As someone who is childless by choice, I’ve been reading with morbid curiosity the voyeurism of Nadya Suleman. Suleman, of course, is the California woman who recently delivered octuplets -- but she’s not being met with open arms of Pampers.
The last baby had barely emerged from Suleman's womb when the media revealed that she: has six other children under the age of 7; is single; declared bankruptcy less than two years ago; is an unemployed student; used a sperm donor and IVF; lives with her parents, one of which is threatening to move out and another who had to return to his native Iraq to find work to support the family; will most likely require significant taxpayer contributions to support her large family.
Suleman gave an exclusive interview to Today’s Ann Curry last week that will air on Feb. 9 – read highlights of it here – “defending” her choice. In a separate segment shown this morning (video link ), NBC’s chief medical editor, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, and contributor and psychiatrist, Dr. Gail Saltz, raised some highly moralistic (and incredibly assumptive and judgmental) concerns:
Snyderman : “Long term, because some of these children will be physically or mentally challenged, there’s a looming price tag out here. The hospital bill alone will run $1.5 to $3 million. Forget about getting to college; just to get through special-needs stuff — it’s going to have to come from somewhere, either the taxpayers of California or her family or her church or the hospital. But she can’t do it alone.”
Saltz : “Undoubtedly these eight children are going to have issues: at the minimum, the issue of neglect. Obviously, she’s saying she’s going to love them, but there are 14 children and [only] one of her. There’s going to be an absence of some emotional needs.”
I think she’s in a bit of denial here and quite defensive, because in fact she does talk about the fact that this has been her life’s mission: to have babies, have babies, have babies. There’s an obsession to this, and I think it’s quite disturbing. When you don’t have a connection in childhood, you go see a therapist; you don’t have 14 babies.”
Let’s juxtapose the creepy coverage of Suleman with that of yet another woman seemingly obsessed with birthing a large brood: Michelle Duggar .
Duggar, husband Jim Bob and their now 18 children have been the subject of four Discovery Health/TLC documentaries and have appeared on The Today Show, The Early Show, The View, MSNBC, Italian Public Television, the Korean Broadcasting System, Discovery Home & Health (U.K. and Australia), Jimmy Kimmel Live, Fox News Network and CNN, and been positively featured in magazines and newspapers around the world. The state of Arkansas presented Michelle with its Mother of the Year award in 2004. The family now has its own TV show on TLC and just released a book, “The Duggars: 20 and Counting!”
After the birth of the 17th Duggar baby, The Today Show flew the entire family in from Arkansas to the Big Apple, because, as Meredith Vieira insists, “We are all about family values here.” Just nine months later, the show welcomed back the clan on a day reserved for a celebration of moms and motherhood in which Michelle surprised the brood with news that she was expecting yet again. The Today Show "congratulated" the family's good news by sending the children out shopping for Michelle.
In all The Today Show's coverage of the family, not once was Michelle Duggar asked to “defend” her choices nor were doctors and medical professionals trotted out questioning the family’s financial burden to taxpayers, Michelle’s ability to adequately mother 18 children or if the Duggar’ reproductive choices constitute a mental illness. In other circles, some of the very people now criticizing Suleman's choice to birth all eight babies are among the same people who would have criticized her had she chosen to abort one or more of the fetuses.
Though the public’s reaction is directed, in part, to concerns about Suleman’s mental health and the ethical medical implications her case raises, most of the pitchforks seemed to be pointed more so at her unorthodox family situation and lack of a wedding ring. Suleman’s family size approximates the Duggars and other families who follow similar theological movements that result in unnaturally large and labor-intensive families. Both Suleman and Michelle Duggar exercised a reproductive choice, yet only one women is now being publicly flogged for that choice. Yet which scenario is more cause for concern?
The Duggars represents a Rockwellian portray of family life, with God-fearing married heterosexual parents who conceived their children naturally and a stay-at-home mother. The same ideological theory that has led the Duggars to reproduce their DNA 18 times also holds that that the husband is the head of the household and the wife is submissive to him. The girls wear long dresses or skirts and tops and are taught that their greatest aspiration and life blueprint is to become a wife and mother. And as Kate Dixon writes in Bitch magazine , the personal is also political for the Duggars
These families are not multiplying like bunnies because it’s fun; they are in it to win it. For its adherents, opening their wombs to God isn’t an overt political stance. But make no mistake, it’s part of a battle for power. And though their odds of winning are slim, when someone wages war against you and your allegedly off-the-wall ideas that women are equal, contraception is a valid choice, and church and state are separate entities, you sit up and take notice.
...This war sees no place for women except in the home, and ultimately seeks to foist that vision upon all of society—and thus the levers and mechanisms of power—through an eventual numerical stranglehold on the population. We—feminists, environmentalists, gay rights advocates, liberals, progressives—are the enemy at the gate.
The case of Nadya Suleman does raise its concerns -- the babies are certain to require special needs care and there is the issue of Nadya's dubious mental health, as questioned by even her mother -- but hers is an isolated one. The Duggars, on the other hand, represent a growing movement of extremists who'd like to turn back the clock on women's rights. The fact that society condemns and judges the former while celebrating and extolling the latter says a lot about the state of feminism -- and why we still need it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: When Eight is Too Much.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11841
Exactly!
I'm more concerned about the ethics of fertility issue, if you could call it that. If I want eight embryos at the same time should the doctor implant them?
