When life begins is a question that has continuously been up for debate in our social discourse. If life begins at conception, do women have the right to terminate a pregnancy even though the foetus is incapable of living outside of the womb? Pro Life and Pro Choice groups continue to argue over who has the right to decide the aforementioned question with little actual conversation about what to do with the children already living.
We recognize that children need the protection of adults to survive and yet there is much social rejection of responsiblity for the most vulnerable members of our society. Children often get caught between our understanding that we as humans are communal creatures and are therefore interdependent, and the social discourse that we have created to support our capitalist economy that privileges individualism.
Nadya Suleman and her octuplets are the living manifestation of our social conflict. On January the 26th of this year Ms. Suleman added 8 new babies to a family that already included 6 children. She is a single mother that currently resides with her parents.
Much of the media coverage regarding this event surrounds the debate as to whether or not it was medically ethical to implant eight embryos in a woman of her age, who already had six children. Though Ms. Suleman was offered the opportunity to terminate a number of the pregnancies, when it was discovered how many were viable, she refused.
No one pauses to consider that Ms. Sulemans approval of what occurred indeed legitimized the events:
She was not forced to carry these babies to term; it was an active decision on her part. If, as feminists, we can argue that women have the right to choose to have an abortion, then the right to choose motherhood should be equally validated; furthermore the right to privacy extends to Ms. Suleman’s decision as well.
Choice does not only involve abortion, it also extends to actively seeking to reproduce. While we may feel dismay at the number of children Ms.Suleman has conceived, the moment we begin to question whether she had the right to make this decision, we invalidate the argument that reproduction is a private issue and that a womans body should at all times be under her control.
We do not have the right to place a limit on when female agency ends. There are many men that are fathers to multiple children by various women and their virility is praised, yet when a woman gives birth to a large number of children her sanity is questioned. In this we can see the historical link between the uterus and the hysterical woman.
Much criticism has been levelled at Ms. Suleman. She has been referred to as a bitch, compared to a dog, had her sanity questioned and even called selfish. Yet if we claim to love children and support motherhood, why is one womans fertility such an issue?
In truth, motherhood is not supported and neither are the children that we claim to love so much. One of the most hated groups in society is the single mother, otherwise known as the welfare queen, as labelled by Reagan.
There is the idea that because pregnancy and giving birth is a natural function of womanhood, that parenting a child is not work. Socially, single mothers are deemed the equivalent of parasites, despite the fact that raising a child is difficult and tedious work. Parenting does not produce a product that can be sold and it is largely done by women, which means that it is continually devalued.
While we need children to ensure that our species continues to be perpetuated, we do little to act in their best interest. Our society is driven my capitalism and commerce, therefore common communal needs often get over looked or suppressed.
The conflation of reproduction and motherhood means that certain children will be valued based on the race and class position of the mother. The degree to which the mother ascribes to patriarchal norms will also play a role in the acceptance of the child into the larger society. Jon and Kate and the Duggar family both consist of what today we would deem inordinately large families. Both of the mothers in these situations have fulfilled what patriarchy would deem their social contract in that they are married and do not work outside of the home.
Kate Gosselin and Michelle Duggar have chosen to dedicate their lives to their families and receive countless praise from the media and religious organizations. Michelle Duggar in particular makes it a point to stress that it is the woman’s job to submit to the desires of men. For her the male is the head of the family and this manifests itself through their continual reproduction. Her children do not represent her maternity; they stand as a testament to her husband’s virility.
The resentment of Ms. Suleman is partly due to the fact that she lacks an active male figure in her life. Her desire to reproduce without being in a heterosexual committed relationship flies in the face of patriarchal norms. We consistently claim that children do better in two parent families, but neglect to mention that even in this situation women continue to have the bulk of the responsibility. A male presence provides an extra income and therefore a child is less likely to grow up in poverty, but a father in the household does not necessarily lead to more engagement for the child or less work for the women involved. Knowing that this is the pattern of the majority of heterosexual couplings it is quite possible to surmise that, partly, the issue is that Ms. Suleman has chosen to not align herself with a male in a long term relationship.
The idea that a woman can exist and be fulfilled without entering into marriage has been discouraged with anything from ostracism to labelling these women old maids. A man who is resistant to attach himself to a woman in a long term commitment is somehow seen as more valuable, or else he’s just being wild and adventurous in the sowing of his wild oats. Ms.Suleman is under attack because her life flies in the face of the idea that families must necessarily involve male headship.
Many have also voiced distress about financial responsibility for these children. Even though we do not live in a true capitalist state, the idea of communal responsibility for all children still exists as an affront to our sensibilities. I find this form of social malaise particularly offensive when we consider the various things that our tax dollars support. We do not balk in this manner when we are forced through taxation to pay for arms and weapons of mass destruction, yet supporting a child is somehow a waste of money or an extravagance.
