Comments

1. Alfonsa wrote:

   First of all, no one knows her background for sure, nowhere was her ethnicity even mentioned. But from her last name (Solomon), I’d say that she’s at least half Anglo-Saxon. And from her looks, she does look White.

   Second of all, the problems that society has with her is that she’s unmarried, unemployed (she lives with her parents) AND she already has 6 kids.

   How can a single, unemployed woman properly take care of 14 kids?

   Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 6:58 am ¶

2. psycheycho wrote:

   When I first heard about her octuplets, I was intrigued. I found it amazing, this medical miracle, that one woman could have eight healthy babies at once! But then I learned her situation: that she has no insurance, is single, and already had six children, some of which have special needs . I was disappointed, and frankly disgusted, by this woman’s seeming disregard for the welfare of her children. And I came to all of these conclusions without knowing her name (0r her race). My disapporval has nothing to do with color, or some anit-feminist ideas that women need a “brawny bread winning man”.

   The example families given in the article all support themselves using their own money to pay for food, health care, shelter, etc (I assume, since they had to have survived somehow before the television shows) .

   So yes, I do denounce her having so many children, but for reasons unrelated to those suggested in the article.

   Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 7:07 am ¶

3. jsb16 wrote:

   FWIW, which isn’t much I know, I think the Duggars are incredibly selfish, irresponsible, and frankly, much scarier than Suleman, since the Duggars are quite open about claiming that their way of life is mandated by their god and training their kids to repeat their actions. With Suleman, I worry that her doctors implanted all six fertilized eggs for the attention, without proper consideration for the dangers to Suleman inherent in such a pregnancy and that this sort of thing is the natural outgrowth of the insane idea that women’s fulfillment comes through having children and lots of them and that only children that spend time in one’s own uterus count.

   Every time I hear about people going to extreme lengths to have biological children, I think about the teenagers on heartgallery.com.

   Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 7:11 am ¶

4. Meg wrote:

   hmmm, if race is going to be made an issue, technically the Gosselins are a mixed race family……and God or a lot of morphine must be touching the Duggars cos 18 (?) separate births is a hell of a lot of time being pregnant, ouch!! but i digress, i totally missed the racial element to the news coverage – maybe because i lost interest before the mum made her first public appearance. However, on hearing coverage of this, it seemed to me like more of an issue that she doesn’t have a husband and that she is/will be on welfare. Maybe that’s some ‘code-word’ use that i’m not especially in tune with.

   It is interesting though hearing self-professed pro-life commentators fall over themselves to criticise this mum without technically advocating ‘reduction’ of some embryos. Maybe this last part should have been my hint that it was more than simply the number of babies at issue….

   Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 7:19 am ¶

5. atlasien wrote:

   I’ve been wondering about the racial component of this story.

   The Duggars and the Gosselins definitely have that “lovable freak show” status. But I think in the case of the Duggars, there’s a darker undertone. I’m thinking of that “Vagina: It’s not a Clown Car” image that’s floating all over the internet.

   Class is a huge factor here… the Gosselins present as solidly middle class, whereas the Duggars have that fundamentalist quasi-compound prairie-dress thing going on. So even though the Gosselin family isn’t 100% white they come off as more “normal” than the Duggars.

   Once people found out Nadya Suleman is a) a single mother and b) not rich, they automatically lowered her class, and I think that’s a major part of why she’s getting all this hate.

   I’ve noticed comments on the story inevitably lead to complaints that taxpayers are going to be supporting Suleman’s children. There’s also a lot of dehumanizing animal comparisons…

   The dramatic irony is that as more people hate on Suleman, and accuse her of being a parasite and selfish and so on, the more publicity she gets (keeping in mind the maxim that there’s no such thing as bad publicity). The more publicity she gets, the more money she sells her media rights for. The more money she sells her media rights for, the less chance that taxpayers will have to support her medical bills and childcare costs, removing the stated reason for complaining about her…

   Ultimately, as long as she has a decent agent, she could do pretty well cashing in on this.

   I agree that the nativists must love this story for the racial aspect, and that there’s also a racist anti-immigrant aspect (connected to class) that colors mainstream coverage and commentary.

   Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 7:24 am ¶

6. Joy-Mari wrote:

   I think that most people are concerned about money. How will she raise 14 children? She isn’t working and frankly, why did she feel the need to have more children when she already had 6?

   Sure, everyone is entitled to as many children as they want but do they not have a responsibility to the children — and society — to ensure they can afford supporting them all?

   Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 7:32 am ¶

7. Celeste wrote:

   I think that the media gives all of these superbreeders waaaaay too much positive attention. Considering how much more resources a child in the an industrialized country will use in a lifetime it’s selfish. Not that any of those family’s give a rats ass what I think but they all have too many damn kids, even if they can financially support them. It always irritated the hell out of me, although I’m the type of person that would put birth control in the water if I could. I agree that the media is handling it differently partly because of her race. It also doesn’t help her image that her mother is publically is calling her out on her foolishness. I think that the physician who implanted all these embryo’s should either pay to support them or lose his or her license, pick one. That would be awesome, actually.

   Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 7:51 am ¶

8. Rchoudh wrote:

   Ok I’ve been following this story closely and I just wan to clarify something about the racial component. It’s turning out that Nadya’s father is Iraqi and her mother Ukrainian. Her being considered as Hispanic is due to her keeping her ex-husband’s last name after the divorce (he was hispanic).

   Nadya’s story is intriguing because of several factors. One is of course the octuplet birth. Two is the fact that she is a single mother with six other children. Three is the fact that she may have used IVF to get pregnant (which raises questions over how a young fertile woman was able to get ahold of this treatment in the first place). Four is the fact that the father of these children remains a mystery ( is he an anonymous sperm donor, a boyfriend, a friend?) Five is the question over how she was able to afford all the treatment, childcare, higher education costs (she was continuing her studies at the time) and suspected plastic surgery( people claim she may have taken her worship of Angelina Jolie to extreme levels).

   Alot of the vitriol spewed forth towards her has to do with many of the factors listed above. The racial component is simply a part of it. While I also question her reasons for wanting so many kids (at the very least I suspect there could be some underlying psychological issues in place) I don’t take her race into account for it. In other words I don’t think her race should be held against her (online alot of commenters first stereotyped illegal Latino mothers, which they initially accused her of being, as having lots of babies to mooch off of American welfare; now alot of them are stereotyping her as being a Muslim intent on birthing “future terrorists”; never mind the fact that she seems to be Christian by all accounts). And I find it hypocritical of those who bash her to be avid viewers of the Duggar and Gosselin shows. I found it problematic also when those families got shows simply based on having a large brood and when they were lavished with gifts and aid from everywhere simply because of that. Now this woman comes along and wants to publicize her family also and now people are complaining?? Don’t watch the other shows then!! America’s hypocrisy has been exposed and now Suleman is taking the fall.

   Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 8:31 am ¶

9. Cynthia wrote:

   Nadya’s hispanic? I thought she was mixed Iraqi and white. In any case, people started judging her as soon as they found out she had six older kids prior to the octuplets. That was before anyone knew about her ethnicity. According to reports, Nadya doesn’t have a job, either – the reason why people are wondering how she could raise these kids. Most blogs and other sites are also criticizing the fertility clinic (or more specifically, the doctor involved in Nadya’s case), because they transferred more embryos to Nadya than “normal.” – For someone Nadya’s age, two or three is the “norm” and from what I understand, it’s unusual for them to even consider someone who already has six kids.

   There’s a lot of weirdness going on with this case, like how Nadya can pay for the treatment, considering that she doesn’t have a job (I heard that she used her disability), in addition to the fertility clinic situation.

   Finally, you can’t compare the Duggars to Nadya. The Duggars didn’t have eight children at the same time. With the exception of their twins (was it one set or two? The only TLC show I watch is What not to Wear), the kids were all singletons, and by the time they got to kid number 8 or 9, the oldest kids were old enough to help. Nadya’s oldest child is 7. There’s not much a 7 year old can do to help.

   Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 8:46 am ¶

10. Cynthia wrote:

    ^^^

    One thing I forgot to mention: At several of the message boards and blogs I post at, readers seem to think that Nadya is trying to out-Angelina, Angelina (or maybe it should be out-Bradgelina, Bradgelina)

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 9:15 am ¶

11. little mixed girl wrote:

    i don’t know what race or ethnicity she is (when i saw her pic on the MSNBC site today, i thought she could be mixed?).

    however, regardless of her race or marital status, i personally don’t think that anyone needs that many kids.
    it’s hard enough to take care of one, but a whole bunch?
    and i believe i read that she has 3 kids with disabilities?

    if a person had that many kids naturally, then fine, but people who keep going back to make more and more seem like they are doing a disservice to the kids.

    maybe i’m not good at gleaning ethnicities/races (real or perceived) from last names, but i felt that most of the criticism towards her was based on the fertility clinic multiple births 1 &2, and her lack of a job…?

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 9:49 am ¶

12. Eva wrote:

    First of all, I thought she was white, maybe not WASP, but white.

    Also I have an issue with the doctor, more than Nadya. If she is mentally unstable, why would a physician implant all those eggs inside her? It’s like plastic surgeons who keep operating on people who are obviously mentally ill, but just want their money. In Nadya’s case, I think it was for the notoriety, this doctor wants to be famous.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 9:51 am ¶

13. jess wrote:

    i was waiting for this to come up. as soon as i saw they had announced this, and no sponsors were lining up with free stuff or a house or a TV show, i knew she had to be of color. none of this “is she crazy?” or “what was she thinking?” was going on when those other women had in vitro. and none of this “it’s 8 babies!!” nonsense. you’re at a heightened risk pretty much if it’s more than triplets.

    WoC in this country can’t be just having babies when and where and how they want to. we know that. especially single ones.

    sometimes i think the only minority woman society can halfway tolerate is the sexless, churchy, self-sacrificing type. i think wrong-reason-pisser-offer in this case was that she was all up in their face with her fecundity, and unapologetic about it.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 9:51 am ¶

14. Phil wrote:

    I don’t care if it sounds sexist, she CHOSE to not marry the man who WANTED to help take responsibility for this absurd situation. To consciously make this decision to build a broken home of 14 children is disturbed and insane.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 9:54 am ¶

15. khia213 wrote:

    Long before I knew her racial background, I had issues with this woman’s decision making ability. The decision to have 8 more children, when she already had six, with no job or home of her own, is enough to raise questions about the mother’s emotional stability, without race ever entering into it. Whatever ever her background is, her statements about wanting children so that she would feel loved are the sort of thing one usually hears from immature teenage girls, who by virtue of their age, lack the ability to understand how naive those statements are. In a fully grown woman, those same statements sound completely demented.

    I can usually see the racial element in news coverage, but I have to part company with you on this one. This is more a feminist story about a woman so deluded about her self worth that she has children that she can not afford to bolster her self esteem. If this woman was white, it would still be a story about her mental health.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:14 am ¶

16. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Re “Sure, everyone is entitled to as many children as they want”: No, they’re not. One might argue that people are entitled to as many children as they can support themselves without putting a burden on the community, the nation, or the planet. For most people, this number is much less than 14-18.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:18 am ¶

17. Antonio wrote:

    There are plenty of differences between Cheaper by the Dozen, the Duggars, and Suleman (not familiar with John & Kate). For one thing, Cheaper by the Dozen is a movie based off a novel written at a time when large families were fairly normal. It’s also fictional, so no one’s really concerned about the logisitics of raising 12 children.

    The Duggars, as far as I know, were doing just fine with 16 children because they brought in enough money to support the family. They didn’t even become national news until kid #17. And people might not have considered them irresponsible, but I think they were considered kind of crazy.

    With Suleman we know that:

    1. She was implanted with eight embryos.
    2. Having 8 children at once put her health and theirs at serious risk.
    3. She already has 6 children, all 7 and under.
    4. Her parents say she’s obsessed with having children to the point her mother has stated she’s not helping raise them.

    Race doesn’t even have to become a factor for people to be outraged. That some people have latched onto that is saddening, but I doubt a white woman in a similar situation would’ve garnered sympathy.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:25 am ¶

18. jen* wrote:

    This story was just a blip on the radar to me when I heard she had octuplets. I was like – “Huh, that’s a lot of babies” – and moved on. Then, when I heard she had 6 children already, I started paying attention. No one has 8 babies without fertility help, and I couldn’t understand how someone who’s already proved to be fertile would still be receiving treatment. Especially when so many of my friends have had such trouble getting fertility help when they actually couldn’t get pregnant.