A lady in Canada just had her first children at 60 thanks to fertility treatments this week. She's in intensive care because of the many complications she suffered during pregnancy.
It also raises the issue of motherhood: Why are so many people compelled to birth biological offspring even if it might cause damaged to themselves or the child? Why isn't adoption pushed as an equally valid and wonderful choice? Why do women feel that without children they are incomplete? And should doctors be implanting embryos in patients like the 60 year old woman or allowing 8 Suleman to carry 8 embryos?
It's very misleading to point to adoption as the "better" mode of having children. Adoption has issues of it's own:
1. It requires an extensive vetting process to determine that you fit the "ideal parent" mold, not just that you aren't going to abuse or abandon a child. Ideal parent meaning that you're probably a suburban, upper-middle class, married, generally heterosexual, fall into perfectly into mainstream society, etc.
2. It is very expensive, and not covered by medical insurance, like most pregnancy and birth. A couple I know adopted three children. The first adoption cost them $20,000 and the second and third each $10,000. Unless one subscribes to the ideology that only the upper class should be allowed to have children, that's problematic.
3. Adoption is not absent controversy from a feminist perspective, specifically on the issue of biological mothers. While post-abortion depression is blown totally out of proportion, many biological mothers suffer depression. Not to mention that often women who would prefer to keep their biological child are often pressured into giving it up because of the lack of societal and government support available to single, young, and impoverished mothers.
I don't think adoption is a "better" mode but it is often regarded as a crappy second choice when it should be as valid as having a biological child.
In our society, we often think women who do not have biological children are somehow inferior than those who do and must do anything and consider very extreme measures(expensive fertility treatments, risky health situations) to have them as "normal" or "healthy."
I agree with you. My parents wanted to adopt after having me. They were told that yes, they would be put on the waiting list but it would be unlikely that they would be able to adopt any child other than a caucasian baby, because both of them are white. That is another complication to add to your list. They also looked at adopting a child from Asia...this proved fruitless after they did the math and realised it would cost near to NZ $100,000. And this was in the '90s!
So they had my sister instead.
...not that I think it's generally a good idea from a feminist, personal, or a medical point of view to have eight babies at once (or eight babies at all). Just to point out that adoption is definitely not the end all, be all of reproductive goodness.
Actually- and correct me if I'm wrong- but I don't think she intended on having 8 babies at once. The doctor implanted 8 embryos and, miraculously, all of them... I don't know the correct terminology, but all of them made it. Those fertility treatments are expensive, they don't just give you one... there's a better chance that at least one out of eight will make it.
Unless I misunderstood your point.
-Mollie
the doctor implanted 6-which goes against recommendations for this type of treatment. The standard now is 1-2 maybe up to 4, depending on the mother's health and history to give an idea of how likely any given embryo is to implant. This is the clearest ethical violation in this case-the doctors knew what they were doing was dangerous to her and to the babies, and were violating established standards of care. They should not have done this.
I would also add rent-a-wombs as another fertility issue. Some women are now paying women in third world countries, like India, to birth their fertilized eggs.
I'm not a fan of the Duggars or the quiverfull movement, but there are significant differences to their story and that of the octuplets. Having babies one at a time is a far different prospect than having 8 premature babies at once. It is far easier to deal with the needs of the children if you spread them out over years rather than minutes. On top of that, the Duggars are completely debt-free because they have planned to have children forever and made a point of figuring out how to pay for it. The octuplets seemed more like a whim than really planned for.
As for being single, the concern there is not so much that there is no man around, but that the people who are going to take care of these children are one parent and two seemingly unhappy grandparents. That is just very difficult to do, which means that it is almost unthinkable that all 14 kids will get all the attention they need.
I also have the same concerns about multiple embryo implantation as Lis, something the Duggars didnt' do.
THAT being said, I think the worship of the Duggars and the Jon and Kate plus 8 family is completely unhealthy and inappropriate, and most likely contributed to the decisions that led to the unhealthy decisions by Nadya Suleman. "Miracle" families like this are not actually miracles, and they promote unhealthy family models.
I agree with everything you said except this:
As for being single, the concern there is not so much that there is no man around, but that the people who are going to take care of these children are one parent and two seemingly unhappy grandparents.
The news coverage has overwhelmingly focused on her status as a single mom. Every headline covering the story mentions it, and often in a pejorative way. And I would bet that if her financial situation was pretty much the same but there was a man around the tone of the news coverage would be quite different.
I agree completely. Though I'm in no way a fan of the Duggars, they lead a lifestyle in which they are almost completely self sustaining. They budget their money carefully and living off of the state has never been an issue for them.
You also pointed out the difference between 8 premature babies and several children spaced out among years. Though I really don't believe that ANYONE should be having that many children, I don't think the criticism is being levied at Suleman solely because she's a single mother. It's simply because she lacks the resources that the Duggars have created for themselves to care for that amount of children that may have health problems as they mature.
I think it is all about seeking publicity, fame, notoriety. The doctors who implant the embryoes, the family with 18 children, the nut wanting 8 children born at once with no means to financially or emotionally support them, all are seeking attention within a society in which fame is valued above all else, as well as fame within their own social circles, at the expense of children who are quite powerless in this whole sordid mess.
Please don't use ableist language like "nut" on a feminist site.
do you also think the fact that she is middle eastern has made a difference? I am just wondering,...