Ms.Suleman has been offered a book deal and various opportunities to earn an income and this is has been referred to as “pimping” her children. How can this woman possibly win? If she depends on the state for support, which is her right, she is a blood sucking leech. If she explores opportunities made available through the money market economy, she is exploiting her children.
The point is to ensure that Ms. Suleman is held up to the world as a pariah for her decisions regarding reproduction. Unless women have children within the patriarchal family they are stigmatized, and purposefully impoverished. This young mother of 14 stands as a testimony to how little regard we give to motherhood and children unless they lead heterosexist lives that uplift patriarchal norms.
Loved this article. Choice is choice!
I have been reading and watching the Nadya
Suleman controversy with great interest.
I knew it would be a matter of time before
I encountered a viewpoint like yours where
touting a single mother who chose to have
14 children would be held up as an ideal,
given the usual beliefs held by much of
our culture.
I am also a single mother, had two children
while married and wound up on welfare. I
would have liked to have had more children,
but felt I wouldn’t have the ability to do
right by then without a committed partner.
What we find repulsive about Ms. Suleman is
NOT, and I repeat, NOT the fact she is a
single mom, but used the medical system to
create a fantasy based on her own self-
identity issues. So she fulfills that void
in her life by having child after child, after
child? Yep, real sound thinking, all right.
If she HAD a supposed spouse, and technically,
she did, I would STILL see her as having more
than a few screws loose — how many dysfunc-
tional couples have we seen with both a mom
AND dad? The answer is obvious.
As a single mother, and activist/advocate
for same, I DO NOT agree with Ms. Suleman
on how she created her family in the least.
She has literally moved the game pieces of
the efforts of helping and advocating single
mothers back immeasurably. Save your soapbox
for those who really deserve it.
You’re an idiot. This woman is a dysfunctional loon. Please do not try to apply overarching philosophical theories on the nature of womanhood to a selfish troglodyte.
Hey, Truthiness,
If this woman is indeed “a loon” – i.e., suffering from a mental illness of some kind, shouldn’t her DOCTORS take at least SOME of the responsibility for proceeding with the IVF? I don’t think it was a healthy decision at all, but many people with mental illnesses get taken advantage of by the medical establishment. That should sort of go without saying.
Theories apply to us all, “troglodyte” or not. And yes, the fact that Michelle Duggar is praised by many while this woman is almost uniformly scorned, is certainly interesting.
Finally, I don’t mind disagreement on this magazine, this is what the comment section is for – but call one of my writers an “idiot” again, and you’re banned.
I’m upset that this single and unemployed woman intentionally brought so many children into this overcrowded world. What makes me even angrier though is that for the past 10 years Nadya Suleman has been receiving disability payments (for a work related back injury in 1999) and though she’s been deemed “completely unable to work”, she’s felt well enough to undergo IVF treatments and have 14 children during this time. Her doctors even advised her earlier not to get pregnant since this could worsen her back condition. She told a workers’ compensation judge in 2001 that her condition was so disabling that she spent most of the day in bed and had been unable to care for her first child.
This woman Nadya Suleman possibly lied to the Disability Judge and physicians about her condition and then used her disability payments for IVF treatments. This makes me really angry.
Suleman’s love for her children is almost as much as her love for the camera. It’s a good segment on television to get into too. Freak show series do pretty well for the first season. Regardless of if they are a freak show or not they will be marketed that way. She could be a Lifetime movie of the week.
If that does not work she could probably sit on some fat welfare. It would seem with the current welfare having kids could turn into a full time job. Watch those diminishing returns though, after having 20 kids you might find, the cost of more Ramen noodles may not be the only thing you have to account for.
About the father, Suleman is too smart to have a man in her life. It could mean half the screen time she is presently getting.
Great post Renee.
It sickens me that so many people are ready to jump to assumptions about Suleman when, as far as I know at this time, no one has talked to her directly. What I can see is that we are only going on what other people are speculating, and not from Suleman herself.
Which is another point, b/c she deserves to tell that story herself, and w/ so many people simply unable to mind their own business, she is wise to demand money to invade her privacy. People who receive assistance of any type already have their privacy stripped away, and if it gives her money to take care of her children, then I think she is wise to keep her mouth shut unless someone is willing to pay.
I, like Kristin, and glad to hear that those of us living w/ disabilities have our reproductive decisions made for us.
Suleman has a degree in child development. She is working on a Masters. She is a grown woman making conscious decisions. We have no right to criticize her choices. She can’t win for losing here, and it’s none of our damned business.