    This was all before even her name was released. And as details came out, I found myself just *hoping* that she wasn’t black. Cuz I knew everybody would pile on if she was.

    I have weird feelings about this situation. I am not a fan of folks who are having a bazillion kids – John&Kate, The Duggars, or Nadya. The Duggars actually give me the willies cuz they’re part of the “quiverfull” movement which freaks me out. [see Bitch article that I can't link to cuz I'm at work] But on the flip side, I don’t wanna be the one saying a woman shouldn’t have the right to make choices about her body.

    I don’t agree with the choice. I think it was stupid, actually, to have 8 on top of 6. But babies are babies, and I’m sure they’re gonna be wonderful and cute and eat/poop her out of house and home.

    I’m ticked that people are putting race into the mix of this story, when it’s completely irrelevant [IMO]. But as soon as it was apparent she wasn’t white, I knew that was going to happen.

    14 kids though. One thing’s for sure – I’m glad it’s not me.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:32 am ¶

19. Elizabeth wrote:

    Also, in defense of the Duggars, their large family isn’t due to their wish to populate a small cult. Rather, their religious beliefs lead them to conclude that God, who is in charge of life and death, will provide them with as many children as He wishes, and who are they to go against God’s wishes. I personally don’t have that belief, but I respect them for being consistant in their lifestyle. They seem like pretty responsible people.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:43 am ¶

20. Ailurophile wrote:

    Nthing all those who said that there is legitimate, non-racial criticism of Nadya Suleman for being irresponsible and indifferent to the welfare of her children. And then there’s the issue of Nadya’s mom who apparently helps her care for the older children. Her poor mom didn’t ask for all this and will probably be saddled with the job of raising additional grandchildren.

    I’ve always thought the Duggars are creepy, and also selfish. Does the physical health of Michelle and the kids, and the psychological impact of being one of a crowd on the kids, enter their minds?

    As far as the Gosselins are concerned, they seem fairly normal and well-adjusted. A part of me just gotta wonder, though, about the sextuplets coming after the birth of twin girls. Weren’t the girls enough? Were they desperate for a son? Now THAT creeps me out royally, though not as much as the Duggar’s fundie motivations or Nadya Suleman’s selfishness.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:44 am ¶

21. Yvette wrote:

    FWIW, more news coming out now suggests that she does receive forms of federal aid, including aid for some of her older children who have special needs.

    I am very much in favor of analyzing cases like this for their racial elements and overtones. However, I think a much better example of how super multiple birth cases are handled differently based on race is the Chukwu octuplets from a decade ago. (My understanding is that 7 of these children survived.)

    In this most recent case, it is legitimate to discuss the use of resources and where to draw the lines in the use of reproductive medicine. Most ethicists agree that the implantation of 6 embryos posed significant danger to the mother and any potential babies.

    Whatever her racial/ethnic background is, lost in much of this discussion are the true reproductive needs in Black and Hispanic communities. The prevailing perception is that women in these communities are “super fertile” and thus not in need of reproductive assistance. Add to this some aspects of religiousity in these communities, and the belief that it is up to God to decide on whether a woman will have children. But actually there are unexamined infertility and subfertility issues in both communities.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:45 am ¶

22. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @ All on the thread:

    How would the dynamics of how this story is being reported change if the children were not a result of IVF treatments? Would we still be having the irresponsible debate?

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:46 am ¶

23. Naomi C wrote:

    From what I heard (and can tell), she’s not Hispanic. She’s half-white and half-Arab (father is Iraqi.) The last name Suleman is generally a Muslim last name.

    I think she was married to a Latino man before.. Sorry, I didn’t read the rest of the piece yet. I got hung up on the first paragraph.

    In my opinion, she looks a little Angelina Jolie-esque, who also had a truckload of kids while she was single. But she got away with it b/c she’s a famous, rich movie star

    In the end, i think it’s more a matter that she’s a single unemployed lady who doesn’t seem to have a ton of resources to care for the kids

    People were hatin on her before they even knew she wasn’t completely “white”

    my two cents

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:47 am ¶

24. Kavita wrote:

    I really don’t see how this woman and her family are any of our business. I personally wouldn’t choose to have 14 kids, (the one that I have is quite enough of a handful, thanks), but it aggravates me that everybody seems to have such a self-righteous opinion on this woman’s choices. I haven’t seen any evidence that she is a bad mother–from the 2 seconds of the interview I saw of her, she seems pretty grounded and intelligent. Yes, she is a single mother. We don’t know what her extended family situation is. At least I don’t. So I personally just don’t think single mother + 14 kids= bad mother. She could have a great support system in place, and I fail to see why no one can give her the benefit of the doubt, or at least just leave her alone. My personal hero is a single-woman mother of 10. By a couple different fathers. And she is without question one of the best mothers I’ve ever met, and an exceptionally strong, loving, and beautiful person. So I think people need to stop being so judgmental about people they don’t even know. Plenty of people with just 1 or 2 kids are horrible parents. To the point of serious abuse. So I personally respect the woman if she has managed to raise 6 babies by herself and had the strength to have 8 more. I mean, yes, maybe she’s crazy. LOL. But there are a lot more crazy people out there, and this lady seems pretty harmless as far as they go. And to say that all this hulabaloo over the woman has nothing to do with racism and sexism is just absurd, considering the long, painful struggle women of color are still fighting to have control over our own bodies and reproductive systems.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:47 am ¶

25. Phil wrote:

    @Latoya Peterson

    If she at least tried to have the most basic of familial structures to make the decision and preparations to have this many children, then, no, it would not have been a story…it would have been new show on VH1 or something.

    The core of the irresposibility and why no companies have stepped forward to help this idiot is because she chose not to marry the man who wanted to help her. She’s choosing not to marry period and “just have children”. She is mentally and emotionally imbalanced, but I have no sympathy, because she even ignored and disregarded her parents concerns by going to another doctor after they begged her first one NOT to give her the treatments.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:50 am ¶

26. khia213 wrote:

    LaTonya,

    If she had six children that she wasn’t raising and couldn’t afford and then got pregnant with eight more naturally, I would still be looking at her funny. But the fact she sought this out and went out of her way to have eight more through IVF, makes me seriously question whether she’s emotionally stable.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:53 am ¶

27. talulah_m wrote:

    I don’t doubt that there are racist elements to the cold reception Nadya Suleman has received from the press, but there is such a thing as critical mass. The Gosselins and the Duggars may seem like “loveable freaks” because their race/ethnicity and social class seems to preclude the mainstream media from scrutinizing their reproductive choices, but frankly? After four years, the Gosselins have seriously outworn their welcome. Google “John and Kate Plus Eight,” and you’ll come up with a raft of hate sites dedicated to ranting about the exploitation of the Gosselin children. As for the Duggars…their reception by the media has always been lukewarm at best, since they’re obvious religious fanatics. In all honesty, I think people are tired of being told to admire big families just because they’re big, and Suleman is just the final nail in the coffin of this particular trend.

    In addition, I think there’s a strong religious element here, too. What the Duggars have done to their older children—turning them into unwilling teenage parents, essentially—is unconscionable, but people feel uncomfortable about saying that, because the Duggars keep having all those babies “For the Lord.” And by refusing to selectively reduce their sextuplets, the Gosselins could have cost their older two daughters their mother; but people feel like it’s wrong to say that, because John and Kate apparently risked orphaning their children out of religious principle.

    And if you do something for Jesus, then it’s totally cool.

    Contrast that with Suleman, who has been honest (and crazy) enough to say that “I just longed for certain connections and attachments with another person that I really lacked, I believe, growing up” (from People Magazine). Is there any mention of Jesus telling her it was the right thing to do? No. Ergo, it’s okay to bash her. And the fact that she’s not white, or not totally white? Just more fuel on the fire.

    In conclusion, this is a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Those poor kids.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:56 am ¶

28. laura wrote:

    I don’t care about her race. In fact I don’t really know know a whole lot about hispanic names so I always assumed she was white. What concerns me is the single, unemployed factor. I really hopes TLC gives this woman a TV show because it is the only way I can think of for her to be able to provide properly for all those children.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 11:00 am ¶

29. Cynthia wrote:

    @ 23: Angelina only had two kids before she and Brad lived together. The “truckload” came later.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 11:03 am ¶

30. Maria_Elena wrote:

    I’m so glad this has been addressed. The first thing I said when this vitriol happened is that she is not:

    a)rich
    b)blonde
    c)white
    d)and therefore pretty.

    It stank from the get-go. Media suddenly not fawning over a huge family??? Resources are never mentioned when these families do the rounds on morning talk shows. Quite the opposite, said shows go out of their way to accommodate this newly large family, what with lifetime supplies of formula, diapers and carseats – even CARS (and etc…)

    And suddenly, that’s all turned on its head?

    I don’t think so.

    Talking heads explain their criticism by saying she is a single mother, because she is not wealthy, because she birthed them all at once, because there are whispers of fame-seeking (because none of the other families have sought the limelight). But I truly believe that if she were (or looked) purely Anglo, this would not be working itself out this way. This family would be championed by certain groups, declared a pro-choice decision, and be a quirky but lovable all-American family.

    The way it has been every other time.

    I’ve read about this story on many other media sites and blogs, and her race and those silent societal implications have NEVER been talked about (even by many commenters) and I am glad it is being addressed here because this is not as cut-and-dry an issue that it’s being painted out to be.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 11:09 am ¶

31. Cynthia wrote:

    What really bothers me about Nadya Suleman is her lack of a job. Again, how is she going to provide for these kids without work, and if she did have a job now, how would she pay for daycare? There are 14 kids who need at least a few hours of daycare Monday to Friday (the oldest is 7 and will be in school most of the day, but will still need care a few hours before or after school, depending on the hours Nadya works). Had she been blonde and behaved the same way, I would think that people’ll call her white trash.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 11:39 am ¶

32. island girl wrote:

    perhaps if ms. suleman had conceived the octuplets without IVF, the mass response might be along the lines of “it’s a miracle.” perhaps all the anti-abortion people would make ms. suleman the new poster girl for their cause. however, the fact that the children were conceived through IVF raises lots of ethical issues that are further complicated by race, gender and class.

    i am surprised that the IVF clinic is not being criticized as vociferously as ms. suleman is. the IVF clinic acted negligently by agreeing to implant ms. suleman with eight embryos. the consensus among practitioners is that 3-4 embryos per implantation is the limit, to ensure the woman’s safety during gestation and childbirth. it’s difficult to fathom why the clinic proceeded as they did. their actions raisse a bioethical question that is relevant to other scientific/medical advances: just because it CAN be done, SHOULD it be done in this situation?

    furthermore, the notion that a woman (or a couple — of any sexual orientation) “should” only have as many children as they can afford troubles me deeply. it completely ignores the reality that people can lose everything in this country through chronic illness, accident or the unexpected death of a partner. there is really no safety net in the US; as a society, we lack personal and insitutional infrastructures necessary to ensure survival for all — not just the wealthy and those blessed with intact, extended families — in times of catastrophe (e.g. new orleans in the aftermath of katrina). in a country where childcare and health insurance can eat up the better part of a paycheck, the idea that having children should be reserved only for those who can afford it is blatantly classist. is a big family only appropriate for brangelina or those who can afford to hire a brown nanny to take their kids to the park?

    finally, i take issue with some comments that suggest that there is absolutely no racial component to the negative responses to ms. suleman’s pregnancy. here’s my question to these commenters: have you somehow been innoculated against “welfare queen” stereotypes? are you deaf to the not-so-subtly-racially-coded language used by nativists to describe how “those brown people take advantage” of the US healthcare system and entitlement programs? race, gender and class are components in this discourse because the discourse is taking place HERE and NOW, not in some future space in which society as a whole has moved beyond these classifications. context is everything.

    –island girl in a land without sea

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 11:41 am ¶

33. Antonio wrote:

    How would the dynamics of how this story is being reported change if the children were not a result of IVF treatments? Would we still be having the irresponsible debate?

    Unquestionably. I couldn’t conceive of supporting and raising 6 children by myself, much less any beyond that. We’d still be talking about someone whose parents say is obsessed with having children despite their pleas to stop. She still would, by all accounts, lack the income to support her large family. Children are a huge responsibility and all people, men and women, should be prepared to support them or take steps to prevent an unplanned pregnancy.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 11:45 am ¶

34. Lola wrote:

    I was outraged by the story before I even knew her name. Now that more details have come out it is even more appalling. She has been on disability for 7 years and her parents are raising her children. Yet she chose to have more. There is no way she has the money, time, or energy to give each of these children what they deserve.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 11:48 am ¶

35. Monie wrote:

    The real story here is the mainstream media and how they love this non-story.