She is? I didn't even know she was Middle Eastern. But I don't think it would make a difference. That many kids for a single person is alot no matter who you are.
I think if she weren't, the response might be different.
Like someone else pointed out, I think that the problem with this is the IVF. I'm not one for saying that no one should have IVF, but there is something pretty disgusting about this case. There are no real codes of conduct for IVF (from what I know), and there should be. In Canada, you can only implant 4 embryos at once. She was implanted with six.
What about the fact that she's had IVF so many times, gone bankrupt, etc? I'm sure there are loads of people who can't afford to have IVF for even one baby.
We can critique the Duggars for a load of reasons, but we cannot critique them for not supporting their own family. They have always been financially responsible -- they make their own soap for goodnesssakes! The Duggars also believe that they will have how ever many children they are destined to have. If that means that she stops being able to have kids after this one, that's it! She won't have IVF for one more just because she wants it.
How do we, as a society, allow this woman to fix her problems by having as many children as possible? It's a very strange and modern problem, don't you think?
As for the demonizing her about being a single mom, I agree. But there is also a sense that the rest of us have to make tough choices and not do whatever we want all the time. Regardless of sense, finances, help, anything, she is doing exactly what she wants with (seemingly) little thought to the consequences.
Now, I am not a fan of these monster families. I don't see how all the kids can get enough attention, and the older ones tend to be second moms.
It's pretty gross that one of the main things to come out is that she wants a TV show. It sounds like that was one of her decision making factors. that's deluded to me.
I think we all have to take some responsibility for this and think really hard about reproductive technology and the limits we should impose on it.
The bankruptcy was her parents, not her.
The media coverage almost certainly has to do with her single status, ethnicity, and lack of a fundamentalist background. (Yes, I know that no media outlet has talked much about her ethnicity, but they don't have to point out that she's a woman of color to treat her differently because of it.)
And Ma Duggar is a brainwashed victim of fundamentalism- I get sort of weirded out when people say she "chose" a large family. She herself ascribes to religious beliefs which make it clear that she doesn't get to choose anything- the choice is her husband's.
They're not completely unrelated, but I think its unfair to keep pointing to the Duggars as if they're the same as this woman. It is completely different to have lots of kids spaced out than to have them all at once. For one thing there's the health issues with multiples, but even if you just adopted a bunch of healthy babies that were the same age, its a lot harder to take care of 8 infants than 8 kids each a year apart. It isn't that uncommon throughout history to have more than 10 kids in one family spaced out over 10-15 years-- people used to do that all the time on farms, and the older kids would have responsibility for the younger kids. But it IS highly unusual and dangerous to have octuplets. I'm not a huge fan of the Duggars either, but there are good reasons why they're treated differently by the media.
thank you. There isn't a comparison between the needs of 8 kids spaced over time and 8 kids born at once. They mention the physically or mentally challenged. specifically because they were born at the same time and therefore had to be premature. While I'm never going to claim that people with disabilities are lesser, I don't know anyone who claims it's ethical to give someone else a disability. and that's what happened here. The Duggars, while I might disagree with their choices, didn't really harm anyone. She did. And her doctors helped her. Which is actually what enrages me the most. The fertility doctors should have known better, even if she didn't-I don't know one way or another what she knew, but they should have been trained better. This is wrong even if she had millions of dollars and a husband.
It's pretty dangerous to have 18 kids even if you do it one at a time. Childbirth and pregnacy are hard on the body and it isn't healthy to keep having baby after baby with no time to recover.
but that's the point of the spaced out over time-there is time to recover.
Not if you're having a kid every year. I'm not trying to attack the Duggers' lifestyle (although I do see some ethical problems with it), I just don't think it's fair to say that the fact they have one child at a time makes it so much better than having multiple births.
do you know the obstetric differences in risk for both mother and babies for one as opposed to multiple? I realize that for the mothers the risk of singletons might add up if you get enough births. Though I still don't think it's in the same league. someone with better health statistic calculating abilities than me would need to do that. for the babies? no. No matter how many babies you have, it will never have anywhere near the same risk as forcing the babies to be premature the way having 8 at one time does.
This woman is insane. 14 children is too many. And, she says she's wants to get her degree so she can support them. First, when is she going to have the time to attend college? Who's going to care for those kids while she's at school, when does she have time to study, who is going to pay for her education? There are so many questions of logic here, I can't wrap my mind around it. Her explanation of being an only child and feeling powerless. You're a kid, you have no "power" until you're an adult (and even that is up for debate). I was an only child and never felt the need to be a brood mare. Sure, it can be lonely, but most sane only children learn to find other ways of dealing with that like reading, activities, friends, hobbies, etc. Her mother, at 50 something is saddled with these kids also. That is pure selfishness. I'm sure her father is finding ways to stay in Iraq for as long as possible. Six children was too many, but this is just ridiculous. Heaven forbid one of her daughters decides to do the same thing when she grows up. And as luck goes, if she ever does have a relationship with a man, she'll probably get pregnant again, naturally. In the economic and ecological state this country is in today, she is irresponsible and frankly, stupid. Maybe she didn't have the thought in the forefront of her mind, but she's probably expecting all the baby companies to come running with free stuff. She doesn't deserve it. There are many other families out there who deserve a helping hand, not someone who has an obsession with babies. Nobody is responsible for supporting your obsessions.