We don’t know a damned thing about her situation, therefore, it’s not our situation to make snap decisions about.
I don’t really think that the Duggars or Harrises deserve respect. What they’re doing is child abuse, pure and simple. Suleman’s chhoices also seem abusive, because she’s willfully endangering herself and the kids.
Also, I’ve come to a conclusion why motherhood is never respected- to the fundamentalists it’s the default mode of women, and to the majority feminists the only choice is not to procreate- motherhood is the absence of making a choice.
I do not think if you question Ms. Suleman’s choice to have children that you are questionning the concept of choice in general. Rights come with responsibilities. Yes, women have the right to choose, but that also comes with the responsibility to take care of your choice(s).
Well, let’s see… I dunno, Jillian, maybe us disabled women should never reproduce, especially not if we don’t have an able-bodied man to take care of us.
Samuel Hunt, could you lay on the “welfare queen” stereotype a little thicker maybe?
Jesus… This woman’s choice to reproduce is not a matter that is open for debate–and is none of your business.
Good post, Renee.
“…to the majority of feminists…” Wow, I never got the memo. Damn. How’d I miss that? I had no idea I wasn’t allowed to procreate *and* keep my feminist card.
The outrage over this woman’s need for government assistance is highly misplaced. Worried about where your tax dollars are going? Stop targeting single mothers, and take a look at what the banks have been doing with their “welfare” windfall.
“Rights come with responsibilities.”
Sure. And that’s precisely what I’d tell, say, a teenage daughter who was pregnant if I had such a daughter who was weighing her options. I don’t. This woman is an adult, and I’m really disturbed by the fact that so many folks here feel entitled to address her situation in such a condescending and paternalistic way.
Linking this thread to mine, Renee, since I just added this link to my thread. I can see some of the negative comments that influenced this post, might have come from there, too:
“Octuplets mom obsessed with having kids”
Wow… Wow, Daisy, that’s sickening.
Cross-posting what I said over there:
Renee, La Lubu, and Zan are all right on target here.
A number of things could really be checked here:
First, this is a progressive feminist blog, amirite? Maybe we could kill that racist “welfare queen” stereotype that folks keep
alluding to in order to justify your vitriol against single mothers.
Second: Daisy, you ask about a husband or grandma to help out… Um… I mean, she *might* very well have a partner who simply happens not to be sanctioned by the state. As we all know, not all parents happen to be straight. In any case, we don’t know. And the great thing is: We don’t need to! As with everything else involving this woman, it’s none of our business.
Third, is there a reason why people think it’s a-okay to claim that someone is mentally ill (“unstable,” “delusional”) and then hurl insults at her? Likewise, is there any legitimate reason why someone who is disabled would be more likely to be an abuser than anyone else? And yet, that assumption is all over this thread. It’s called ableism. And, Daisy, I’m surprised, ’cause you’re usually good about calling it out.
Now, maybe some of you think none of us disabled women should ever bother reproducing at all. If that’s what you think, have the integrity, please, to own up to that and stop directing your hatred at this *one* particular woman. I’d rather know in advance that I should never invite you over to dinner in my home.
Finally, those of you who are oh so concerned about your precious tax dollars going to this woman? Well, first of all, I think they *should* go to people who need them in order to care for their children. But besides all that, you might turn your vitriol toward the major banks and their recent “welfare” windfall. I mean, if you really wanna gripe about the misuse of tax funds, how’s about that Super Bowl party put on by the Bank of America? Just sayin’.
Great post Renee.
I second Kristin’s point about Suleman being an adult. Her choice to do have children or not is not up for debate.
As for the welfare queen remark, obviously Samuel Hunt you have never tried to raise kids on welfare. Also I’d advise caution – there’s a worldwide recession and thousands of jobs are being lost every day. If you or someone close to you lost a job, would you deserve welfare more than Suleman? How is any individual more deserving of welfare than another? (rhetorical question since all are created equal)
Great post Renee. I’d been following the Suleman story and waiting for someone to address the issue of choice. Which it would seem based on the vitriol I’ve read up to this point only applies to those who choose to live their lives according to o specific moral code. Or at least those who aren’t sucking up tax dollars.
Is there no point where a society has a right to say enough is enough? Generally speaking I am not a fan of the slippery slope argument but I am going to use it here. Let’s say that 2 or three years from now Nadya decides that 14 kids that she can not support is simply not enough for her. Should she be allowed to have 5 or six more every few years if that’s what she wants? Rights come with responsibilities, and she is not living up to hers. No reasonable person would say that she should be childless just because she is unemployed. However, asking society to pay for 14 kids is a different matter altogether.
