the Victorian era, when (white, middle- and upper-class) women had attitudes toward reproduction that were deemed "unwomanly" they were disciplined through the use of extensive and stifling bedrest, having access to all their hobbies or intellectual interests cut off, and losing access to the children they already had, who were whisked away to be raised by nurses and governesses. In the 1950s, women who resisted motherhood were frequently diagnosed as schizophrenic and subsequently drugged and/or institutionalized until they became more compliant. Similarly, pregnant women who wanted abortions were frequently given electric shock therapy based on the doctrine that any woman who did not want a child must be experiencing a mental illness or serious emotional disturbance.
I'm sure there are many other examples of this phenomenon, which I don't have time to research right now. Suffice it to say that basing assessments of women's mental health on their attitude toward reproduction alone has a long and rich history, but it's a history that feminists should fight against, not contribute to. Enough with the crazy talk already!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Enough with the crazy talk already.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12127
I think that in general, you have a good point. People should be wary of those who would equate others' reasonable choices to mental illness. And for that matter, being unreasonable (something we're all guilty of at times, of course) is not in and of itself a sign of mental illness.
That said: a woman who had six children, some of whom had developmental disorders, had eight more children when she has no income, no means of support, and, as it turns out, no place to live. (They're $23k behind on the mortgage.) That doesn't mean she's mentally ill, but it is at the very least unreasonable, and honestly, it's probably something much more morally reprehensible than that.
And that's the issue here, I think. It's the degree of what she did, not what she did per se, that makes people question her mental state. You can always find people on the right (and some on the left, sure) that say things like "why would a single woman have a kid; she must be crazy!" But there's very little consensus on that assertion. However, just about everyone says here that this woman "must be crazy/etc" because she's a single woman with fourteen kids.
Think about it like this: if a person had one tall stack of old newspapers and magazines in their house, they're not "crazy," they just need to go to the recycling center. But if they had stacks of newspapers and magazines taking up all available floorspace and blocking paths between rooms, then they're "crazy."
It's not that it's correct to say that a person in either case is mentally ill - they may well not be. But they've stepped so far past the "unreasonable" line that the public starts looking for a new category to put them in.
Thank you, I was trying to organize what I was going to respond with to the original post, but you managed to do it beautifully.
I hadn't thought about the public attitude toward her mental health before you brought this up.
I think that there are questions that could be asked about Suleman's mental health by mental health professionals who have met with her, in a private setting, with access to her medical history and with treatment as a goal.
I see the speculation about her mental health as consistent with the treatment of erratic behavior in celebrities. People speculate about how crazy people are when it isn't their business, really, and without considering mental illness with any seriousness.
Some people actually have mental illnesses, real ones which have significant impacts on their lives. Mental illness carries with it vast swaths of negative stigma. Using 'crazy' as a catch all insult for people whose behavior seems unusual contributes to that.
On the surface, this doesn't seem relevant to the issue of women being mistreated due to their reproductive choices. But treating mental illness like a real issue, instead of like some kind of freakshow entertainment, would lessen the irresponsible practice of declaring women crazy for doing unpopular things.
That was meant to be a response to the original post.
But "But they've stepped so far past the "unreasonable" line that the public starts looking for a new category to put them in."
The public? Seriously? Since when has the public been the authority on diagnosing mental illness?
And making "unreasonableness" the defining factor in determining mental illness causes all sorts of problems from a feminist perspective, what with women who defy sexist stereotypes having a history of being dismissed as unreasonable.
I agree with you in general, but respectfully disagree with this:
On the surface, this doesn't seem relevant to the issue of women being mistreated due to their reproductive choices.
Societal attitudes toward reproduction vary across different cultural and historical contexts, but the methods used to police women who violate the norm are very much the same. Although your husband or father can no longer have you involuntary institutionalized for your noncompliance, the prevalence of language suggesting mental illness surrounding this story indicates that one criteria for mental health in women is still conformity to cultural reproductive norms.
You'll notice that men who go around fathering a lot of children they can't support are never refered to as "crazy" or "obsessed."
Yeah, I think there are a lot of things that can be said about this case. It was definitely an irresponsible decision, and shows little long-term planning, etc. But I think that bringing these kinds of charges is very different from going straight to the "she must be crazy" line, as so many news stories and blog comments did.
Thanks for this post. I'm childfree but I never knew that women were treated that way for deciding not to have children.
I did know that many people called Suleman crazy which irritated me as well. I've had people who aren't even doctors "diagnose" me in internet discussion which always pisses me off. Like one guy said I didn't really have autism because I can function pretty well.(I have asberger's to be exact)
Makes you wonder how authentic it is when women say they want to have kids. Is it societal indocrination or a real impulse they feel?