I think you are forgetting that the kids here did not have a choice in being born, so you can't say they don't deserve the help.
I think the issue is about the gross difference of treatment. my sister in law is in love with the other family who has a tv show and has quintuplets. she got their book and DVD as a christmas gift.
let's not forget who is making money in all of these cases. It's the media! Guess what, they make it cool and popular, then they find one person they can bash. they make money both ways, and the people and all of us (the consumers) participate in the shaming and blaming.... and we all suffer from it too.
I absolutely agree. The kids deserve all the help they can get. And their mother deserves help, too, if she is indeed having mental health issues. Like all the blaming is going to change the situation. Universal health care with extensive mental health services and parental licensing, now that might have prevented the situation.
I think feminists should be very, very careful in pronouncing women insane based on their attitude toward motherhood. I know that these kinds of pronouncements come easy in our culture, as we have a long and rich history of pronouncing women insane whenever their attitude toward mothering doesn't match up with the currently accepted norms, but I think we should resist this. After all, in the 50s women who wanted abortions were routinely given electro-shock therapy based on this reasoning: all women naturally want to have children, and the only way a woman can truly be fulfilled is through motherhood; since this woman does not want the child she's carrying, she must be insane; therefore, what she needs is "treatments" (against her will) to return her to a "normal" state of mental health. It's pretty scary the ways a patriarchal culture disciplines and regulates women, and calling a woman insane for wanting too many children smacks of this kind of attitude.
I have such a hard time with this. If I even slightly criticize the having 14 children, I feel like I'm not living up to my "pro-choice; the choice that's best for HER" solid belief. But her parents are going to be extremely affected by this too. I do feel fine criticizing whoever implanted so many embryos.
And with the Duggars. I get that they're financially ok, but what about the kids' emotional needs? Providing the family with the food and necessities they all need is not everything. Nadya won't be able to give all these kids the emotional care they need (by the criticism), but can the Duggars?
Well Danielle, you bring up several quite valid points!
However, I have a strange obsession with the Duggars and even though I disagree with their extremely conservative values, I do believe that they love each and every one of their children as an individual and make an effort every single day to give each child the attention he or she needs. And Michelle homeschools the children, so for that part of the day they must get some individualized attention. Furthermore, on the Josh and Anna Duggar website, Josh made several mentions of his ability to have his father's undivided attention when he needed it.
By the way, I don't mean to say that Nadya Suleman doesn't love each of her children as an individual either; apparently she must, even if I do find myself questioning her motives in choosing to have 14 children so close together.
It is free to adopt from foster care, at least in the US. A lot of countries give benefits to adoptive parents. Reproduction still remains the first choice. Not to mention the fact that the cost of adoption, even if you had to cash out in all cases, is irrelevant to whether it's a better mode of having children or not. Unless by better you mean "more convenient for the parents".
If adoption screening were stripped of discriminatory requirements and were used only to weed out those who are likely to abuse and neglect, would you be in favor of it more? Of course, in order to be fair, the same screening would have to be applied to those who wish to reproduce biologically. But suggestions like this usually get people to scream "eugenics!" and reject them outright. And don't even get me started on what happens if you suggest reproducing might not be such a good idea.
Argh, that was meant as a reply to Cory.
All this "Duggars can afford 18 children".. give me a break. They've declared their home a church so they don't have to pay taxes on it, they are getting a ton of money from book sales and their shows on TLC and the like, and that's how they paid for the house. They were cramped into a four bedroom house before, if memory serves. They also have "financial freedom" seminars, which I'm sure include a large segment on how to avoid paying taxes legally. If Suleman were a married Christian fundie, she'd be able to raise a ton of money as well.
And seriously, I can't help but think of Bill O'Reilly and his dissing Britney Spears's little sister and her parents for the pregnancy, but cutting a huuuuge slack to Sarah Palin and her offspring. At least we have no evidence that Suleman is going to "educate" her kids by taking them to the Creation Museum and make them into house slaves. Not to mention the fact that sexism is basically the cornerstone of the whole Duggar operation.
"House slaves"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_slaves
I think you've accidentally picked a bit of a loaded phrase there...
However, I think the the older kids will be forced to become babysitters and caretakers unnaturally early, based on their circumstances, unless an army of volunteers steps up as what happened for the other octuplets.
I do find the idea of the six prior kids being robbed of their childhood to be sad.
I think you've accidentally picked a bit of a loaded phrase there...
Ah yes, sorry. ESL excuse to the rescue:) I've heard it before in this context, but I didn't realize there was such a strong connotation still.
Yes, you are right, the whole situation with Suleman turns my stomach, especially since I'm against reproduction altogether. And yes, the older kids will probably have to babysit etc which would be double exploitation: first, she uses them to satisfy her breeding obsession, and then as unpaid labor to take care of the rest. But I was thinking specifically about the way Duggar girls are forced to cook, clean and do laundry non-stop as not just a necessity, but as some sort of supposedly divinely-appointed female duty. They used the kids to build their house, as well. And I was specifically commenting on the discrepancy in the reactions to the two families.
The front of the NY Post read "Crazy Eights" today. (although I can't stand that rag) It still pretty much a reflection of the typical coverage of this story. That this woman is "crazy" (in this thread she has also been called "insane"). Articles are preaching about how "irresponsible" and even "criminally negligent" it is for a "crazy" person like her to have all these children.