“I, like Kristin, and glad to hear that those of us living w/ disabilities have our reproductive decisions made for us.”
Charming innit.
You mentioned the Duggar family, it seems from the structure of your argument, as an example whereby a woman having many children is not maligned, to reinforce (I think, again from the structure of your article) your point that Suleman is being punished in part for being single, or not under the direction of a man.
However, I see considerable amount of derision, vitriol, and condemnation heaped on the Duggars, so I’m not quite sure how they were meant to support your argument, or quite what point they served in your article.
In all this, I think these parents are bug fucking nuts. My sympathy is for the children though. No one chooses their parents.
The notion that a 33-year-old unemployed single woman can have 14 children under the age of nine–and not be questioned because it’s her “choice”–is the most impractical Ivory Tower conversation I’ve heard in a long while. Please stop infantilizing and sullying the legitimate “reproductive choice” debate by claiming Suleman as its new poster child. A mother who put her needs above those of her children–which is what Suleman did when she went ahead with an unprecedented high risk pregnancy–is not what feminists supported when they advocated for “reproductive choice.”
@Daisy
I was watching the news reports about this story and getting more and more disgusted when I came across your post and it pushed me completely over the edge. Rather than fouling your space with the anger that I was feeling I retreated and wrote this post.
Renee, thanks for the breath of fresh air. All these assumptions flying around based on nothing but hearsay are frustrating. She can’t afford them, she’ll be a welfare queen, it’s all about her needs, she’s crazy! Where’s the proof? These things might be true. Or they might not.
And if the life of her children might be difficult, is that when society should step in? Well then, why aren’t we making poverty, homelessness and hunger illegal? We know that’s bad for the children and yet we allow it.
There is something separate from just concern about the welfare of a child when all the assumptions and focus are on the choice of the woman. We are right to examine that.
I don’t buy your argument. This is not about the right to privacy or whether she has or doesn’t have a partner. This is about holding people to accountable for their actions. This woman is nothing if not selfish. Having children should not, in and of itself, be a means for prosperity or celebrity. Common sense says that if you have 6 children and live with your parents you should not be considering artificial insemination and adding 8 children to your family. It is irresponsible and childish. If part of your birthing plan requires hiring a publicist then your priorities are probably skewed. Yes, she has a right to privacy and a right to choose her own destiny, which she has done. Do not now say that those of us of the opinion that she has made a horrible choice, for her and her children, are trampling on her rights by saying so.
Incredible that the focus is being redirected…you’ve mistaken the offense.
It isn’t whether or not she’s married…I could care less. It’s whether or not she is responsible.
I’m FOR AI/IVF and donors…but this does not shine so brightly in favor…especially since the ‘father’ of these children is not in any way responsible, either. As a *donor*, he shouldn’t be…but if the reports that he is either a known friend or “boyfriend” hold any truth, he should be able to see the flaw in her plan (no money, no job, many health risks) and withhold his services…if he doesn’t see a problem, well then, HE can start paying some SUPPORT.
This has crossed the line of common sense.
I say she isn’t to be lauded, because she is unable to provide for her family – what she already had – yet continues to reproduce. This is not by accident. She PLANNED to have this many children without appropriate resources. Therein lies the rub.
And if the articles are not misquoted, that she still intends to add to her lot. 14, plus herself, in the system and still going for more? Please tell me that someone misunderstood her…
She does not regard her choice as a burden to anyone, yet it is to her own mother – arguably the real caretaker – and to us, those who might put a little more thought in to family planning and not with full intent birth more than we can feed. By that I mean either NOT implanting six embryos or when money is tight, none at all.
The problem is not her choice to have children, but that without the financial ability to care for them (and it has come out by her own admission that she does not have the means, therefore dependent on the Government for assistance – what she will not call welfare…call it by any name, it is the same) or the rational understanding that she IS in fact receiving monetary aid (food stamps, Social Security – will she claim indigence when it comes time to pay the hospital bill? And how is she going to go back to school? Ah, tax-payer money again?)
This is not a Feminist issue…if anything, it is embarrassing to the movement.
The Libertarian Femme is stepping off the soapbox.
Thank you and good night.
I knew Nadya.
We were very good friends from College. I am very confused with everything I’ve been hearing from her and the media. I don’t remember her being so obssesed with being a mother. I remember her wanting to succeed. She would always talk down on Single mothers. She would call them as I remember “Dirt Bags”.
It upsets me to see that her 3 disabled kids at home, will lack the attention they need from their mother.
Please note that I will no longer speak to her or help her in anyway.
Many people at our church do not support her because she used science instead of Gods Will.