    First the MSM celebrated the birth of the babies and then they completely made an about face and attacked the mother.

    This reminds me of how the MSM where cheerleaders for the American war in Iraq and then did an about face on that.

    Mainly this story shows how astoundingly incompetent the media is.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 11:48 am ¶

36. jen* wrote:

    @Latoya
    Do you mean if they were 8 separate births? or if it were fertility drugs instead of IVF that caused the octuplet phenomenon?

    To me, as long as there was fertility help, this was irresponsible. Maybe I’m being a classist, or whatever, but I don’t think people should have more kids than they can afford. If people have twins or triplets naturally, then ok. But just kid on top of kid? Nope. That’s my personal belief – meaning, that is what I will do, and that’s how I form opinions about others.

    I know people who I believe either should not be parents at all, or shouldn’t have so many kids. Sometimes, I even think there should be some kind of prerequisites for having children. But this is all in the “perfect-world-in-which-I-am-queen” scenario.

    In the real world, people must be free to make their own reproductive decisions. And they should be honestly advised of the consequences by their doctors.

    On another note – while I don’t remember seeing Jesus mentioned in the article, one of the early CNN pieces mentioned that Nadya had all of the leftover embryos implanted because of her beliefs.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 11:53 am ¶

37. Lamees wrote:

    i get that the doctors proably did not act completely ethically by transferring of 6 of her embryos. but, i am a pro-choice feminst whose trying to support the choices of ALL mothers.

    she didnt want the rest of the embryos destroyed and there was less of a .000001 percent of all of those embryos growing and surviving and she wanted them all transferred. so its not as crazy as it sound for her to prefer all the embryos transferred to avoid ‘destroying’ them which she was morally against.

    yea it sucks that there’s alot of kids in one house who may or may not get the love and attention they need on an individual level. but i’m trying to be open to allowing people to make the families they want to make. and yes it sucks that she doesnt have a super stable support system nor is there adequate support for single mothers in general. why isn’t that the problem?

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 11:59 am ¶

38. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ Latoya Peterson: I think the eight babies would be Oops Miracles but she still wouldn’t have a shot at Huggies, Leap Frog, Maclaren and Gerber sponsorships (where’s your husband??? You have 6 kids – why are you even having unprotected sex anyway????). There would be long science segments about history’s crazy miraculous wombs. But I would be surprised if there was any criticism of her choice to carry all 8 babies to term despite the risk to their health and her own. And I think there would still be “concern” about her lack of employment. She would be a problem. But she would be a sad sorry victim (who still should have known better really).

    @Rchoudh: On point. And I had no idea there were rumors of some kind of Jolie fascination.

    I feel for Nadya. I don’t think her judgment is sound but sitting through a “Tsk tsk – she’s too poor and too stupid” segment on this morning’s Today Show was enraging. This, the same show that does glowing yearly updates with multiple birth families past. The end result is still a bunch of children – and that was reportedly the focus. But now suddenly we have a scary segment with minor chords and big white numbers floating across the screen detailing the cost to educate, clothe, feed 14 children (the Duggars at least get the happy music).

    The tone was sickening. It’s almost as if people are hoping that things go horribly wrong for Nadya’s children to teach her a lesson. To teach all out of line women a lesson.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 12:11 pm ¶

39. Lola wrote:

    @Latoya Peterson

    I think the outrage is because
    A. She is a single parent, which could be considered sexist
    B. IVF involved in all 14 children, no one has a problem with the childless using fertility treatments but once you already have a van full of kids to do IVF again is considered over doing it. Honestly I do think it was irresponsible of the Gosselings to do IVF after they already had twins

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 12:12 pm ¶

40. brdnbutta wrote:

    I hadn’t thought of this situation from a racial standpoint… I’m not sure that I really feel the backlash is due to her ethnicity or race but as stated by others the perceived irresponsibility of her choosing to have 14 children. I think this is definitely more of a class issue than a race issue. Suleman is receiving welfare benefits in the form of food stamps and disability benefits (for her disabled children) and will not be responsible for the hospital bill for her octuplets (the state of California is being asked to pay for it) according to an LA Times article:http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6255420.html

    So of course anyone receiving government assistance is looked down upon in the U.S. by the majority of people… At any rate this is a very strange situation and a very sad one as well.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 12:13 pm ¶

41. Grace aka blackbelt wrote:

    There are always race/class/gender issues – some malevolent and some not so much. Raising children is HARD. I have one and couldn’t do it w/o dear hubs.

    As pointed out in other comments, the fact that Suleman is 1) single 2) w/o visible means of financial support 3) has had one dangerous and expensive procedure and 4) had a 2nd dangerous and expensive procedure provides ample room for people to dish it out. Including me.

    I actually have a problem with IVF et al because of all these excess zygotes laying out. Frozen or otherwise. Very murky waters for me. Being an infertile woman, I’m not just casting stones.

    I should point out that the Gosselins did NOT have IVF but insemination. I know that’s way TMI, but it makes a difference. Six babies coming from that procedure is very very rare.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 12:14 pm ¶

42. SarahNicole wrote:

    “I’ve never hear anyone call the Duggars selfish or irresponsible. ”

    Then you’ve never read the TWoP threads on them and the other “Kids by the Dozen” shows, nor Duggars Without Pity, nor Gosselins Without Pity (started when TWoP shut down the J&K+8 thread). While I agree with the general assessment of the race/class/gender responses to POCs with large families versus whites with similarly large families, there are in fact some very negative responses to the Gosselins and the Duggars in particular…

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 12:18 pm ¶

43. Erica B. wrote:

    I was actually quite surprised to start hearing “oh she’s poor therefore this is bad” — you really can’t have octuplets without IVF, which isn’t cheap. And apparently she managed to pay for it twice.

    I think any parent(s) who have large numbers of children are generally looked at askance. It’s expensive and difficult to raise even one or two children, and it only gets harder the more you have. Hell, I’ve had total strangers tell me I’m obviously “done” having kids, since I’ve got one boy and one girl (a set, you see) — and they’re shocked, SHOCKED, when I say we might have a third someday. (It’s actually an interesting twist that contraception has brought to our lives — 100 years ago, they would have been shocked, SHOCKED if I said I was having no more than two.)

    The water-cooler-chats I’ve heard about the “large family” reality shows is mostly that the parents are pure crazy. Sure, there’s a few impressive moments, and it’s amazing they’re so ORGANIZED, but “damn, I would never want that” is the prevailing sentiment.

    @Antonio — Cheaper By The Dozen actually isn’t fictional. The Gilbreth family actually did have 12 kids, and the book (and its sequel) were written by two of those children. It’s worth noting, though, that the book and the Steve Martin movies have nothing in common except twelve children; the books concentrated a lot on the efficiency theories of the Gilbreth parents, and how their professional careers crossed over into home life while raising a dozen children without going insane, broke, or both.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 12:21 pm ¶

44. Daomadan wrote:

    Wow. This thread is full of sexist vitriol. It’s the same old debate that goes on around women’s bodies and what they do with them and how nothing is ever good enough and how we’re never responsible enough to make our own decisions.

    I wish the best of luck to Suleman and her children.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 12:23 pm ¶

45. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Daomadan –

    I think this speaks to how limited the conversation on “choice” really is. How so often, it’s framed around the to abort/not to abort debate, but its really about the ability to choose for oneself what is right for them, how many children, etc. And yet, that rarely gets top billing.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 12:27 pm ¶

46. Free wrote:

    I don’t understand why Nadya’s marital status is an issue. It’s another example of people piling on single mothers as if they are the source of all social ills. She’s an intelligent woman working towards a master’s degree. Nadya’s mother going on national television and dissing her daughter is disgusting. What’s the point of that? Is she seeking the pity of the American public? Is that what she hopes to gain? The selfish American public would refuse to give her 10 cents towards a package of diapers although they do give billions of dollars and countless hours of emotional support to an illegal war that has killed thousands: death yes, life no. Hypocrites. By all means continue to read the riot act to Nadya to ensure that sponsors keep away. Take your frustrations out on her but let the real sources of your angst get away. Send the message to all single parents that discrimination will continue as the norm: conform or be cast out.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 12:35 pm ¶

47. SarahNicole wrote:

    “For one thing, Cheaper by the Dozen is a movie based off a novel written at a time when large families were fairly normal. It’s also fictional, so no one’s really concerned about the logisitics of raising 12 children.”

    Cheaper by the Dozen and Belles on Their Toes are two lightly fictionalized accounts of a real family written by two of the children in that family (the Gilbreths). And the mother, Lillian Moller Gilbreth, worked quite a bit on the logistics of raising 12 children and the “scientific management” of the home in general, as well as in industry: http://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/gilbreth.html

    http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blGilbreth.htm

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 12:37 pm ¶

48. SarahNicole wrote:

    There’s only one TLC show dealing with a thoroughly non-white family of large size — Then Came Six, the Harris family, with one preteen son from the mother’s first marriage (she was a widow), and the only surviving African American sextuplets, the result of reproductive assistance. They were featured first on an episode of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, and have had a few episodes of Then Came Six. They are not nearly as popular/infamous as either the Duggars, the Gosselins, or any of the Kids by the Dozen families…

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 12:41 pm ¶

49. Terrie wrote:

    I am comfortable with the fact that my views on this are not motivated by race, sex or class. Because every time one of these mega litters hit the news, I’m disgusted. The Duggers? Disgust me. Jone and Kate? Disgust me. As you back through the years, looking at the stories like this that have made the news, I feel disgust.

    If you want a big family, adopt. There are many large sibling groups in foster care that workers would love to keep together, but can’t, due to a lack of people willing to adopt that many kids. The desire to have that many biological kids is, IMO, a mental illness. It’s not about wanting kids, but about the idea that one’s worth is determined by your fertility.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 12:49 pm ¶

50. Lamees wrote:

    @ Terrie

    this issue here is not about adopting for Nadya- she had a 6 embryos left and did not want them destroyed so she had them transferred thinking maybe only ONE would be viable. i dont think wanting that many bio kids is a mental illness (IMO).

    I guess im just trying to keep an open mind. i want to support women and alternative ways of building families. and there was also a basically one in a billion chance of all embryos being born and almost full term.

    People are also, IMO un-nesscecarrily preoccupied and repulsed by women’s bodies particularly around pregnancy and birth. Even with the duggars-the way people gawk about Mrs Duggar’s vagina etc on other message boards/blogs and the same with suleman. And i think alot of it smacks of sexism and misogyny

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 1:08 pm ¶

51. gatamala wrote:

    1) I do believe there is a racial component to views of large families. There is a shitload of racist nastiness that is irrelevant to the present situation.
    ****
    That said…Nadia is not the “one” to focus on gender/racial/class biases regarding childrearing (that is not to imply that this post should not be posted).

    I sincerely wonder who has children around here, or has been very close to a point in there lives where they will have (adoption or otherwise) kids.

    There is an economic catastrophe going on in this nation (and world). She wants to go to school and get a job. Anyone un-/underemployed out there? Anyone paid for daycare (that’s what most regular folks have to do). As someone mentioned, only a limited # of people have access to IVF for 1 try.

    Suleman’s circumstances (8 would not happen naturally) are extreme and irresponsible not just on her part, but on behalf of the medical establishment involved. What they did was clearly unethical (and IS being debated amid the initial furor). Her lack of foresight or concern for ALL of her children and her parents evinces extreme callousness or perhaps serious mental illness.

    The woman is already JOBLESS and HOMELESS (don’t start with the extended families, her mama is already through being saddled with her daughter’s choices).

    If “society” has a responsibility to help out, society gets to have its word.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 1:10 pm ¶

52. Ruchama wrote:

    One thing that I like about the Gosselins (the Jon and Kate Plus 8 family) is that both parents admit that, when they found out that Kate was pregnant with sextuplets, their reaction was essentially, “Oh, fuck.” This was totally not what they were trying for. There was one episode where they were answering viewer emails, and Kate said that she’d gotten a lot of emails from women asking her which drugs she’d taken, because they want to have sextuplets, too. Her response was something like, “Why do you want to try to do this? This was an accident. We’re considered a fertility nightmare, not something to emulate.”

    On the racial aspect, Kate is white, Jon is half white and half Korean. They’ve had a few episodes looking at their Korean heritage — I remember one where Jon cooked a Korean meal for the family, and brought a few of the kids to the Asian grocery store to get the ingrediants. (There was also one really odd shot in that episode where the camera caught a bunch of the little kids talking to each other about being Asian, and they concluded that five of them were Asian, and that one of the girls was not. And all six of them seemed to agree that this was the case.)