The coverage and the attitude has left a horrible taste in my mouth, and angers me both as a woman and someone who has been diagnosed with similar mental health illness as Suleman (bipolar, depression, PTSD - I read that she was diagnosed with paranoia, depression, PTSD) and also, like her I'm also on disability. The attitude that most of the media/public seems to have regarding whether or not people with mental illness or disability should have children is just astonishing to me. I just don't understand it.
First of all, as someone who is pro-choice, I don't think anyone has any right to judge this woman for her choices. As "crazy" as she may seem to certain people and the media, she made a choice, and she obviously consulted a doctor to make sure that she was physically and mentally fit...so again, I don't think we, the public or the media has any right to be calling her "crazy" "insane" "stupid", "criminally irresponsible" etc. etc. for her choices. Nor do I think anyone has the right to judge a decision made between her and her doctor. People have been mentioning "ethics" a lot here, however I also know that sometimes certain "ethics" are also a matter of opinion or politics (for example fundamentalist Christians who may think birth control is "unethical"). I don't know her and her reasons or motivations, nor do I know much about the doctor or the intentions of the this IVF...So I don't feel I have any right to make judgments about the reproductive decisions made by this or any woman.
As far as the media and many articles I have read complaining about her "getting handouts from the government"...She's on DISABILITY! I know, as someone in the same boat, I would MUCH rather be able to work, that I was hire-able, and that I could be bringing in a whole lot more income than the very meager disability payments, which allow for rent, heat, telephone, food and not much else. And getting on SSDI is NOT easy, there is virtually no fraud - it's absolutely impossible for a malingerer to "trick" the system. Also, I read that she is currently halfway through with her master's degree and plans on going back when she is able so that she can get a good job in the future.
Anyway, I just find the whole attitude in the media, that people with MI or disability shouldn't have children, or are irresponsible for having children just insulting and also incredibly unfair and judgmental. People with MI or disability are no more or less capable of being good parents than those without MI or disability. I guess these stereotypes are still very much alive and well.
Also, the other attitude that she is almost "criminally irresponsible/negligent" for having children that may be born with some sort of disability, developmental or otherwise is also, condescending and judgmental. Who says children who are born with disability are automatically any less happy or of any less worth than any other children. Frankly I don't think whether or not her kids may be disabled should even be an issue. A lot of people also criticized Sarah Palin for this as well. Because she had a child in her 40's and that child was born with down syndrome...
There's an article on the UK site the F-word about disability and choice. Although much of the article is about abortion, I think a lot of the same concepts apply to this case as well. Specifically the criticisms that some women get for choosing to give birth to children with disabilities, especially the often used criticism I've heard with this issue (and was talked about in the article) about the "irresponsible women who chose to impose burdens on society out of some selfish desire". Basically the article asks a very simple question: what is so bad about having down syndrome (or any other disability).
I highly recommend the article, it is written by a feminist women with a disability herself and I think she brings up a lot of perspective that most fully-abled people never give much thought to. I think it's relevant here because this particular woman has been getting a lot of judgment because her children might grow up with some fort of disability or developmental problem...and also because she herself has a MI and is on disability...and again, like I said, I don't think either of these things should be an issue here (at least not one for the public to judge and insult her for)
do you really think that there's no difference between saying that knowingly giving someone a disability(which the doctors who transferred this many embryos did, if not the woman-it's less clear how well explained the risks were to her, at least in what I've seen. They are trained to know that stuff, though) is wrong and saying that women shouldn't give birth to any child with a disabilty? It's the same argument we use against many companies that make dangerous products. is it wrong there? Are you saying we should keep giving pregnant women thalidomide, as an example? or what makes this different, if not actively worse than that example?
Well, first of all, there's no guarantee that any of the babies will have a disability. It could happen that they all ended up healthy, so it doesn't actually equate to knowingly giving a person a disability.
"Are you saying we should keep giving pregnant women thalidomide"
OH, yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. /snark.
You should re-read my comment. With regards to disability: I have heard other people argue that Nadya was being irresponsible for giving birth to children that could possibly have disabilities...I'm not assuming the children will automatically be born with disabilities, the people who originally are making these types of arguments are. (I believe I read this argument in the paper, NY Post? Daily News?, I forget honestly).
Anyway, I feel this criticism is unfair because it assumes that Suleman is A)Somehow causing her children to be born with a disability, which, I don't see how she would be "intentionally inflicting disability" on her children. Again, I don't know where you got the idea that I personally was talking about intentionally causing disability. I never said that. She is NOT doing something like taking Acutane or throwing herself down the stairs...However, I head other people as well as the media, treat her as if she intentionally was inflicting her kids with disability. I mentioned Palin, because to me it sort of sounds like the same criticisms that Sarah Palin got about Trig. People/the Media acted like she was at fault for Trig's condition, due to her age. With both situations I think it's unfair to blame Suleman or Palin. These criticisms assume that the women don't care about their child/children and that they would intentionally do something to hurt them, and honestly I don't believe either one of them would "intentionally" inflict disability or harm on her children/child. To me the criticisms seam very unfair, because people are bringing it up as if to look for reasons to criminalize her. People are using a possible disabled child as a reason to call for Suleman's head....i.e. I heard people say that what she did was "criminally negligent and irresponsible"...I think this is wrong, because it seems to be going down that slippery slop of putting blame on mothers anytime something in a pregnancy goes (even slightly) wrong. As if mothers don't feel enough guilt already when some harm comes to the baby.