Mary, I honestly don’t know if you’re a troll or not – but be warned: if you attempt to expose any vital information on Ms. Suleman, you will be banned and all of your comments will be deleted.
@anon: You don’t believe that the Duggars are given more respect? Here are a few examples of the exact same news agencies treating them differently from the way they treat Ms. Suleman: http://spinspotter.com/marker/410607 and http://spinspotter.com/marker/410492
Suleman does have a choice and she can have as many children she chooses as long as she pays for them! I as a taxpayer choose not to pay for them.
Why would I be a troll? I didn’t say anything you didn’t know. I will be keeping that stuff to myself for my enjoying pleasure.
I wouldn’t have made the choices Ms. Suleman has made (hell, don’t think I even want one kid, much less 14) but I have to admit the way she has been treated in the media compared to the way couples who have huge broods are treated has really troubled me. I never see the news question whether that married couple is making a wise economic choice, and yet they immediately start digging into the life of the single mom. Honestly, I hate to break it to any who hold this opinion, but with that many screaming kids there’s not much difference between two pairs of hands or one (and there’s NO difference with that second pair of hands is working full time).
The whole set up seems really hypocritical to me.
Kudos to Lily H, speaking as someone who is somewhat familiar with Suleman’s situation but who is obviously of sound mind. I am the quintessential lefty: pro-choice all the way, and a feminist 100%. We as feminists must hold ourselves to a higher standard; that means responsible reproductive choice. That doesn’t mean having a bunch of babies just because you can, with no regard to how they will be cared for. How can any intelligent person argue that a disabled woman who can’t work and lives with her mother in a small apartment can or should care for 14 young children? It is a cop out. That is not feminism or equality; if it were a man having 14 kids he couldn’t support we would take him to task. Why should she be excused? Isn’t feminism so much about equality? Suleman, on the other hand, has a publicist, and possibly book deals and a tv show in the works. Can the author honestly condone that this woman cares more about her 14 babies than herself? Feminism is not about selfishness. Suleman is an educated woman, so no matter how messed up or starved for love she is, she knew well enough and should have put her existing 6 children first by trying to get back on her feet from her injury and caring for them, instead of just showing the world how fertile she is. I agree that the doctors should be held accountable too. If no one will look out for the children already under her care–obviously their mother and these doctors didn’t–then who will? The author of this article is clinging to this idea of male virility being celebrated; the only people I know who celebrate male virility are other males. Let’s talk responsible woman to responsible woman.
Well, I hope the writer is now seeing that this woman is pathological as a fact not as a value. She is expecting the state to raise her children and was on food stamps BEFORE while she worked double shifts at a mental institution to afford the invitro? Why didn’t she take that money to feed her existing six children, several whom are handicapped? Sorry, but your feminist theory is on shaky grounds here. This reminds me of Joe the Plumber … a derelict that was used by the McCain camp to further his own tired arguments. I suspect that sooner or later these children will be removed from her home because although she may have the uterus to bring those children in the world there is no possible way she can mother them. Your choice/right shouldn’t infringe on others, including the rights of children to be basic needs including development. I hope the writer of this story takes the time to write about this nut job’s unfolding story and make a retraction if necessary. This is irresponsible journalism at its finest!
I actually really like some of the things you wrote about in this article. I go both ways on this topic, both in support and against Nadya Suleman. Here are my problems with her.
One, it sounds like she’s having kids for the wrong reasons. I’m honestly a little surprised that she was still feeling loneliness in her life with six other children to take care of. Also, you don’t have kids to fix your personal issues. That’s definitely not the primary reason for a child’s existence, at the very least. I’m not saying this in a mean way but out of genuine concern, but she should seriously seek the help of a therapist or something, even now just to deal with the fact that she’s a mother of 14.
Also, the embryo thing. Really not cool. I’m pregnant now and I’ve learned that having multiples makes you a high risk patient. I’d be a little scared to deal with that. Not only would it limit my options for birthing but I’d have to take into consideration what it would do to my body, my wallet, and most importantly the chance of survival for my children. The fact that she went over the limit for how many embryos were implanted (although the doctor is the main one at fault here, she was a patient, not a customer) clearly shows that she didn’t have any comprehension of the risks. The most important thing is that all of the babies are surviving but to have knowingly put herself at risk to lower their chances just seems kind of selfish to me.
That being said: how is she any different from a family like the Duggars really? And I’m sorry but I have to get very real from here.
The Duggars have a tv show and at least one book. The popularity and success of those are due solely to the fact that they have so many children. Thus, the children have contributed greatly to their income. How is this any different from Nadya Suleman making many off her own children, especially when the amount of children was a choice in both situations?