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 1:25 pm ¶

53. Daomadan wrote:

    “I think this speaks to how limited the conversation on “choice” really is. How so often, it’s framed around the to abort/not to abort debate, but its really about the ability to choose for oneself what is right for them, how many children, etc. And yet, that rarely gets top billing.”

    Exactly. I think Liss at Shakesville said it best about this debate warring around Suleman, “Being pro-choice means I don’t judge the reproductive choices of other women. Period.”

    Link to the post at Shakesville: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/02/my-beeswax-none-of.html

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 1:37 pm ¶

54. atlasien wrote:

    @gatamala: I’ve been a transracial foster care adoption blogger for more than two years.

    I’ll probably blog about this case later. Personally, I’m not interested in either condemning or defending her.

    I don’t like the fact that she’s getting so much condemnation for being a single mother. So, she’s irresponsible. So she’s mentally immature. There are plenty of men who behave much worse, and go around creating babies like a freaking water sprinkler, and they don’t get this kind of press.

    I think a lot of this media fascination with her is really unhealthy. There are many worse abuses of reproductive rights going on in the U.S., but she seems to represent something that people especially fear and loathe.

    Also, I’m a big advocate for adopting from foster care (I’m doing it myself) but I don’t believe it’s for everyone, especially people as mentally unstable as this woman is. Parent a traumatized child takes a huge amount of patience and commitment. You could argue that it means she’s too unstable to bear children, and you might be right. But having biological children is a right that I don’t believe the state should have any control over.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 1:41 pm ¶

55. ms world wrote:

    I won’t lie that I’m obsessed with trying to figure Ms. Suleman’s state of mind. I’m seem to be one of the few people in U.S. who doesn’t have cable/satellite TV therefore I’m not familiar with the Duggars or the Eight people show.

    When news broke of the the births — I didn’t give a sh*t. I think the multiple birth story is boring. Then I heard parts of Suleman’s personal story — already has six kids, living with parents and I was intrigued. Honestly, I think anyone with six kids — now 14 kids who isn’t wealthy — is CRAZAY! I feel bad for Suleman’s parents.

    I do think she’s getting sh*t from people because she’s isn’t white and/or a Christian. But I also believe if she was a Black woman with all those kids — it would be even uglier (the comments, talk & judgments).

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 1:50 pm ¶

56. Mary wrote:

    How would the dynamics of how this story is being reported change if the children were not a result of IVF treatments? Would we still be having the irresponsible debate?

    In this particular case, it has come out that Nadya Suleman has been receiving food stamps and disability payments for three of her first six kids. One of whom is reportedly autistic. I have no problem with this part of the story. Public asssistance exists for a reason and if Suleman and her children need it, they should get it. I’m very well aware that it would only take one or two emergencies to wipe me out financially and that it can happen to anyone.

    But having said that, if you are already in a financial situation like that, and you spend thousands of dollars on IVF? Because – and this is her stated reason – she felt lonely growing up as an only child? I genuinely can’t get my head around that. And I don’t say that lightly because my default position is pretty much always to support a woman’s right to control her own fertility, whether that means going in the direction of more or less children.

    But in this case, what do “fertility rights” mean? If you want 14 children and you get six instead, is that a violation of your rights? Honestly, I have no idea where I draw the line on this question.

    As far as the racial angle, I personally had no idea what her ethnicity was until I came here (and had read a lot of speculation that ranged from Lithuanian to Hispanic). The fact that a lot of people used her name and appearance to go “open season” on certain ethnic groups is a disgusting statement about where our society is at.

    The family that comes to my mind when I search for parallels is Sarah Palin’s. There was a lot of sexist speculation that she couldn’t do her job, while her supporters used her five children as proof of her pro-life credentials. Either way, I think both her supporters and detractors turned her above-average number of kids into a character issue (either someone who was “living the pro-life message” or a “freak incubator” depending on the person’s perspective). This is both sexist and racist – in the sense that a black/Hispanic mother would not likely be supported if she chose to have five children – but I also sensed a class overtone as well. Whether it was “well, Palin is trailer trash/a Jesus freak, what do you expect” on one end of the spectrum, or “she’s just like us!” on the other.

    I thought it was really nasty to go after Palin for her fertility choices, but I also believe that Palin is legitimately an overambitious jerk. With Suleman I find myself in a similar situation. I think the racist/sexist attacks against her are unconscionable, but I also can’t shake the feeling that she’s kind of a jackass herself. That does not mean I think the racial and gendered attacks are OK. But I also think it’s unfair to dismiss all criticisms or questions about Suleman and/or Palin as racist/sexist/classist, because I think there are some legitimately questionable issues in both cases.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 1:50 pm ¶

57. Celeste wrote:

    I’m sorry, but fuck this lady’s ability to “choose” to have more children when she already has 6 and can’t support the ones she has. You know what? I’d love to be able to have children right now but my husband and I can’t because he’s still in school and I’m still looking for a job. So while we’re delaying starting our family, she get’s to choose to have *more* kids that *I* have to pay to support? Really? I’m not saying that people can’t have children if they can’t support them but keep society’s obligation to support your reproductive perogative to a minimum, not 14!

    @ Free: FYI I don’t want to pay for dumb wars nor irresponsible reproduction. I’d take the latter over the former, but I’d ratherpass on both.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 1:52 pm ¶

58. ms. four wrote:

    I also wanted to chime in and say I’m really confused by the Hispanic assertion. Is Suleman also a Hispanic name? I’ve never heard it that context. I can assure you all it is a very common name (the Arabic version of Solomon) in the Middle East. It’s everywhere in Egypt.

    I still don’t see this as being about race. I see a better feminist critique here, in regards to her marital status, or class critique. But I think the criticisms of this as being irresponsible are right on. Seriously, the government is already having to pitch in to take care of these kids–that’s not the case with Jon & Kate or the Duggars.

    Tons of people hate on the Duggars and Jon & Kate. I don’t want those shows and I know that no one likes Kate. And I’m not sure how you can call them white, when the dad and kids are part Asian, but call Suleman non-white, when she and her kids are the same percentage of non-white.

    This seems like an argument that started with a theory and then squeezed the facts to fit.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:04 pm ¶

59. pololly wrote:

    @ Daomadan + Latoya

    Hold on a sec. Sorry, no. ‘Choice’ is a legal issue. I don’t think it should be illegal to have 14 kids and even have IVF when it’s clear that you don’t need it. I don’t think anyone is arguing that – though some are bringing up the (medical) issue of implanting embryos and the safety surrounding that. I don’t think abortions should be illegal. But what does that have to do with coming to the conclusion that someone else’s judgment is unwise? Are we supposed to praise her? Watch her show? It’s fine to say ‘mind your business’ but she is relying on our interest. If we don’t watch her show or buy her books, her kids won’t have diapers.

    I think that having 14 children with no means of support, and endangering the life of eight of them, and assuming that ‘the media’ will provide that gap in support is STUPID. I think this woman is stupid. Stupid and dangerous. Like a good number of parents, really.

    But I defend her legal right to have IVF. I don’t want to limit her ‘choice’. I just retain the right to think she is psychotic. So this is really nothing like the abortion debate.

    Personally, I think that the response to this is indicative of the fact that society at least has some values even if it won’t follow them. Sexism, racism, classism (which is clearly the biggest motivator) and general misogyny aside, a lot of people seem to be repulsed at seeing children being treated as ‘things’ that are basically disposable and beholden to some nutjob. Of course, in reality that happens every day. Society is full of parents who see their children as extensions of themselves and treat them like crap and generally society looks the other way. At least someone will draw a line and even liberals and conservatives agree. It’s like that couple selling their baby on the internet. All the newspapers went crazy about it. No one was interested in fixing the adoption system but at least we live in a society where you can’t sell your kid on the internet. I don’t wanna live in a society where you can sell your kid on the internet. And I don’t wanna live in a society where this woman is praised.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:04 pm ¶

60. queerhapa wrote:

    The doctor is the one to blame in this case. Medical professional organizations do not recommend women under the age of 35 having multiple embryos transferred, because multiple pregnancies are extremely dangerous for the woman and any children that do result (risks increase exponentially with each additional fetus). Even in older women, transferring SIX embryos is unethical and irresponsible. We have no laws regarding this in the United States, but the UK, recognizing the risks involved, recently decided that only one embryo should be transferred per IVF cycle.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:15 pm ¶

61. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Pololly –

    See atlasien’s comment. Because this:

    Personally, I’m not interested in either condemning or defending her.

    I don’t like the fact that she’s getting so much condemnation for being a single mother. So, she’s irresponsible. So she’s mentally immature. There are plenty of men who behave much worse, and go around creating babies like a freaking water sprinkler, and they don’t get this kind of press.

    I think a lot of this media fascination with her is really unhealthy. There are many worse abuses of reproductive rights going on in the U.S., but she seems to represent something that people especially fear and loathe.

    Is dead on.

    Also, see Kimala Price:

    Reproductive justice is not just about the individualistic right to have an abortion (i.e., the right not to have children) but to include the right to have children and to raise them in healthy and stable families. Accordingly, these activists have broadened reproductive rights and freedom beyond abortion rights, the rights to privacy and “choice” which are normally associated with the movement. In sum, reproductive justice encompasses many other issues such as economic justice, immigration rights, housing rights, and access to health care.

    It’s very easy to look at Suleman and wag your finger at her irresponsibility. It’s a little more difficult to wonder why our society is structured so that the choice to have children is largely a financial one, where families weigh their earning power, heath care, current income, and projected income before taking the plunge.

    And it starts to get more tangled when somethings are seen as acceptable, versus unacceptable.

    I know someone who is one of twelve.

    She was raised by a single parent. Do you judge her and her family on that fact?

    What if I add another fact? What if I tell you her mother was a widower, and all the children were from the same man who died when the oldest child was 15? Do we shift from condemnation to sympathy?

    And what if I mention that she was born in the 1920s? Do we discount her experiences because times have changed and so have societal norms for child rearing?

    The idea of “choice” is a winding one, and it wraps around everyone who chooses to not have a child as well as everyone who chooses to have a bountiful family, by whatever means. A discussion of these issues is not de facto approval. But I question how some of us came to these views.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:19 pm ¶

62. Jules wrote:

    She’s not white?
    Could have fooled me.

    My problem is that she has an obvious mental problem and it is just not a good idea to poke the crazy lady or encourage her.
    There is nothing sane about her decision.

    Nor do I think someone who is already living off their parents should decided “hey, since mom and dad help out so much I’ll fill this hole in my heart with MORE kids. They won’t mind more”.
    Riiiiggghhhhttt…..
    They mind so much that dad is hightailing it to Iraq and mom is calling her daughter delusional in interviews.

    BTW, I think the Duggers are nuts too (in a more creepy grasping way) and do not get the fascination people have with them, but at least they are able to provide (with the help of The Learning Channel) for their brood.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:26 pm ¶

63. Kandi wrote:

    @Celeste Really, it’s not about you. Stop projecting.

    @everyone else – I agree that there is a class/moral disciplining going on here. We ALL have to support other people’s children. Especially since there are TAXES that go to SCHOOLS and such. So I don’t know where people got this idea that we would be taking extra money from the system to support her, while everyone else is so gosh darn independent and taking care of their own kids fully. We have enough room. People do things we don’t like. She didn’t kill anyone. Now can we just stop punishing the children. That’s what I’m concerned about.

    Can’t we just hug and sing together like one big happy world?

    And why do whites get to kick anyone out of their race that they deem undesirable? They don’t like her, she’s not white (Oh Cameron Dias, we’ll let her in, we like her).

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:27 pm ¶

64. Robert wrote:

    I agree with commentators who say that backlash has less to do with single parenthood but more to do with the number of children she has. 14 is a herd of humans to come from one woman’s unmentionables.

    I approve even less of the Duggars, as their issue is directly related to the part of the bible that talks about condoms….oh there isn’t a mention of rubbers? My bad.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:36 pm ¶

65. Ailurophile wrote:

    I think Pololly @59 has a point when zie says “a lot of people seem to be repulsed at seeing children being treated as ‘things’ that are basically disposable and beholden to some nutjob. Of course, in reality that happens every day. Society is full of parents who see their children as extensions of themselves and treat them like crap and generally society looks the other way.” If anything, I feel so sorry for the Duggar children, especially the girls, being raised in such a misogynist environment as a fundie family where they are basically free labor.