Also, you mention the doctor quite a bit, as if my argument focused mainly on him. I hardly talked about the doctor. All I said was that I don't think we have a right to insult her, invade her privacy, call her criminally negligent and make all sorts of other accusations and insults...adding to the media circus.
Regarding the Trig comments, and how you said "No one said anything about his life being less worthwhile than others"...well I think a lot of people with a disability would understand what I was trying to say here. But again, I'll elaborate. I mentioned the attitude that others and the media had, where they were complaining that the kids and Suleman would be a "drain" on society (part of the reason why Suleman was called "irresponsible")...of course she & the children would be an even bigger drain if there were disabilities. (Again blaming Suleman for this "criminal-like negligence and irresponsibility".) It's condescending to act like those of us with disabilities are this huge "burden/drain" on the rest of the fully-abled society...should I elaborate more?...I don't how much more I can elaborate on why this is condescending and insulting...But if you understand, this sort of attitude gives me the feeling (and I'm sure others too) that those with disabilities are not are valued as fully abled people. (No one complains about, say fully abled people being a "drain" on society.) This is why I say this not about Trig per say, but in general kids with Down Syndrome and kids with other disabilities...who says that they are "burdens" and "drains on society" as if they are worth less than the fully abled. Does that make sense? because I don't really know any other way to spell it out. If you don't understand, I guess just ask someone with a disability how they feel when someone refers to them as a "burden/drain on society"
One of my other arguments regarding disability was based on the fact that Suleman has been collecting gov't disability due to a past job injury. People have been saying things like "she will be a drain on the system", and "she shouldn't be having kids if she can't take care of them". Now people here are just assuming that she won't be able to take care of them because she is on disability? Because she is a single mother? For a variety of reasons. But contrast this attitude with how the other big families that are glorified to no end on television and by the media. Just because the mother herself has a disability doesn't mean that she can't be a good parent or take care of her children. Again, it's unfair to label disabled people as "drains on the system" who shouldn't be having any children.
Also about saying that it's "wrong" for her to undergo a "risky" procedure. Do you think that it's "wrong" anytime women undergo "risky" procedures? Because women undergo just as risky procedures every single day. I'm just saying that I don't think it's our right to call her "criminally negligent", "wrong", "crazy", and insult her and other wise act as if she needed one of us to come in and tell her "right" from "wrong". I'm just getting a really bad taste in my mouth from all this "good mommy" "bad mommy" stuff.
[Note when I'm talking about "people" and the "media" I'm not referring to people here on this thread...you keep saying "no one here thinks blah blah blah"...that's not what I'm criticizing when I say people/media...what I mean is newscasters, pundits, reporters, newspapers, some political bloggers, news programs, and the like.]
No one was saying that there is anything less desirable about disability. What kB was saying is that she feels it is unethical to commit an action that will cause someone else to be disabled. For instance, it would be unethical to take Accutane while pregnant, because that could seriously harm your child. Would you disagree that it is unethical to push someone down the stairs, thereby causing them to be in a wheelchair for the rest of their life? It is not that we value people in wheelchairs (or with any disability) less; on the contrary, it is that we do not wish upon anyone the life of discrimination and possible difficulties that can be associated with disability. It is not wrong that Nadya Suleman gave birth to children that will possible have disabilities; it is wrong that she underwent a risky fertility procedure that could have caused some (if not all) of her children disabilities.
As far as Sarah Palin is concerned, yes I'm sure that there were news sources and what have you that criticized her choice for choosing to carry out her pregnancy to Trig. Absolutely no one here thinks that Trig's life has less value than anyone else's, and if we're still arguing the value of life when it comes to abortion, we've got a long way to go. No one on this site criticized her decision, but rather the fact that she said giving birth to Trig was a way for her not only to talk the pro-life talk, but to walk the pro-life walk. To me (and many others) it sounded as though upon finding out that Trig had down syndrome, she thought, "Awesome! Now I can gain some serious street cred with the religious right. Yay genetic abnormalities!!" rather than thinking "I'll love this baby just the same as my other four."
I do agree that much of the language on this thread is not befitting feminists, a supposedly enlightened people. If we really believe there was a mental illness that would interfere with this woman's ability to mother her children, we are absolutely incorrigible if we find it acceptable to call her insane or crazy simply because the media is doing so. Feminists constantly cry, "Cultural sensitivity!!" but what happened to sensitivity to those with mental illnesses?
and a final note; you are asking that people do not belittle your situation. Please do not belittle mine. My father had a serious mental illness, and I can tell you that my life was far better when he was not in it than when he was. Do I think that many people with MI can be wonderful parents? Unquestionably so, yes. However, I do not think that it is fair to say that no mental illnesses impair anyone's abilities as a parent. My father damaged two wives, three daughters, and two grandchildren, and he has a ways to go yet.
and quite frankly kelseyfro7, if you have any comments about my using the singular and plural person in the same sentence, do keep them to yourself.
It may be nit-picky and off-topic, but shouldn't it be "When Eight is Too Many"?
You can also make the argument that she is being figurative here in the title as well. She is playing off the title of the old show "8 is enough" plus the idea of something being "too much" to take or to handle.
Exactly, Spike the Cat.