I don’t think it’s right for either one, but if one case is okay let’s just be equal about it. Otherwise, where was this huge backlash against the Duggar family?
It didn’t exist because as long as you’re married and Christian, you can overpopulate the world as much as you want and make money off of your choices.
To me, in part, this backlash against Nadya represents what people think woman who’s having a baby should be like. Don’t get me wrong, I think she should be working at least. But her being single is not the point. All of her children were fathered by the same donor anyway, how do we know that he won’t take an active role in the children’s life?
It just comes down to the fact that if we’re going to get on one person’s case for the number of children they have, we should keep it fair. Especially when a family like the Duggars have made profits and still have more kids than Nadya does.
I just want to know what she considers welfare. That is my main question, because she says the food stamps etc are just a system in place to help those who need it, almost like its… WELFARE. I also have no problems with single parents. It seems that the choice to have more children when you already have 6 and 2 or more are disabled that it would not at all be a fiscally wise decision.
^^ My two cents.
I am disappointed by Ms. Suleman based on what I saw on Dateline. I am a social worker. Children’s rights are so neglected in this country in the face over the debate of women’s rights and pro-life/pro-choice debates. What about the children, who will grow up in this situation with a mother who seems very self-involved and unable to look peripherally at her situation. I do not in any way feel that disabled women cannot be good mothers or do not have the right to have children, but if she is apparently so injured she cannot work at all how is going to chase 14 small children around and pick them up and carry them and their things everywhere? Also, I am really concerned about her lack of income and I feel that all of the adults in this situation – doctors, Ms. Suleman, etc are behaving irresponsibly and forgetting to consider the children.
“that means responsible reproductive choice.”
This is such an incredibly racist statement. Wow…
“Also, you don’t have kids to fix your personal issues.”
No, indeed. But a whole hell of a lot of people do. Often in order, for instance, to “save failing marriages.” They just don’t end up on TV for it. Nor does everyone decide it is his or her moral duty to make a pronouncement about horrific they find these choices.
The damned thing about choice is that feminists don’t get to tell women *what* they should choose. Not even if they’re poor, single women with disabilities. I get really sick of the idea that women who have disabilities and limited resources are unfit to raise children.
And, you know what, those of you who are so terribly worried about those children and their single mother of humble means? Have you donated? You can. Just go to the Dateline NBC website. Are you doing anything to assist these children besides using them as an example meant to justify your classist “welfare queen” bashing? Well?
I won’t hold my breath.
Are you people kidding me?! This woman had already had 6 children before the octuplets. She is currently unemployed, and lives with her mother, who doesn’t think she can handle it, (especially since she’s been having to take care of them when she goes to school.) Do you know how much it costs to have invitro fertilization?! Do you not think she should’ve have been using that money on her children, with her own money, not foodstamps, instead of saving for the fertilization. Three of her children are disabled and now with eight more brothers and sisters they are going to have less time dedicated to them. And now she is going to have to use the money she used on 6 children and split it for 14!!? She is 33 years old!! Are you telling me that she couldn’t have gotten back on her feet made sure her 6 children were taken care of, and THEN had the 8 other children??? Im pro-choice, but my goodness with choice there comes responsibility, and this woman is the exception that brings further effort to end our cause!! I think we should forget about her and work to getting healthy restrictions on the fertilizations, like only two embryos per time like is recommended to a woman over 32.
I like what Carla, Marianne and Catherine are saying here.
Renee, I agree with what you are saying about how women who have many children are all created equal. I haven’t followed these cases much in the media, but media treatment of Suleman that’s different from that of the Duggard is a big problem.
I don’t think concern with Suleman has to do with beliefs that poor or disabled or single women shouldn’t have kids. I think there are real questions about whether anyone, whether she’s Suleman or me or the Queen of England, should have fourteen.
Obviously, now that they are here, the children deserve help and support. But that doesn’t mean the decision to have a large number of children that might not get it makes sense. Poor, single, disabled women are indeed fit to be moms, great moms. But is any woman fit to be a mom of fourteen? And where funding is an issue, where a woman does have the right to have kids, shouldn’t she think before having a huge number of them? Because even if her inequitable situation is unfair, as it likely is, that in itself isn’t going to put food in her kids’ mouths.
Catherine’s point about the embrys is well taken, and here’s where the doctor may be as much or more at fault, possibly he didn’t inform Suleman correctly. But it’s one thing to have an abortion and another to set up a situation where there’s a huge chance you’re going to have to eliminate an embryo, possibly at a late stage. Also, that number of embryos can cause harm to the babies.
All in all, while we don’t know enough to pass judgment, I think we do know enough to have some educated opinions, and I don’t think these necessarily implicate classism, ableism or racism.