    The waters on “is choice just about the PARENTS’ rights” is hellaciously muddied by the fact that women of color, historically, have been sterilized, had their children taken away, told they should not have children, just because of their race – I know a woman who told me that she knew Native American women who had been forcibly sterilized in the 1970’s – not that long ago! Mary Brave Bird Olguin (a Lakota) writes about her sister who was sterilized without her knowledge or consent. So there is a lot riding on the choice of women of color whether to be “allowed” to have kids in the first place.

    But “choice” shouldn’t be all about the parents. It needs to be about the resultant kids, too. What about their right to be seen as little persons with rights to a stable, nurturing and safe home environment? Large families can provide this – I’ve lived and worked around plenty of Mormons who come from big sibling sets and are well-adjusted and have good relations with their families. But how can one of a set of sextuplets not feel like “one of a crowd?”

    And, for that matter, the right of grandmothers to not have their children dumped on them. Dollars to donuts Ms. Suleman’s mother will cave due to her “sense of duty” and “OMG my grandbabies” and help raise those children.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:39 pm ¶

66. abby jean wrote:

    I’m really surprised by some of the assumptions voiced in the comments on this thread.

    1. Only people who are not on public assistance and who are in two-parent families should have legal access to IVF.

    2. If you have children and/or are planning to have children and someone wants to marry you, your non-acceptance of that proposal is an automatic indication of your lack of fitness to have children.

    3. Women and families should be limited to a certain number of children (arbitrary cutoff to be determined later) because having more seems creepy or selfish or wouldn’t be the personal choice of people commenting here.

    4. A desire to have more than the arbitrarily determined “acceptable” number of children is a clear indication of mental illness and unfitness as a mother.

    5. If a person is dependent on financial assistance from governmental entities, those entities have not only a right but an obligation to society at large to impose moral restrictions on their behavior.

    These are all variations on anti-choice messages for the sole reason that they privilege criteria other than the choice and decision of the mother.

    To my mind, a lot of these issues are class ones. People seem very concerned by the lack of a second parent in the household and by her acceptance of governmental benefit programs for income. There’s a strong underlying assumption that if taxpayers are going to give her income through these programs, that automatically conveys a right/obligation to police her behavior in a way that’s acceptable.

    I find that attitude really dangerous – and it’s had direct influence on existing policies in government benefit programs that are anti-choice and harmful to women. For example, the maximum family grant rule in welfare prevents an increase in welfare grants for additional children conceived and born to a family already on welfare. This results in women struggling to raise children on welfare grants that would be insufficient even without the extra children in the household. It contributes to homelessness, food insecurity, low educational attainment, and a host of other problems. And that’s because we, as a society, decided it was ok to morally police families on government assistance by telling them they shouldn’t have any more kids and if they do, they shouldn’t expect to get any help raising them.

    Morally policing people who get governmental benefits is a bad idea. It’s anti-poverty, it’s anti-woman, and it’s anti-child and I’m extremely distressed to see it pop up so often in discussion of this woman.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:42 pm ¶

67. Anne wrote:

    Weren’t the first US born octuplets african american? The public did not seem to be upset or angry with the parents of the Chukwu Octuplets because the parents seemed to be responsible and prepared to raise their children.

    I think the public is angry at this mother’s irresponsible behavior and an attitude that other people (her parents and the government) will provide the neccesities for her children.

    Being a parent is more than giving birth and loving a child….. I believe the outrage in most rational people is about her lack of responsiblity and not the color of her skin.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:45 pm ¶

68. Jamerican Muslimah wrote:

    I have definitely been looking at the racial compenents and the way she is being treated. However, what concerns me is how everyone feels like they have a say in this young woman’s life and how they feel almost entitled to offer up opinions and judgements about her.

    Why are we so concerned? I’m starting to see the same tired “but we’re going to pay for those babies because she’ll be on welfare” comments. I still feel like if Nadya were White and troubled (because it does seem she is troubled) there would be way more sympathy for her and less judgment.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:46 pm ¶

69. Jess wrote:

    One aspect of the story that I wondered about — and this goes to your question, Latoya, and one from pololly–

    looked at from a purely medical ethics perspective, I have a serious, serious problem with women and their doctors when they go for multiple (3+) births.

    Here is why: women have two breasts only, and we are primates. Therefore the number of children our bodies are designed to accommodate with few problems is about two. That’s about it. Primates do not have litters, period. (It’s one reason we are also a relatively long-lived species, and why a generation is 15 years or so, minimum).

    The evidence is in the gigantic, mega-ton of risk one is taking when carrying multiple pregnancies. You cannot carry quadruplets+ to term.

    I know of no cases of a ~40-week pregnancy in that situation. So you are going to give birth prematurely (as the Gosselin’s had to do). And that jacks your risks up way beyond what I think is remotely ethical. The kids did NOT choose to be part of this, and you are risking all kinds of developmental problems. CP is just the beginning. The Gosselins were really, really lucky. Like lottery-win lucky.

    Nobody realizes it, not in this media circus, but the many, many multiple birth kids exhibit developmental and physical problems as a result of being born very early, and there isn’t a thing any doctor can do about it.

    I cannot understand how any doctor couldn’t say to his patient, “you have special needs kids now, and some of that may be related to birth injuries. You are one high risk patient for any birth, and having multiples just jacks that up.”

    To me, allowing a woman to get IVF under those circumstances is just plain irresponsible doctoring. Sometimes what we want (our choices) and what’s right or healthy aren’t the same thing. I might want to smoke all day but no doctor would recommend I do it. I might want to have unprotected sex too, but that isn’t a good idea either. I might even want to climb mount Everest, but if I have TB nodules in my lungs it’s kind of a bad idea.

    So yeah, I do have an issue here. First, the doc should have told her this was a risky, risky thing to do that could kill both her and her kids. Second, the doc should have had the guts to tell her “no” if s/he felt this was a risky procedure that endangered the patient, which it frankly is no matter how you slice it.

    Suleman? I think she’s nuts, and I think she’s irresponsible for endangering herself in this way when she has 6 kids already. What would they do if she died? That’s a for-real possibility here.

    Now, for all the folks who are about to bomb me, let me make something else clear:

    1. I do not believe womens reproductive choices should be mandated, but I do think people, with their physicians, should weigh the risks. These are not equivalent positions.

    2. People have the right to raise families as they wish, but only to a point. We don’t allow child abuse, and we don’t accept forced pregnancy and polygyny/polygamy (I hope). So there are limits to what we will allow people to do.

    3. We also expect our physicians to tell us when we are about to do something dangerous, since most of us just aren’t qualified to make that decision. You’d want your doctor to tell you if you were at risk for a food allergy, or if you were doing something that could hurt you without you realizing it. “Hey doc, I went in to anaphylactic shock after eating that peanut!” “Oh, sorry about that, I was going to tell you earlier but you said you liked chicken satay.” I don’t think we’d think much of a doc who did that.

    Suleman’s doc didn’t do that, or Suleman refused to listen. That bugs me.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:48 pm ¶

70. Bo wrote:

    The one thing in the comments so far that I completely agree with is from Daomadan. My first thought was “who am I to know what’s right for this woman I’ve never met?”

    That said, I have a couple of other comments. Several people mentioned Nadya’s mental health by way of calling it into question. I didn’t read stories about her or watch interviews with her and think she was crazy (in the same way that I think the Duggars are certifiable, but that’s something else). In one interview she touched on how she felt as though there was a hole in her life, a lack of love, and that that was something that the joy of having children could fill.

    This, for me, questioned the entire idea of what it means to make a “decision”–that there’s no reality vacuum in which right and wrong are clear and emotions don’t matter. Her comment left me wondering a few things:

    –Why she hadn’t felt love in a satisfying way. Was this a specific family issue or a structural problem?
    –What societal messages led her to believe that children would fill that gap? This entire idea seems a little conservative to me–that there are a limited number of ways to seek human happiness and affection that fall within reasonable societal boundaries (her methods aside), and that biological children hold some privileged position in this hierarchy of love, affection, and acceptance. If she had adopted 14 children–even if she’d said she did it because she thinks each of those children can offer her a special love and affection, she would’ve had a show, and would’ve been a saint in the eyes of the MSM. But to otherwise have children falls outside the realm of acceptability; the motivations go untouched and the methods are interrogated.

    I don’t want to question Nadya’s decision, but I think an area to interrogate might be the structures in place that call into question the validity of her decisions.

    I watch John & Kate +8 every week. I don’t agree that the family is more acceptable because they’re more “white;” they are after all biracial. My interest is more in the fact that Kate’s agency isn’t in question. The way in which Kate’s pregnancies were framed seemed to me very understandable; terminating any of the sextuplets is not discussed, but the sextuplets themselves are portrayed as a miracle of happenstance, not an exercise in executing divine will nor a pursuit of happiness nor an obligation of a dutiful wife. The situation is portrayed as one in which Kate could’ve made several decisions, but, being in a stable relationship with a particular set of beliefs, she made a choice. And she lives with that choice, and takes charge of that choice.

    The Duggars are the other side of this coin for me. I disagree with Kenny that the Duggars are not reviled–at least 5 minutes of every episode involves randomly interviewing bystanders about their positions on such a large family. This show rankles me a bit because I feel that Michelle’s decision-making capacities are being subsumed in patriarchal structure in the way that Kate’s could arguably not be. Michelle propounds her “choice” to have 18 children as a submission to God and fulfill His will, rather than, as I believe Kate frames it, having a large family as a choice informed by faith, circumstance, etc. I, like a few other posters, admire that at least the Duggars are consistent in their religious beliefs (I personally don’t believe this consistency is well-placed, however).

    So, my point was, I agree with several posters, but mostly I don’t think it’s my place to question Nadya’s decision or mental health or position to have as many children as she likes. I question why a society or religion or family or structural entity continues to restrict the way that women make decisions about their reproductive capacities.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:51 pm ¶

71. Winn wrote:

    “Being pro-choice means I don’t judge the reproductive choices of other women. Period.”

    Too simplistic by half. Period.

    I agree the discussion around choice and rights is limited and narrow, especially in that it is restricted to the choices and rights of adults, and never the children involved. As a therapist and mental health advocate, I work everyday with children suffering as a result of their parent’s “choices”: choice to forego prenatal care and use drugs instead, choice to give birth when they are incapable of providing for the basic nutritional, health and hygiene needs of the children they already have, choice to continue to have children when the state has already intervened and not only removed prior children but sometimes even severed parental rights, etc. Suleman certainly has the right to reproductive freedom, and I would never try to curtail that. But what about the rights of her fourteen children? What about the physical, intellectual and emotional risks associated with multiple premature births, especially given that some of this damage will not manifest in the children until later? She already has one special needs child that we know of, and the likelihood that, at a minimum, one of the eight will develop special medical or academic needs, is extremely high. There are strong suggestions that Suleman has a history of emotional disturbance, and when you combine that with no job, no home of her own, and limited social support, I’m sorry, but I see serious risk factors there, and I’m going to speak out about them. Even if she is able to support her family materially because of media contracts, which is lame and disgusting, but unfortunately typical, that has no bearing on whether or not she can support them emotionally or help nurture their psyches. She has already shown a propensity for, to put it kindly, suspect decision-making.

    I agree that there have been elements of racism, sexism, and classism in the varied responses to this story, but I’m not sure that any of the “isms” is a primary factor guiding public response. For me, it is the extreme irresponsibility of her actions, rights and choice be damned. It’s not just about what adults have the right to do, but what kids have the right to experience as well. It is not a bias against single mothers, or multiple births, or fertility treatments, or economic despair. It is about selfishness and a lack of both foresight and insight, that may well put these children at risk.

    BTW, my mom was an 18-year old African American single mother, from a rural community, and she is one of nine siblings, my father one of eleven. So this is not about race, class, or big families for me. It’s about positive and healthful parenting choices, not self-absorbed ones.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 2:56 pm ¶

72. Seattle Slim wrote:

    I’ll say it, I find it repulsive from the Duggars to the Plus 8 People to Nadya. I think it’s selfish as hell. I have two and God help me, I would die if I had another one let alone 12 more.

    I think it has nothing to do with race. She could be a martian for me. I just feel like as a mom, I am always finding ways to make my babies feel included, one being 6 and the other 11 months old. She lives with her parents, is sucking up resources from the govt, and now decided that she is FIT to sustain 14 kids??? No. Women with one kid get just as much disdain, and she goes for 14?? She is indefensible.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 3:15 pm ¶

73. Kavita wrote:

    @ abby jean (65): yes! very well put.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 3:24 pm ¶

74. Jaya wrote:

    Wait, what the hell? Nadya Suleman isn’t Latina. She’s half Iraqi, and half Ukranian. She was married to a Hispanic man and kept his name after divorce, which explains her last name.