I waited for several days for Feministing bloggers and community members to touch this topic. Every day that I waited, I watched the coverage of the as-yet-unnamed mother blossom into the ugliest, most obnoxious, least-informed "commentary," the sort that is a red flag waving the warning that feminism is as needed as ever in this country.
ABC News.com (U.S.) has been one of the most egregious, with tabloid-esque articles trying to route the mother's identity during the early time period in which her family asked for privacy; with overblown scare rhetoric plucked directly from the anti-welfare playbook ("Experts speculate she won't be able to raise them without going on welfare; California taxpayers currently pay $x for public assistance"--this before we even knew the name or life circumstances of this woman).
I am neutral on the subject everyone's gossip-mongering about: Nadya Suleman's bearing of 14 children conceived with fertility assistance.
Personally, every year that I get older, I become more and more disenchanted with society's encouraging of reproduction for...well, for the mere sake of reproduction. I am also deeply concerned with overpopulation in *all* regions of the world, West included. And I live in an area that has one of the highest percentages of un-adopted foster children (almost all ethnic minorities) in the U.S.; the dissonance between continuously reproducing couples and these already-alive-and-proven-unwanted human beings' haunted faces grabs at me. I am Pro-Choice not only as an expression of women's agency over their lives and bodies, but but because I believe it a deep ethical and moral ill for human life to be brought into being into situations rife with hostility and abuse. I find the Duggars' and Vision Forum movement's wedding of Quiverfull sentiment to anti-woman, anti-human ideology to be stomach-churning.
But...
For ALL of these things with which I struggle, I simply cannot muster the outrage others are feeling towards this woman. I cannot believe that economic concerns alone ("I'm a taxpayer in Cali!!!") can be the sole motivator of the poison being spewed towards her. Differences to the Duggars notwithstanding: yes, there really is an element of "single mother" mistrust here. Every "objective" article I've read on the subject has emphasized, six or seven or eight times, that she is unmarried and "yet, STILL" chose to have fertility assistance. And every comment and blog on the subject has expounded at length over how "disgusting" this woman has been to have children without a father in the picture.
For some balance (and perspective on the way single mothers have been the U.S.'s historical scapegoat for every imaginable social ill), see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/octuplet-mom-reinforced-s_b_164877.html
(Apologies for recommending the HuffPo, which I find to be alarmingly ANTI-progressive in its journalism, but at least he brought up the subject).
Like Rachel in WY, I watch with cynicism and disgust the repeated, major publication-published invocations of Nadya's "insanity" and "baby craze" and "delusion." I want to tell these concern trolls to STFU and stop impugning in the same breath women who make unpopular reproductive choices and mentally ill people alike. Neither deserve your ignorant, ill-informed vitriol. To return to people like the Duggars and the Botkins (the latter are scarier due to their powerful, flock-gathering pulpits and ministry), I find their ideologies repulsive. But to call them mentally ill/crazy/insane (and to wield that term as an insult to begin with) is beyond the pale. To say nothing of the fact that this diverts attention from what REALLY deserves criticism and analysis: their ideologies themselves.
I feel bad for Nadya Suleman, her family and the kids, though I would have handled the media fall-out differently. Although my mind rebels at the thought of bringing into existence so many human lives, and though some might consider that act "immature," I thought she handled herself in her NBC interview with poise and maturity, especially in the face of Ann Curry's obnoxious faux-concern.
I also have mixed feelings about the sperm donor: on the one hand, sperm donors need to understand going in that their sperm can produce a potentially very large number of children. They should not undertake the enterprise if they balk at this. On the other hand, I still have empathy for him.
Maybe that's what I find lacking in all the media hoopla: the ability to say "Gee, that's not an ideal set of events here" and yet STILL to emphathize with the players involved.
(Though I must say, the grandmother "Angela" is becoming more and more offensive in her attempts to disclaim all responsiblity from her daughter and grandchildren's situation. Every other news report out has her quoted as saying her daughter is "delusional" and that Angela never wanted anything to do with it and that her daughter is a leech and can't take of herself, etc. etc. Public family brawls seriously bug me (Rebecca and Alice Walker, please work out your issues privately; for the rest of us, it's painful).
Basically, I am agnostic on the subject of Nadya Suleman herself, but sick to my stomach over the hypocritical, blustering-and-bellowing coverage of her reproductive decisions when compared to those of others. Everyone has a loud and uninformed opinion; everyone has to hold forth over how the State should lock up this uterus-gone-wild and take her children away and how she's not to fit to raise her current six because she doesn't clean her house up (horrors; she keeps an untidy home, as the Huff Po "reported").
They crow over the fact that Suleman has stated she had children for companionship and to allay fears that originated in an unhappy childhood. You know what? At least she's honest about it. How many other new parents do you know who have examined their reproductive motivations, found them troubling, and then baldly stated so? One, maybe? Two? I've never met even one parent to do the same.
The self-same protestors think absolutely nothing about laying down and conceiving "the natural way" because they are married, and have a job and are 33 and...well, because that's just what married people do. The very same people have human beings living at home that they brought into fraught existence (because existence is fraught for us all) because parents-in-law were pressuring them to have a baby, because they thought it would keep the marriage together, because they always wanted a friend, because they want someone to take care of them in their old age. These are the _same_ people ripping into Nadya Suleman's decision to have many children for the reasons above.