Society certainly encourages women to have children, and childless women are unfairly judged. However, if a woman says that she wants to have children, I find it inappropriate to pass it off as "just societal indoctrination". A lot of women really do want kids, and I don't think that the motivation should be called into question as that is just another way of forcing women to have to justify their life choices. Of course, octuplets is a bit of a different issue.
I have already aired my views on the Suleman circus and American public's abominable treatment of her, her marital and life states, her alleged "craziness," and mentally ill people generally. If anyone is interested in my lengthy expositions on the subject, they can do a search for Nadya Suleman on both the Community and main sites.
As to your points, they are essential to putting in historical and social context the public's contempt for this woman. Those who continually wave their hands saying "no, no, it's just her specific circumstances that are so otrageous and make us hate her" have glossed over the very point...that her "specific circumstances" are precisely what the public is constructing and construing as symptoms of mental illness (er, "nut job," "crazy," "wacko," and other ablist and offensive slurs, that is).
"Hysteria" commentary (and its attendant linking of the uterus with madness) is alive and well in the 21st century.
But I do disagree with one thing you say" "now that the birth of the octuplets have become old news."
Sadly, her "mental state" is still, today, top of the menu. Knowing I was working at home today, my partner called me and told me to tune into Oprah.
http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2009/02/octograndpa_i_question_nadyas.php
http://www.tmz.com/2009/02/24/octogrampa-nadyas-mentally-not-complete/
Oprah pounded the father with three or four "pointed" (her word) questions about Nadia's "mental stability." The man appeared to feed her the answer she was looking for, but he seemed very uncomfortable doing so, and it was pretty clear he was struggling with having to show Oprah's audience the penitence and head-hanging shame they were looking for. And part of that performance of shame was linking Nadya to mental "instability" (again, Oprah's words).
It was embarassing to watch him struggle to find the words he knew the audience was waiting for with salivation.
I would argue that it wasnt society linking Nadyas craziness with her uterus, but it was Nadya herself. She has said that she didnt have many friends and has blamed her birth order (only child) for her loneliness. Clearly shes identified within herself that she feels like she needs something to fulfill her. So she believes babies will do this for her. I suggest that society may make this vulnerable woman believe that having babies will fulfill her and satisfy her. idnetifyying a woman as incomplete unless she has a baby probably got exaggerated in her vulnerable mind and distracted her from seing what it was that was really ailing her. I also suggest that because no doubt in my mind she has a mental illness, that her dysmorphic longing for fulfillment induced by her mental illness made her romanticize the baby-mania depicted in the media as something that wouold personally fulfill her.
But not having many friends and feeling lonely don't always, or even generally, translate into mental illness. And the huge focus was the fact that she was single and didn't have an adequate income to support the kids. To me this indicates that society is labeling her as insane because she's not living up to their standards.
...and I heard a lot of people labeling her as crazy before she gave any interviews, so it doesn't seem like she could have been the sole source of this.
It seems like many of the commenters here are totally missing the point of the OP. I don't think she's arguing that you can't criticize Suleman, or even think her behavior is unreasonable. But it's true that by using words like "crazy" we're totally playing into a traditional patriarchal method of controlling women. If you're skeptical about this, I recommend "Wake Up Little Susie" by Rickie Solinger.
I dont think its wrong at all to suggest that a woman who put 8 fetuses inside her uterus (completely unheard of in nature) when she didnt have reproductive problems to start with is a little loose in the head. She was jeopardizing her kids health and well-being. They couldve been born with life-altering disabilities. She also already had plenty of kids, some who had special needs. With her financial situation I dont think its a far cry to claim this woman has issues.
"I dont think its wrong at all to suggest that a woman who put 8 fetuses inside her uterus...when she didnt have reproductive problems to start with is a little loose in the head."
She did have reproductive problems. I've heard a number of references to her having a history of ectopic pregnancies (and consequently miscarriages), which was the reason she turned to IVF. Also, she had 6 embryos implanted not 8 (two divided into twins). If you're going to call her crazy you should at least do so based on accurate information.
Her family members have said that she chose to have the 6 frozen embryos left over from her previous IVF treatment implanted so that they wouldn't be destroyed. I would imagine that's the same mindset that led to her choosing not to abort any of the resulting 8 fetuses. While I may not share her beliefs, I can understand how they led her to where she is today.