    Why would anyone see this as a racial issue?

    I think she’s just as batshit crazy as the Duggars, who are as white as you can get.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶

75. Celeste wrote:

    @ Kandi: It kinda sorta is about me if she’s more dependent than goverment assistance than most people are. I still think 14 kids is too many for 1 person but if she could support at least half her offpsring herself I’d have less of a problem with it. No one is punishing her children as I can see. They’re not going out of their way to help out but they’re not tossing them down the well either. And the whole “we’ve got enough room” thing, I hope that you’ll be proven right. Right now it seems that resources are not unlimited to provide everything for everybody in this country. God come down and save us when the boomers really start retiring (although that might free up jobs).

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 3:39 pm ¶

76. Whitney wrote:

    For the record,her mother’s last name is Suleman too.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090209/ap_on_he_me/octuplets

    So that’s impossible that that’s her ex’s last name. Her ex’s name is Marcos Gutierrez.

    Anyways, when I first heard about this, race didn’t even enter my mind. When I heard her name, race didn’t enter my mind. Her racial identity is irrelevant to this story.

    My concerns is how on earth is she going to provide for these babies? What about her mother who has been caring for her and them? She’s unemployed, on disability, her mom lost a house because of her and her children, 3 of her children are disabled and receive SSI, she’s on food stamps, she wants to go back to college, 16 people, 14 of them under 7, living in a 3-bedroom house? etc, etc, etc, nothing we don’t already know.

    Everyone has basically already said my opinion. I am pro-choice, but this is downright abusive. This woman SHOULD be criticized, and ALL of the women in my pro-choice groups agree. What she is doing is wrong because it’s punishing her children almost. The Duggars are doing the same. Saying “*I* want children, and LOTS of them, and if you’re ignored and neglected because of it, OH WELL.” She’s only thinking about herself. She’s one of the most selfish people on the planet, and so is anyone who has that many kids on purpose.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 4:06 pm ¶

77. Kaonashi wrote:

    I think a lot of the public’s venom has to do with the fact that California has a budget problem so severe that they are asking people to take IOUs on their tax returns, and here you have a woman in their state that doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of personal responsibility.

    She has 6 kids already (3 disabled) that her mother is the primary caretaker of. She has been surviving on workman comp payments for years now (and what she probably used for her IVF instead of taking care of her children) and has been pregnant every time her case has come up for review so she couldn’t be examined. Her father is going back to Iraq to work to help support HER children. And according to her interview with Anne Curry, she intends to use “student loans” to take care of her 14 children and her “friends will chip in.” If that’s not a sense of entitlement, I don’t know what is!

    She is so selfish it’s unbelievable. 3 children with special needs…and then you go and have 8 more? You blast your parents in interviews saying that “you grew up unhappy and a lonely child” yet these same parents are the ones who went into bankruptcy helping to support YOUR kids, your dad is going into a war zone to help take care of them and your “evil mother” is taking care of the children you brought into this world. She wants everyone to take care of her children instead of her! Boo this woman! BOO! BOO!

    Even more telling, the doctor who did the IVF for the first six flat out refused to do it again, so she went to ANOTHER doctor to have the procedure done. She hasn’t even been home to see her children yet; she went from the hospital to her Anne Curry interview to an “undisclosed location” while Mom is still at home struggling with the grandchildren. Disgusting.

    This isn’t an issue about race. I don’t even think it’s about class. It’s about a mentally unstable woman choosing to bring 8 more children into this world via an expensive procedure when she has 6 already that she is NOT taking care of. If she did this once and got the 8 kids, TLC would have found a way to spin this into “Plucky mom being a student and parent to 8 newborns at the same time; WATCH STUDENT MOM” and the BF would have been cast as “the devoted BF who loves her and the children, but she must go her own way. Their relationship is quirky, but it works for them!” And people would watch.

    Or maybe not. Maybe people are over watching people with litters of children now.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 4:16 pm ¶

78. Phrone wrote:

    I’ve been hearing about this a little bit on Jezebel, and my reaction has always been “Her life is none of my business.”

    I was confused why there was so much negative press about her — I’d never seen Jon and Kate plus 8 or whatever else, but I’d always sort of assumed that it showed that we liked having a lot of kids — but now that I know she’s single, has a Hispanic last name and is half Middle Eastern, and on welfare, suddenly it makes a lot more sense. That’s really sad.

    But, still, I don’t think it should be an issue for the public. These individuals are clearly outliers (the US has the highest fertility rate of any industrialized country, but it’s not high and everyone who wants to have 12 kids won’t change that.) All the praise/scorn seems completely absurd to me.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 4:16 pm ¶

79. abby jean wrote:

    All these people who are so concerned because of her receipt of SSI (federal disability benefit) and food stamps – here’s a hypothetical question.

    If this was 7 households of a single mother with two children, would you be as invested in policing how they spend their money? Are they allowed to buy toys? What about ice cream? What’s the nicest store they should be allowed to by clothes from? The nicest car they should be allowed to drive?

    Those feel like uncomfortable questions, right? Like we’re intruding into their business just because they’re poor? But there are millions of households of 2 kids, or more kids, or who cares how many kids, receiving SSI or welfare or food stamps or other kinds of government benefits. Policing the actions of 2 kid households will have an infinitely larger impact on the use of tax dollars than this one woman.

    Since her actions are dwarfed by the other households to be virtually irrelevant to the total bottom line of these programs, what is the concern? That she’ll set a model for other women who want to have 14 kids, creating a nation of 14 kid households relying on public assistance? That eventually the entire social security budget will go to selfish women having kids in order to bankrupt the country? I know this is flip, but I’m having trouble understanding the underlying concern as anything other than “if people rely on government benefits, their actions must be morally policed by sole virtue of them being poor.”

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 4:19 pm ¶

80. Whitney wrote:

    The thing is too, my boyfriend was raised by a single dad and was an only child and he talked about how lonely he was. He and his dad spent time when they could, but for the most part, he was on his own a lot because his dad had to work so much to provide for him. And I just can’t help but think how hard it’s going to be for these kids, especially now when they’re young, to feel the same way my boyfriend did growing up: Missing their parent. They are very lucky that they’ll have each other and it seems that they have a very loving grandmother. I just remember her talking about how lonely she said she was growing up, and she’s going to inevitably end up doing exactly the same thing to her kids. I just really feel for them. It’s going to be really, really tough, and it should never be that tough for a kid.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 4:22 pm ¶

81. Beth wrote:

    I’m going to piggyback on all the others who have pointed out that there’s tons o’ hate out there for the Duggars–they’re the preachiest of the lot (in interviews, they frequently refer to this Christian financial planning series that they used and sell), and people resent that they don’t have to pay taxes on their home as a result of it being considered a house of worship. Anyway, if you goggle the Duggars you’ll find stuff–it just isn’t as recent as the current Suleman situation.

    As for Jon & Kate, i actually appreciate their portrayal of a functional interracial couple. As others have pointed out, they didn’t plan on having so many children, and don’t encourage others to, either.

    I’m curious about what the reception of the Suleman situation would be if she was not on public assistance, and she was perceived as white.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 4:37 pm ¶

82. Ailurophile wrote:

    “Only-child syndrome” doesn’t apply to all onlies, by any means. I’m an only and happily childfree by choice. My parents, far from being upset, are thankful that I’m not tying them down by forcing them to baby-sit (or, $Deity forbid, care for) a bunch of grandkids. My mom is a pseudo-0nly child (her only brother was 12 years younger) and hates noise and mess – I think she would have been happier not being a mom.

    Oh, and what Kaonashi #77 and Whitney #76 said. I believe that children, regardless of race/background, are ENTITLED to public assistance, food stamps and free education FOR THEIR SAKE. But Mommee is not “entitled” to “have her friends chip in” or have dear old Grandma step in and care for her kids. *Expecting* friends and family to bail you out of YOUR bad choices is wrong. It burdens THEM. I’m sure Angela Suleman wants to raise truckloads of grandkids like she wants her brain pierced. But go0d ol’ sense of duty/love for the pweshus grandkids will force her to step in. I feel really bad for Angela.

    And what about the kids? Do we say “Everyone has a right to be a parent. If the kids get ignored, neglected, or abused, too bad, so sad, them’s the breaks, kiddoes?”

    Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands have far higher public support for having kids – money and day-care and support for moms who want to work part-time or not at all. And they have FAR lower rates of child abuse – I believe it’s illegal in Sweden at least to spank a child. I think our “parents have a right to do what they wish with their children as long as it satisfies THEIR needs” is part and parcel of our society really not loving or valuing children – unless they are middle-class or above, and white or Asian.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 4:51 pm ¶

83. deb wrote:

    The last name Suleman is generally a Muslim last name.

    When I first heard her last name I thought she was Indian (of South Asian descent) or Middle Eastern.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 4:55 pm ¶

84. Celeste wrote:

    @Kaonashi: I 2nd that emotion, BOO!

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 5:08 pm ¶

85. Kaonashi wrote:

    Beth: From the forums I go to, everyone was pretty much like “O wow, another one!” when the births were announced. It’s the “have 6 children at home (3 with special needs) that Grandma is taking care of” combined with the fact that she had very expensive IVF treatments without a source of income and the mothers own delusions that have pushed people over the edge. Also, Suleman’s own mother doing that damning interview was a HUGE factor in souring people’s impressions.

    In contrast, the African family who gave birth to octupulets didn’t get the same criticism because their children were conceived naturally and because they are more of a “traditional” family; hardworking and virtuous who just happened to have this miracle happen. They didn’t get the T.V. Show (some people just aren’t comfortable with being filmed like that) but they are doing ok. The Gosselins, on the other hand are constantly being condemned for being “greedy” and getting all sorts of freebies–including a house, vacations, nannies, hair plugs for Jon and a tummy tuck for Kate. And if I had a dollar for every time I’ve seen Kate referred to as a “b****” well, I would be rich! It’s gotten so bad that many reality tv forums refuse to have Jon and Kate threads PERIOD because of the trouble they cause.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 5:22 pm ¶

86. Chris Herrera wrote:

    Sorry, but I can’t see any racial component for this story. The majority of the negativity showed up when it was revealed that she already had 6 children, before anything about her race was mentioned. I’ve seen plenty of scorn for white families such as the Duggars too.

    Admittedly there is some bias on my part. I’m childfree, so the circles I travel in tend to hate all Frankenlitters equally.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 5:36 pm ¶

87. Robin wrote:

    I just want to say that Racealicious rocks today. Great work! Between this post, the Chris Brown/Rihanna open thread and the post about HJNTIY, today has been a banner day.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 6:00 pm ¶

88. Kathe wrote:

    I think that anyone who has children who can’t pay for them is selfish. Anyone who has 14 children, no job, and lives with their mother is certainly going to piss me off.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 6:01 pm ¶

89. deathblossom wrote:

    For me, it’s really that she already had six kids and went out to pay for more, especially after all this talk about being a “professional student” using her financial aid to raise her children. How true that is, I have my doubts and we all work the system the best we can – to survive. Not to save up money on expensive IVF treatments and then cry when no one feels any sympathy for you because of your choice. It’s not like she had 14 “accidents” and it’s not like she’s entitled to IVF just because she wants it. I can’t get a doctor to tie my tubes because I’m too young and childless to go through the procedure, but she can get 8 embryos put in her even though she already has 6 children? Motherhood is not that saintly that we have to fulfill this woman’s mental issues.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 6:06 pm ¶

90. Cheryl wrote:

    race is not the issue. this woman lives in California. My state. She is taxing an already broke system. I filed my taxes and the state owes me money, but guess what? They are not giving it out right now. The IOU’s are real. Deadbeats like her have ruined it for the rest of us. I do feel sorry for the children, a psycho freeloading mother. I personallly will boycott any company that gives her a thing and I will publicly campaign against any that do. most californians work hard and watch their money. Dead beats have caused us to be upside down $200000 on our house, and idiots like her are costing us our tax refunds while they use state disability payment sto make more babies to get food stamps for. I have paid for invitro three times with money my husband of seven years and I have worked hard to earn. our doctor would never implant more than two embryos. We have not been blessed with a single child yet. this woman is dangerous and represents everything that is wrong with America today.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 6:14 pm ¶

91. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Okay. I’m probably going to close this thread unless someone has something more compelling to say than “OMG, she’s nuts!”