I agree completely! Choice is choice. I have chosen to have only one child; it is Nadya’s choice to have many. It makes me sick that people are basically saying these children have no right to live because their mother isn’t rich! Yeah, I guess my husband doesn’t have the right to have a child either b/c he’s disabled. I am so glad you’re adding your voice to the discussion and reminding us that feminists are for CHOICE — no matter what choice is made.
Ok, let’s pretend we’re all interested in the well being of 14 kids in one household.
#1 – I’m interested in how many kids you can administer first aid to at one time if 4 toddlers decide to charge the dishwasher containing pointy things older kids use like, forks, for instance. Or decide to roll head first down the steps. Yep – full disclosure, I’m a mom of 2 under 5, stay at home, married. Even two sets of hands, hers and a significant others would be kept busy.
#2 – I’m interested in why I’m supposed to be financially responsible for her intentional choices. I support charities for folks who are unintentionally in need. Expecting other people to support a supposedly informed choice is like me expecting other people to support a gambling habit. I can imagine what the average taxpayer would say about that – unload the vitriol!
#3 Speaking of gambling, and since someone else brought up disabilities, these children are being brought into a house where there are already special needs kids, I’m interested in the emotional welfare of the other children in the household. I’m hoping they don’t get raised in a household where the feel a “disconnect” like their mother did. That’s intergenerational emotional abuse in my book.
These are just a few of the issues that makes me feel highly intolerant of this woman’s intentional choice to raise a family that two or three people would have a tough time managing. The Duggars (sp?) at least had their infants one at a time, that’s a lot different than 8 at once. Jon and Kate plus 8? Well, they depend on income from 2 jobs to make ends meet. That provides a positive role model of fiscal responsibility. Ms. Suleman said she will use financial aid to pay for the cost of raising her kids, what on earth will she use to pay for tuition? It’s damned cheeky to think that donations from strangers is something to bank on. Come to that, after my kids are in elementary school, any feminists here want to put me through college? Spirit of Sisterhood, and all?
PS, on past episodes of Jon and Kate + 8, Kate certainly did work, post-babies, I think it is in the medical field, and I think it was a late shift. I don’t currently watch the show, so that may have changed. However, the writer of the article was insinuating she was fulfilling the paternalistic archetype of a mom by not working outside the home. Just think that point needs clarifying.
Personally I’m disgusted by Nadya Suleman and people of her ilk.
It seems that our culture worships at the altar of reproduction. It provides a certain type of person a good feeling that they can pop out kids in order to indoctrinate them into their religious philosophy, or simply to provide them with an opiate for their empty lives.
I personally find the Duggars disgusting – not the children as they aren’t at fault for the lives they were born into – but only the parents. The father is a fundamentalist wackadoo, and the mother seems content to be relegated to the position of his “breeding cow.”
The Duggar’s are a symptom of this “cult of reproduction” but it finds it’s most vulgar expression in women like Nadya Suleman who do not consider their responsibilities to society or the needs of their children but only their “want” of an heir (or heirs).
She didn’t merely accept this burden, she courted it.
I for one support a woman’s right to an abortion, but that doesn’t make each individual choice – whether to have an abortion or to have a child – responsible ethical, or deserving of my respect.
As for the gender aspect of this – like it or not – no man has ever, or likely will ever, face the bio-ethical implications of his choice to have eight children through invitro-fertilization. If that case eve comes along, I *promise* I will condemn that man just as loudly.
This blog post smacks of the sort of feminism that praises women’s choices, not because they are good decisions or responsible decisions, but because they were made by women.
Congratulations women are free to be idiots without constraint by public opinion or taboo – what a victory!
(my apologies to any woman who sees this case as the anti-thesis of feminism)
Actually, as a woman of color who was raised by a single mom on a very limited income, I’m not sure how “responsible reproductive choice’ is racist. My mother wanted more children, but decided to focus on the ones she already had to support. I admire her tremendously for putting our needs first. That’s what motherhood is, like it or not. If you can’t put yourself after your kids, then motherhood isn’t for you. And, yes, Kristen I support women’s organizations, children’s organizations and I work for an advocacy group. It’s not a good idea to pigeonhole people.
“that means responsible reproductive choice.”
“This is such an incredibly racist statement. Wow…”
How is this racist? Just curious.
I think a few of the people who are defending Suleman are missing the point somewhat. Criticizing someone for their choices is not the same thing as trying to take them away. The women’s movement was founded on critique and condemnation of the patriarchy, but what kind of hypocrites are we if we can’t (or won’t) hold our own feet to the fire sometimes?
“The damned thing about choice is that feminists don’t get to tell women *what* they should choose.”