We human beings can be so very obnoxious, can't we?
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes!
OK, I do have reservations about anybody having that many children, strictly from an environmental perspective. But I don't think it's my business, or our society's business to dictate that to people. Women's reproductive practices and attitudes have been one of the central points of oppression and regulation for as long as there's been a patriarchy. Rather than demonize individual women for their reproductive choices, I would advocate for increasing awareness of issues like the relationship between birthrate and sustainability. This approach is based on the assumption that women are rational beings who can make their own decisions, given adequate information.
I share your concern about the environment. Believe me, it keeps me awake nights to think about the massive overcrowding and slums in the cities of my parents' country/region, and every time I hear about a new housing development in the Nevada desert. I worry a lot about water especially--I can't believe there will be perpetually enough water to support family sizes as large as the current ones.
But, like you, I just can't find it in me to stomp all over people who made a choice I believe to be unethical. And it becomes so arbitrary for people, like some posters in this thread, to talk about "too many" children.
How many is "too many?"
[a member of a Human Extinction project would say even one child is too many]/
And even if you could arrive at an objectively perfect number, why do you feel comfortable telling others to get in line with the number at which you've arrived?
This is why, even though I think Girl-on-Girl porn made WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of straight male titillation is insulting and expolitative of lesbian sexuality, I could never find it in me to berate an actual porn performer. I could point out the context of her choice and critique that social environment, but not say "this woman is INSANE for her choice" or "this woman should not be allowed to ___ [have sex on camera; raise children; etc.]."
Also, I want to echo ConcernedMarsupial's points about the Duggars.
I can't speak for the Duggars because I know nothing of them, but I DO know quite a bit about Quiverfull, Dominionist, Vision Forum, etc. movements, and those families are NOT "self-sustaining" in the contemporary mainstream U.S. use of the term.
I don't know what your definition of "self-sustaining" is, but in my book, intentionally doing everything you can to have as many children as humanly possible and responding to criticism with "the Church supports its own" is the same level of "responsiblity" that Suleman has shown (since everyone crowing about Suleman has thrown that word in). Many Dominionist (includes Quiverfull) families rely on their local Church family for support; indeed, that is part of their Bibilical schema: they reject government welfare because they believe that the Bible mandates that the Christian community and Church must take care of families who do not have sufficient support; widows, and orphans. Tough beans to those who are either not Christian or members of a Christian congregation of a different flavor.
Further, even those families that do not accept Church aid are sustained on the backs of the female and older children family members. It's not just the mother who homeschools: older female children (and by older I mean starting as young as 12 and 13) school younger ones, "train" in the domestic arts believed to be all women's sole purpose for existence, and, in Vision Forum and Dominionist circles, help run their fathers' home businesses INSTEAD of post-secondary education, which is considered sinful for women.
True, nonfamous Dominionists' lifestyle sustains itself without the help of the taxpayer or, in the Duggars' case, cable TV ads and sponsors. On the other hand, it sustains itself to the manifest detriment of its own members. It is self-predatory.
Now, some FLDS communities take the express opposite view ("bleeding the [American government] beast" is their own, non-pejorative term for accepting masses of welfare from the state ).
If you want to see the most sexist thing on television, turn on the Druggars' show, 18 Kids and Counting. The men in the family- Mr. Druggar and his 20 year old son, give their opinions about men and women quite often.
Just a clarification, folks... I'm not calling the Duggar family crazy or insane, although my mother claims that her four kids drove her insane, so I have to wonder about 18... I'm also not comparing the economic and financial situations of the two families, although as Concerned Marsupial brought up, the Duggars source of stability is questionable. I also think the Duggar family is an exception -- there have been many documented cases of large Mormon families on the dole, yet none have addressed Christian Quiverfull families in similar situations. The differences are stark: Society condemns the branch of Mormonism that believes in plural wives and archaic gender roles; Christianity, however, seems to be off-limits because it's more socially acceptable. The point was brought up here by someone else... If Nadya was a crazy Christian fundie, would she be judged to be "sad and disturbing"?
My point in this post is rather to make the point that the Duggar family scares me a hell of a lot more than Nadya Suleman. Sure, Suleman's children will require special needs attention and will probably cost the state a lot of money. The money here doesn't concern me -- any assistance she receives is for the welfare of her children, who didn't have a choice in the matter and should be cared for as any child would be. I think her situation is a matter of concern for the ethical medical implications it brings up and concern for the welfare of all her children. But I doubt that she will raise her children to believe that women's sole purpose in life is to serve as an incubator for God's army. The Duggars are literally imprisoning their daughters by inculcating them with this ideology: They are physically chained through pregnancy and child-rearing and are emotionally chained through a fear of spiritual retribution should they not adhere to this radical theology.
Like I said, Nadya Suleman represents an isolated case; the Duggars a growing movement of extremists. What's worse? Having children to fulfill an emotional void, or having children to serve as political pawns in a religious and cultural war?
In reference to Nadya and her case itself... I think Nadya was incredibly irresponsible in her actions, even if she only planned on having one more baby. I am deeply concerned for the welfare of those children and not just because I'm a taxpayer. I'm also concerned that Nadya will never get the chance to go back to college and be able to ever support her large family. My mom only had four children and despite being married, never had the time to go back to school. As someone who is pro-choice, I respect that Nadya's decisions were hers to make, but it doesn't mean that I have to agree with them.