    Looking for a better kind of conversation here people. What does this mean for choice? Ethics in medicine? The media machine (who wants to bet she’ll be on extreme makeover: get a job edition?) What does it mean that people ruminate on her ethnicity once they hear the circumstance? Why do we reward *anyone’s* reproductive choices with cars and sponsorships? What’s the difference between the people who are castigating Suleman and the zero-population/population environmentalists who think that anyone’s choice to bring more children into the world is selfish?

    Seriously, there is so much more to discuss here. The “well, I just hate her because…” comments aren’t adding anything that hasn’t already been said.

    (And to those of you already talking about the politics of choice, medical ethics, and the like, thank you.)

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 6:15 pm ¶

92. Ailurophile wrote:

    OK, Latoya, I’ll bite.

    Why *do* certain parents get corporate freebies and other goodies showered upon them and others can’t get arrested as far as much-needed help is concerned? Call me a pinko commie socialist librul (and I admit to being a socialist librul), but wouldn’t we as a society be better off if the money spent on some families because they have large multiple births, was spent on the common good? As in, free and universal preschool, enriching after-school programs, free healthcare for all children, and free two-year college for all kids who want to go? I think the payoff in having more healthy, productive, taxpaying citizens would be worth it.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 6:25 pm ¶

93. gogobooty wrote:

    Someone above said something along the lines of, if she had adopted 14 children, she’d get a tv show.

    The thing is tho, she wouldn’t be allowed to adopt 14 kids under her personal circumstances. Adoption services would look at her financial situation, her living environment, and perhaps her neediness for children to fill her love void, and consider her ineligible to adopt. She was able to birth to 14, tho, with medical intervention.

    I find medically created multiple births and huge families of stair step babies to be equally creepy, regardless of racial makeup. I can’t understand it, and have a visceral reaction that human bodies aren’t meant to perform that way. And just because they can, doesn’t mean they are meant to provide tv entertainment, or that they deserve or are entitled to tv shows as a means of support.

    Is it possible to give birth to 8 babies and not have the media notified?

    In this woman’s case, it seems like an attention-seeking action and one based on the assumption that the (additional) care and support of these children will be performed and subsidized by someone else.

    From the outside, I agree, it looks like she rolled the dice regarding the health of both herself and the 8 babies, as well as the future of her older children. The fantasy jackpot: good health, no complications at birth or as the babies grow, and instant celebrity parenting expert status. The very real possibility: loss of the family support she has needed thus far for only 6 kids, life on public assistance with a family of 15, ongoing developmental delays in one or more of the children, with limited resources for dealing with these issues. It does seem like an especially chancey attitude toward the children’s lives.

    The right to do what one wants with one’s own body is an important part of the argument. But something is severely out of balance in this case. And I think that’s why her decision is so hard for people to support.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 6:48 pm ¶

94. Matt E. Allen wrote:

    Up until reading this topic, I hadn’t paid attention to the nationality of the mother. When the story first broke, I didn’t really care that this was an important story since there have been many women who have given birth to multiple children at once. I did catch the phrase of her wanting to have a lot of kids. That disturbs me whenever I hear that phrase because it seems the woman doesn’t understand that her kids won’t stay that way for long.

    Back to the racial aspect of this story, it’s very disappointing to hear people in the news and elsewhere that she wanted these kids so she could receive welfare. Regardless of her nationality, such a claim is pretty careless. Though if she had been white, the welfare talk wouldn’t have come up.

    I understand that most fertilization doctors try to use as many eggs as possible to achieve a pregnancy. It may be time to set up rules to only allow so many embryos could be used per invitrofertilzation. I don’t think however, it would be possible to pass laws to only allow so many children per woman.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 6:55 pm ¶

95. Free wrote:

    @pololly – assuming that ‘the media’ will provide that gap in support

    I’ve never heard Nadya say that she expected media support. If anything, Nadya is a media created object of curiosity.

    @celeste – point taken. As far as paying to support her children is concerned, American’s pay for far worse and most of the time there is scarcely this amount of hullabaloo and that’s why I cry foul.

    What is unfortunate is that people are deaf to what SHE (emphasis, not yelling), has said about her situation:

    “Suleman said she had six embryos implanted for each of her pregnancies. The octuplets were a surprise result of her last set of six embryos, she said, explaining she had expected twins at most. Two of the embryos evidently divided in the womb.”

    A SURPRISE RESULT,(again not yelling), meaning that she didn’t expect all of them to survive, let alone for two to divide and become twins. Nadya considered the embryos her children and she wanted to give them a chance to survive. Sounds like a pro life position.

    Nadya’s Today Show interview
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4OCPP1s0xU

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 6:55 pm ¶

96. Jess wrote:

    Latoya–

    I think a lot of people have touched on the issues you raise. One thing that might offer some insight as to why some families get on TV or not is the patterns of where people live and such.

    For instance, the Gosselins were in Pennsylvania, in a community (I think it’s Pittsburgh or something with a medium size media market. That goes a long way. Why? If you live in NYC, there is a lot of other stuff competing for news time. Octuplets are cool, but imagine you are New York One’s News Director. What gets on? The Octuplets might make it on a slow day. For 1:30 at the end of the hour.

    The African couple, as I remember, lived in a much larger city (I believe it was the DC area) where such things will get buried.

    That’s just one part of it. But then, there’s another: how do you think folks find out about this stuff? I’ll tell you: birth announcements in the local shopper/paper and through people you know. Occasionally, very occasionally, a journalist or science/health show producer might be trolling the journals and find someone like the Gosselins that way, but that’s sort of rare.

    So, who puts out birth announcements? Working-class people tend not to do that– it costs.

    The other family–the one with 18 kids– that’s a very public religious stand. They wanted the attention. They actively sought it out. I would bet dollars to donuts that Suleman wanted the attention too. She could have kept it quieter if she wanted.

    In science, we call this “detection bias.”

    Some of it is cultural too. For many non-white families, IVF simply isn’t as available, as a lot of insurance may or may not cover it. Then there are more cultural taboos I see (I can’t think of a better word right now) about talking about health issues.

    My wife’s family, for instance (Filipino), is very quiet about that kind of stuff, and I don’t see black families/viewers flocking to be on medically-based reality TV (or BET would have been all over it).

    But basically, I have met a lot of non-white people whose reaction to the Gosselins was “why are they letting people all up in their business?” (Not that folks don’t seem to understand the perks of being on TV and all, it just doesn’t seem as much of a draw).

    Now, my sample is not by any means representative or scientific. If you have any insights to offer as to what I am seeing, fire away. I think it would actually be interesting to see some viewer data or something like it. Is there a cultural bias to keep certain things private here? I want to know. My own bias is coming from a family with three, count ‘em three doctors in three generations so talking about health stuff is pretty easy for us.

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 6:59 pm ¶

97. timarasa wrote:

    #65 Ailurophile
    #69 Jess
    #71 Winn:
    [(co-sign) x (co-sign)] ^ 100 & then some…

    choice is always coupled with responsibility for the consequences (especially when kids with rights by law are involved). frankly, i hope she can get all the public assistance she can & more with the media attention on her story. what’s done is done — i just care about the kids at this point; i want them to have the opportunity of a decent quality of life and education, like EVERY child should in this country (but sadly does not get).

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 7:09 pm ¶

98. timarasa wrote:

    even more accurately:
    “[(co-sign) x (co-sign)] ^ ∞ & then some”

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 7:13 pm ¶

99. soreal789 wrote:

    I honestly didnt know this woman was a latina. I just thought she was another crazy lady (like the Michelle Duggar) who was having a ton of kids….except the fact that this woman is living with her parents, not doing well financially, and choosing to undergo IVF when she already has a ton of kids (1/2 of them with developmental issues)!

    This lady is nuts either way!! (and I do think Michelle Duggar is crazy too but atleast she planned this out a little better than Suleman did)

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 7:45 pm ¶

100. Ailurophile wrote:

     Here are a couple of thought-provoking links I found on the Washington Post website:

     This one is about poor couples (no single women are profiled) who struggle with infertility but can’t afford the same treatments that middle-class and wealthy people can:

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A41046-2003Apr16&notFound=true

     And here is one about tubal ligations in Brazil. The issue here is “are poor women of color coerced into getting their tubes tied?” (sound familiar?)

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32622-2004Jun10.html

     Again, the biggest issue the Suleman birth raises for me is: Where do the rights to be a parent no matter one’s skin color, ability, or income intersect and where do they collide with a CHILD’s right to a loving upbringing? How can we as a society ensure both that “certain people” aren’t summarily deprived of having children they want, and at the same time assure all children of being loved, well-cared for, and wanted? Do we shrug and say “Them’s the breaks, sweethearts” to abused, neglected or just plain unloved children whose parents OMG WANTED KIDS but didn’t really have what it takes to raise them, or got suckered in by the rosy-posy Anne Geddes postcard images and discovered, too late, that babies are noisy and messy and demanding and don’t provide that unconditional love and those Kodak moments?

     These are tough choices. Most of us don’t like making tough choices, and our history of reproductive racism doesn’t help at all.

     Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 7:57 pm ¶

101. SarahNicole wrote:

     “That’s just one part of it. But then, there’s another: how do you think folks find out about this stuff? I’ll tell you: birth announcements in the local shopper/paper and through people you know. Occasionally, very occasionally, a journalist or science/health show producer might be trolling the journals and find someone like the Gosselins that way, but that’s sort of rare.”

     The Gosselin sextuplets were delivered by a team of more than 50, were immediately known as the “Hershey’s Kisses,” they were heralded and aided by the state government (they had a Tuition Account Program set up for the twins and the sextuplets) and by the time the sextuplets came home, there was a cadre of volunteers helping them because they had announced their pregnancy at their church.

     Which is just to say that no, no one found out about the Gosselins due to looking through birth announcement in a local shopper or through casual word-of-mouth.

     Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 8:59 pm ¶

102. ViK wrote:

     Latoya – I believe reproductive medicine should be treated like adoption. If you adopt a child, you have to prove that you are a capable parent. To get IVF, you have to prove you can pay for the procedure.

     Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 9:19 pm ¶

103. Yvette wrote:

     Using more than 2 or 3 embryos in an IVF procedure is NOT considered ethical practice in today’s reproductive medicine. As I mentioned previously, pregnancies with so many fetuses pose a danger to women and potential babies. The USA still has a sort of “wild, wild west” approach to fertility treatment, as opposed to, say the UK, thus we still get stories such as this one.

     “Choice” is completely the wrong frame to use in reproductive decision-making IMO, as it does not fully consider several aspects–such as how *constraint* operates differently for different women. For example, is the “choice” of an abortion the same for a middle class college woman and a low income mother of two the same age? Is the “choice” of egg donation or even serving as a surrogate the same for that college woman, her lower income peer, or a woman across the ocean in India?

     Another piece of the inadequacy of “choice” involves the other people it does not include. In this particular case, for example, what of the grandmother who has been assisting with childrearing? What of the sperm donor who may not have intended for so many children to be born from his gametes?

     Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:42 pm ¶

104. NancyP wrote:

     She will be taking care of 2.67 to 4 times the number of young infants that a single worker can be responsible for at a state-licensed day care center. Furthermore, some of these babies are likely to have medical problems and need more than the average amount of attention. It seems that she doesn’t have a support system of helpful relatives or neighbors (no husband or stable partner, and her mother has issued ultimatums). So far as I am concerned, she’s inviting the comparison with cats and dogs, or for that matter, Romanian orphanages of the Ceaucescu era, by having and keeping this number of babies, and thinking that she can do it all herself even with financial support for food and housing and medical care. There are only 24 hours in a day. Children should not be an assembly line product unless there is a dire emergency – AIDS orphans in situations where there are few adults capable of caring for them. If she can’t get together a family or community team to help out, she should relinquish a few to adoptive parents who can give children individual care.

     This is a LOT different than having 8 kids, or 14 kids, one or two at a time, with some hope of reasonable spacing. The infants get one-on-one care.

     Very large families are outmoded, and considered a *luxury item* due to the loss of their economic function (farm labor) as much as the gain of reliable birth control and the increasing cost of raising children to the point where they can be self-supporting citizens. I suspect that that is one of the main reasons that many people are up in arms – her repeat IVFs and very high number of children are luxuries in a world where many people can’t afford a modest number (one or two) of children. I think that the IVF help should go to those with none and post-conception support should go to those with trouble supporting one or two children, something we aren’t doing now. People should feel able to start small biological families whether or not they are able to support them at the moment.

     If people want to take care of a succession of babies on the public dime, they should qualify as emergency foster care parents. The (good) emergency foster care parents are sorely needed, provide love and attention to children, and deserve to be heroes.