It's interesting that you mention that having 8 fetuses in your uterus is completely unheard of in nature as support for the allegations of mental illness. The whole "for a woman to behave that way is unnatural and therefore a sign of insanity and good reason to discipline her behavior" trope is also common throughout recorded history. You might notice that men and women do a lot of things that are "unheard of in nature." We get into cars and drive them around. We take aspirin or ibuprofen to deal with minor aches and pains. We eat foods from all over the planet in the same meal. We use (gasp!) birth control and viagra. Invoking what's "natural" is deeply problematic, as the definition of what's natural generally conforms to the speaker's view of right and wrong, and this too is a patriarchal tool that has historically been used to discipline and contain female behavior.
I noticed the deeply problematic emphasis on "nature," too, and wonder why so many feminists commenting about this topic since it debuted have been rushing right past language and issues that normally raise major feminist red flags.
People who would normally be rightfully aghast at offending disabled people have been spilling over with mental illness-insults.
People who describe themselves as "pro-choice" (as defined as the legal right to make reproductive choices without state involvement) advocate for state/government intervention in Suleman's situation (taking away all of her children) while simultaneously decrying state involvement of another sort (public assistance).
People who have decried historical and contemporary gender essentalism of women suddenly invoke loaded concepts like "Nature" and "normal."
People who normally support public assistance programs for families with lots of children (because why should children suffer and enter the generational cycle of poverty and sometimes crime?) are suddenly pulling out Limbaugh-esque tropes like "personal responsibility," "abuse of the system," and "welfare queen."
Everything up is down.
I think we need to look beyond the obvious surface issues invoked by these commentators ("well, this is different because it's SO extreme" "well, this is different because it involved fertility treatments run amok") and ask what in Suleman's situation triggers reactions that subsume years of feminist attitudes.
You have touched on one: the linking of women's mental and emotional state with their reproductive organs and faculties has been so pronounced for so long, that even egalitarian-minded people have internalized it.
I'm thinking there's also an element of culturally-dictated "worthiness" playing into the welfare discussions. This society's discourse has constructed public assistance as something MORAL as opposed to simply pragmatic. In some other countries, public assistance has been viewed as the responsiblity of the state to its citizens simply because they are citizens and need it (heck, even if they're NOT citizens or permanent residents in some countries!). The "morality" of receiving it does not come into play, hence there is far less discourse on "meriting" receipt of welfare.
In the States, society demands that welfare recipients prove they need it; their receipt of it becomes imcumbent on issues of character and moral correctness.
Now, many feminists/humanists might have formally rejected this paradigm when the issue is a family mired in generational poverty, or when the group accepting it has been systemically economically oppressed. But the impulse to atatch moral character to welfare questions is so ingrained, I believe, that even these people fall back on the problematic terminology and concepts when faced with someone who appears so egregisouly transgressive of "moral character" constructions.
What I'm saying is: "Progressives" can feel comfortable championing public assistance programs when the people receiving it are congruent with their ideas of moral character and worth. But when someone comes along who transgresses their ideas, their ostensible commitment to public assistance for the greater good of society goes out the window. Suddenly, it's all about the *individual* recipient and her moral character again--the same ideas being served up Limbaugh and the "personal responsibility" crowd, who fetishize "the *individual*" and let "society" and "community" fall by the wayside.
Wow, my typos are all over the place. Sorry!
And, that was supposed to read:
In the States, society demands that welfare recipients prove they DESERVE (not just need) it; their receipt of it becomes imcumbent on issues of character and moral correctness.
I was just about to wonder - from what I know about the various systems in the European Union, it's enough when you prove that you need support. Although under the German legislation, for example, it turned the other way, the who has savings or property gets less support than a person who earned the same but spent it on perishables. So, it punishes the careful ones. (Now, not that I would say that spending one's money on exotic holiday is less moral than buying a plot of land - to each their own - but, you get my point.)
Thanks for this post. It was a very good summation of some of the things that really bother me about the general response to Nadya Suleman. While I don't think her actions were responsible, I hate seeing everyone and their uncle coming up with psychological diagnoses to explain away her choice. There may or may not be validity to the assertions that she has a mental illness, but she shouldn't be demonized and ridiculed for it either way. I've also noticed a tendency to dehumanize her, mostly on blogs and such, by refering to her children as her "litter".
Her story doesnt affect me personally. Shes just one idiot among millions, however, I think her irratic decision to have 8 kids in one pregnancy may expound on how women are indocrinated to think having a baby will fulfill them or cause them to be eternally loved. It makes it even more plausible if she has a mental illness to contribute to her distorted thinking.