     I have no difficulty whatsoever judging this woman’s reproductive choices – because she has not demonstrated common sense. Just because she had the legal right doesn’t mean that she acted responsibly. Ethnicity has zip to do with it – practicality and fairness to the individual children is my concern.

     Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:51 pm ¶

105. Minke wrote:

     “I’ve never hear anyone call the Duggars selfish or irresponsible”

     Listen to me do it:

     Relegating their daughters to coverall dresses and modelling that it is a woman’s place to birth babies ’til she can’t birth no more disgusts me. Making the older kids take care of the younger ones just because the parents haven’t figured out that the immediate cause of babies is sex rather than God is beyond selfish. Having so many kids that you can’t realistically make an effort to get to know each and every one of them one-one-on one is selfish; each child should feel that their parents like them in addition to loving them solely because they are theirs. It is illegal to operate a daycare with the ratio of 2 adults to 17 children, so how come any idiot parents can do it? All the kids seem to be born into a predetermined role: their names, allowed hobbies, and appearence are all just part of a pattern that seemingly doesn’t allow for much deviation.

     Most of these things can apply to any family with a ridiculous number of children, regardless of race.

     Posted 11 Feb 2009 at 12:41 am ¶

106. 2cents wrote:

     I don’t think its my business what this adult woman is doing and I agree that her race, class, and single-status are working against her. It is easy to group her into the “bad” categories that bring economies down, but why not focus on the love that she is giving to her children, why not focus on the fact that she is educated, and why not focus on the fact that she is going to be finishing graduate school soon? Just because a man and a woman have a child together doesn’t mean they will be good parents (nor do we know how good of a parent she is, I’m not in her house) and just because a family is rich doesn’t mean the children will be loved or properly cared for, who’s to say? and though her race plays a role in our society’s acceptance, it shouldn’t, plain and simple. I think if anything people with the means to help should and those that can’t move on, and that should go with everyone 14 babies or not.

     Posted 11 Feb 2009 at 12:49 am ¶

107. Whitney wrote:

     About reproductive choice, I believe a woman’s reproductive choice ends when they interfere with the rights of another. Of course, this doesn’t apply to the abortion debate because a fetus is not legally a person in this country. But deciding to continue to have children simply because you want them when you can’t afford them is wrong, especially when you have many others and you have to rely on your parents to support you financially.

     I brought this up in my pro-choice discussion group on Facebook, preparing myself for the backlash of “It’s her choice! It’s her reproductive freedom!” and it didn’t come. I think because a lot of women feel that being responsible when it comes to your children should be number one, and that no one should have children because they want to feel loved.

     It’s also a question about parental responsibility and the ability to provide for one’s children. I would be more sympathetic if she accidentally got pregnant, but what upsets me the most is that she had more on purpose.

     There also is a question of medical ethics here as well. Why would a doctor implant that many embryos in the first place? And why would that doctor implant six more in a woman who already has six children, who is suffering financially? I just can’t help but feel there were some ulterior motives for this doctor. It reminds me of the people who repeatedly get plastic surgery. People who are addicted to plastic surgery and end up mangling themselves and putting themselves in debt. Doctors have the right to say no, and they should say no more. It seems to me that Ms. Suleman is addicted to children.

     I’m relieved that her first doctor said no, but I’m disappointed that her second doctor gladly did the treatment again. It’s disturbing to me that these people will always find a doctor who will do what they want. And how can this be reformed in the medical industry, I wonder?

     Posted 11 Feb 2009 at 1:04 am ¶

108. Nathan wrote:

     “Why would a doctor implant that many embryos in the first place? And why would that doctor implant six more in a woman who already has six children, who is suffering financially? ”

     Because each one has only a small chance of successfully attaching, from what I recall. You put the multiple embryos in because you hope one of them will work, not because you’re actually hoping for multiple children. This was a lottery-esque stastical fluke.

     Now, KEEPING all them embryos, well, thats a different kettle of fish …

     “It is illegal to operate a daycare with the ratio of 2 adults to 17 children, so how come any idiot parents can do it?”

     Oh, but Minke, not just any idiot can do that. Oh no, its a very special kind of non-garden-variety idiot indeed that can get themselves into that situation.

     Posted 11 Feb 2009 at 2:11 am ¶

109. hey wrote:

     I don’t get how people saw the name “Nadya Suleman” and thought “Hispanic”. That name is not even vaguely Spanish. It’s a straight up Arab name. It’s not even one of those common Spanish/Arab names like Medina. The Hispanic moniker came from general societal assumptions about her circumstances (California, olive skin, dark hair, unmarried, poor, lots of kids), not from her name. It was definitely very telling when people started jumping to conclusions about her ethnicity. But the fact that this article was published *today* on this blog marks a big oversight on Racialicious’ part. THe fact that Nadya was not Hispanic and at least part Iraqi has been out for a few days at least. No legit journalistic sources have referred to Nadya as Hispanic. Did anyone fact-check this? I guess not.

     Posted 11 Feb 2009 at 3:59 am ¶

110. Jennifer wrote:

     Regardless of who has what choice in the birth of these babies, I think there are other issues to be discussed that go beyond this individual example.

     Because my first thought was why is this national news and how did it survive for more than a brief stint in the odds and ends news?

     I wonder what it is about American culture that needs to have some Other to publicly gawk at, ridicule, laugh at and scorn.

     Over the centuries there have been minstrel shows, Buffalo Bill sideshow and photographs straight from the immigrant ghetto.

     We’re in a new post-racial country now, so explicit, overt racist stuff cannot be used (unless you’re Miley Cyrus).

     So, the media has decided to pick families that are considered larger than the norm and run with it.

     The Cheaper by the Dozen movie could have followed the book and been a cute movie about the early 20th century and motion study. Instead it was modernized (and advertised) in way that made it all about how ‘crazy and insane’ it is to have 12 kids.

     Add this to 17 and Counting, Jon and Kate Plus Eight and the recent coverage of Nadya Suleman. We watch these shows and think large families are bad, let me watch more to see if it can get any crazier.

     I think we need to seriously consider why, as a culture, we have deemed large families as some kind of Other to be gawked at and criticized so repeatedly.

     Posted 11 Feb 2009 at 4:57 am ¶

111. Jess wrote:

     @SaraNicole– precisely the point. The Gosselins were in a hospital that had a huge team, someone will hear about it. That falls under the “rare category” — in this case it would be a hospital that had to devote a huge number of resources to safely deliver the babies. But remember, patient’s names are private, it’s the law. So the only real way you’d know about it is if someone chose to make it public or someone found out. With 50 medical professionals, you obviously can’t keep it quiet.

     Sometimes – I’m not sure of the details with the Gosselins — a doc will do a case write up for the journals (if you look in JAMA, for instance, or NEJM you see them) for individual cases. They won’t name anyone but they will provide details if it was especially difficult or unusual. You can call up the doc and ask them about it if you’re doing a story. (At that point you have to be very nice to them).

     Posted 11 Feb 2009 at 8:04 am ¶

112. Beth wrote:

     Ok, now that this story is on the news *again* this morning, after taking up a whole hour last night, I think too much energy all together is being expended in covering this issue. I mean, our country is also at war and in the midst of a major financial meltdown; is this story really worth so much coverage right now? (I think that blogs are great places to discuss these issues, but I wonder if Ann Curry and Matt Lauer shouldn’t be covering other news.) I also feel like the major TV networks could cover more world news–I get most of it from the radio and internet.

     @Kaonashi (85.): My question was sort of on the rhetorical side (which translates dreadfully on the ‘net) for the purposes of thinking about the situation. I agree w/you and suspect that Suleman’s coverage is largely a result of her class & current lack of employment, as well as the fact that she is single. That said, it will be interesting to see if the comments regarding her ethnicity continue after the most recent coverage.

     Posted 11 Feb 2009 at 8:52 am ¶

113. Mary wrote:

     what is the concern? That she’ll set a model for other women who want to have 14 kids, creating a nation of 14 kid households relying on public assistance? That eventually the entire social security budget will go to selfish women having kids in order to bankrupt the country? I know this is flip, but I’m having trouble understanding the underlying concern as anything other than “if people rely on government benefits, their actions must be morally policed by sole virtue of them being poor.”

     It’s interesting you bring this up, because it reminded me that there are large families who deliberately abuse the welfare system – the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints cult run by Rulon and later Warren Jeffs. (Not the mainline Mormons – in fact the mainline LDS church has supposedly come down hard on them in Utah.)

     Link:

     “Their religious belief is that they’ll bleed the beast, meaning the government,” said Mark Shurtleff, Utah’s attorney general. “They hate the government, so they’ll bleed it for everything they can through welfare, tax evasion and fraud.”

     It makes some sense. Polygamists have multiple wives and dozens of children, but the state only recognizes one marriage. That leaves the rest of the wives to claim themselves as single moms with armies of children to support. Doing that means they can apply for welfare, which they do. And it’s all legal.

     “More than 65 percent of the people are on welfare … compared with 6 percent of the people of the general population,” Shurtleff said.

     These folks are all white (I assume – since anti-black racism is also enshrined in their beliefs). There was a similar “OMG freak show” attitude when that polygamist FLDS cult in Texas got busted. Although in that particular instance, having read “Under the Banner of Heaven” I’m not sure it was undeserved…

     Here’s my question. Is public assistance a one-way street or a two-way street? What expectations should be placed on the recipients of government assistance?

     I’m leery of attaching strings to welfare because – if welfare recipients can abuse the system, surely the people determining what “responsibility” means can abuse that too. But I have an even harder time with the idea that absolutely no strings should be attached. I’m not sure where to draw the line. If the government assists you and your children, what is your end of the bargain?

     Posted 11 Feb 2009 at 9:57 am ¶

114. Lisa J wrote:

     I agree that there is a racial component to this, even though bloggers and some individuals here and in other forums also condemn, question the motives or parenting skills the Gosselins and the Drugers (who I just heard of reading this post), the mainstream media don’t seem to engage in that same sort of critique. The MSM lauds these families, calls their multiple births miracles and gives them tv shows. So to some degree, what you and I think, is not as important as the “BIG” story that is broadcast out to all that shades the treatment and overall reception these people get. I also think that she would have an easier road and be less criticized if she were 100% or European extraction with the same circumstances. Look at Bristol Palin, she did something that would ordinarily be excoriated by the mainstream media, but they were fairly soft with the story and the conservative MSM outlets flipped on a dime and started calling what they condemned, teen pregnancy, a miracle! And yes, I am sure if she was white the anti-choice crowd would be rallying around her and trying to help her all that they can.

     None of this is to say that I think what she did was wise, but the hypocracy, in the MSM on this is irritating, I almost wrote sickening, but it is so par for the course that I’m to the point where it is so expected it is hard to be sickened too much. Otherwise I’d be sick as a dog every d@mn day!

     Posted 11 Feb 2009 at 11:11 am ¶

115. Versai wrote:

     Way back in the beginning of this, I didn’t understand why the doctors were having a news conference about the births–or going on talk shows. Did Kaiser Permanente thrust this into the news because they thought this would be an uplift story to distract from the former employee who had recently murdered his family? I know the mother initially the mother didn’t want her name used–but did she have the power to veto the press conference altogether?

     I assume that Kaiser didn’t know completely the mothers situation–and intended to craft the story of a great hospital with a heroic team of doctors and a courageous mother. Which would have stayed “the story” until other people in the mother’s life wanted some attention too.

     How much would we know about this woman or her life if the doctors, her “friends”, and perhaps her mom didn’t want their 15 minutes of fame?

     Even if Suleman had decided to approach the press– she would have been in charge of her own “story” from the start and (I’m sure) would have weaved the facts in a way that is closer to the “acceptable” huge family story.

     I think our society “loves” huge families because our love of them solidifies our “family values” cred. Family Values being code for the good old days when woman and men knew–and followed–their God-given/mandated roles.

     Even now–I believe that if Suleman can “Christian-ize” herself a little more (perhaps get a reputable minister or priest to vouch for her character–and continue emphasizing that the children are a miracle and God-sent), she can re-frame her story as a woman who was faced with a King Solomon type choice–and did the right thing (putting her very life on the line to save theirs…)

     Posted 11 Feb 2009 at 1:11 pm ¶

116. CMyers wrote:

     @Jennifer

     “We’re in a new post-racial country now, so explicit, overt racist stuff cannot be used (unless you’re Miley Cyrus).”

     Sorry hun, but the “post-racial” society is a media myth concocted after Barack won the election. We’re far from being a post-racial country. It can be used and it is used. Every second of every day.

     Posted 11 Feb 2009 at 5:20 pm ¶