No, her story doesn't affect you. Maybe you should stop speculating on her motives and mental state.
Read the original post again, and you'll notice it has to do with how condemning women for their reproductive choices, which you seem to be eager to participate in, is something that should be fought against.
"you'll notice it has to do with how condemning women for their reproductive choices, which you seem to be eager to participate in, is something that should be fought against."
So women should never be subject to criticism for the choices they make regardless of how irresponsible they might be?
Criticism is fine. There's nothing objectionable about wondering why a person would do unusual things, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with considering social norms and a person's gender in concert with their behavior.
Accusing a person of having a mental illness because you don't like what they're doing is not criticism. Because of the (utterly inaccurate) stigma that people with mental illnesses are unable to make any rational decisions, accusing Suleman of mental illness cuts the conversation about her behavior off before it begins. If we want to talk about how pressures to be a mother may have contributed to her behavior, or about how she is behaving in the public eye, there are ways to talk about that without dismissing her and erasing her agency by saying she's mentally ill, or irrational, or erratic, or distorted, or indoctrinated.
I wouldn't necessarily object to people wondering if Suleman has a specific mental illness. But just saying she's crazy, as if that were enough to explain her behavior and excuse gawking at her, is insulting, and problematic in the ways the original poster specified and more.
i think you missed the point - but that's not what i want to say in reply, as many have already done a great job regarding the issue of what forms the criticism is taking. what i'd like to say, and what's been driving me insane since this "octomom" media circus began is this: go ahead and criticize what you see as her irresponsibility, but where in the hell is the criticism for the countless men who have multiple children - sometimes by multiple women - and merely walk away from their responsibility? huh? 'cos as a person who's dad packed his bags & disappeared leaving 3 kids & a wife with nothing, it's repulsive to me every single time a woman is judged for whatever single mom situation she's in. i know this woman chose to have the amount of kids she did, but i don't think it's that big of a leap to compare it to "well, every man who sleeps with a woman is choosing to do something that may result in a child".
And nobody calls a man who fathers lots of kids "crazy." Ever.
I would think that it would be impossible for people to not form an opinion on Suleman's personality based on the bare facts of the case. Human beings are pattern-seeking animals and we want to make sense of our world and the people in it. When we can't do that, we have very few avenues left other than to say 'it's God' or 'they're crazy.'
Personally, I can't imagine what the rationale would be for having 14 children, in the way that Suleman did, even if you could afford to care for them. What she and her doctor did was irrational and dangerous. Regardless of her mental health, her physical health and the health of her octuplets have been jeopardized. We know this because humans aren't designed to bear litters. There are long term heart health implications when a woman carries twins, can you imagine the potential damage octuplets will do to your heart?
I'll repeat what I said before. I support a woman's right to choose - either to have children or not. I place no restrictions on the individual's right to control their reproductive capabilities, inasmuch as they can. That said, I'd look sideways at a woman who had 14 abortions as well.
Just to clarify... I'm not arguing that we can't criticize Suleman or question her judgement. Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that. But it's very troubling to me when women, and especially feminists, utilize rhetoric that's historically been used to control women and invalidate their decisions and attitudes toward reproduction. I realize that as products of a patriarchal culture, it's easy to fall into the dominant communication patterns and subconscious methods of social control, but I really think that feminists should be particularly careful to avoid this.
I agree: the pseudo-diagnosis of "insanity" or "craziness" obscures all sorts of real details that are more interesting and more revealing:
1) she implanted the six IVF embyros because she didn't want to destroy them, because they were each already individuals to her
2) she wanted more children in order to feel personal fulfillment -- her ability to live 'only for her children' is a meaningful distinction for her, one that can be augmented by even more children
3) she felt that family planning issues (whether she could support the children responsibly, whether the children would be healthy, etc.) were secondary to her desire to reproduce
-----
All of these details of her account are more interesting and important than "insanity" because these are each ideologies that permeate American culture -- namely, a vague definition of human life, a belief that motherhood is so fulfilling that it can be the sole distinction of personal identity, and a belief that motherhood can never be gainsaid as irresponsible or selfish. Why aren't we talking about these ideas? because many of us are implicated in holding them, if only to a slighter degree.
That's why we're talking about how she is "crazy" -- not only because we're unaware of how that trope is part of a larger historical trend of misogyny, but because we'd prefer to be unaware of the shaky grounds for ideologies that underwrite the motivations of women like Nadya -- but also women and men everywhere. "Insanity" is often a means of exiling those who are simply extreme manifestations of the things we ought to recognize in ourselves.
Yes! This.