There seems to be a bit of a straw man argument going on here. I’ll say again that calling Suleman crazy, selfish, unfit, or any other insulting thing is in no way telling her what she should choose. How is that even possible? She’s already made her choice.
If the state of California decides that Suleman is in fact unable to care for all 14 kids, and some or all of them get taken away, are those of you who are so vexed about the criticism being leveled at her going to do anything about it? Write an angry letter to CPS, perhaps, or start a petition for her to get the kids back? A lot of statements have been made that we have no right to diagnose her mental capacities or her fitness as a parent. But, you know, neither do you. There is as much chance that she is a cuckoo who has no business raising children as there is that she will be able to provide a stable home. If the state ends up agreeing with the vast majority of the public, will it still be as important to crusade for her?
Another thing I’d like to point out is that Suleman herself has invited the media and the public into her life. After the birth, she hired a publicist! The flack quit on her, so she then hired an agent. It’s not going too far out on a limb by saying that she IS trying to pimp out her kids to get her 15 minutes of fame. So anyone who willingly submits to the spotlight is going to lose a certain amount of privacy and become vulnerable to public opinion, no matter how nasty and unfair it can be at times.
if you draw a timeline of events since the birth.
1. the doctors went on tv to report the multiple birth. it was world wide news as it is so rare for 8 babies to be born at one time.
2. there was interest from the media to know more about the birth. nadia did not go to them, they came to her therefore she did not court the media.
3.generally speaking publicists chase down clients not the other way round. i mean how do you find a publicist? do you think you look them up on yellow pages? publicists usually work on a commission basis. they would advise who to talk to and for how much. they would know how to structure a deal and what could be feasible.
for any multiple birth by ivf the parents have a choice to abort but the same could be said of natural multiple births, rare that they are. if you want a child then two is a blessing. if you have three or four embryos how do you decide which one to abort? maybe better to leave that decision to a higher power.
the most amazing thing is that so far all 8 babies are doing so well. yes they are small but they are breathing air not oxygen and that bodes well for them.
i had ivf twins and one was very much smaller than the other. she has more than caught up and she is a bright girl. things turned out well but at the time of the embryos being implated i was warned i could end up with twins. i never imaged it could be so precarious for one of them and i did feel remorseful that i had put her through this and that she might die. i think nadya has had some feelings of perhaps it wasn’t the best thing to do after all but she now has the babies and what can she do but to move forward and try her best to cope.
the number of children is certainly the core of the issue. yet if you go back in history large families were more common. Johan sebastian bach had 15 children. some cultures today encourage lots of children. in saudi arabia it is not unusual for someone to have 20 children by several wives. difference is that people offer to help out. nadya asked for help and was lambasted for it. when i had twins the hospital social worker was ringing me to see that i was coping ok and offering all sorts of services to make my job easier. why is it ok for me to get help but not Nadya?
nadya can make money from this story. if others can, why not her? the issue is that people assume she had the kids in order to make money yet she has categorically said that the loves kids and wanted lots of them. all her studies indicate that she is a calm person who has a genunine interest in children. not everyone is cut out to be a preschool teacher yet people have no qualms about leaving their child with 19 other kids to be looked after by the one person. again it takes a certain personality type with certain interests to not lose it with so many screaming kids (and believe me they do scream – a lot)
so nadya cannot earn money from her story without criticism and she cannot get welfare without criticism. people are saying they will boycott products that use her for promotion and some are willing to make death threats to her and her kids. how mean can you get? surely there has to be something else that is upsetting so many people. it is as if she epitimises everything that is wrong. can all this really be about the fact that she is a single mother? or was it just extremely bad timing due to the financial meltdown and people feel they cannot afford to feed their own families let alone someone elses?
Nadya is a strong, compassionate mother. She seemed very modest on her TV interview.
I see no reason why she should not be supported. She has a family who helps her, which is more than I can say for myself.
I think she will make it, and I appreciate hearing a viewpoint that supports her.
Let he without sin cast the first stone.
I am poor, and I have 3 boys and I want more
not because of any ‘sickness’
but because my children deserve me. I teach them everything I know.
They give me a reason to live everyday thru the eyes of a child. They keep me young. 🙂 Good luck Nadya,
Your sister in spirit,
Rachel
While i agree it was lil selfish to go for IVF again after she already had 4 kids, i respect choices she made after twins were born – there were frozen embryos left from the batch which produced twins and she didn’t wanted them to be destroyed.. I would do the same except that i would be stoped after first 4 if i have financial difficulties and she didn’t – probably coz she believed she’ll be smart enought to provide for 5…
“Nadya is a strong, compassionate mother. She seemed very modest on her TV interview.”
Uhhh…. funny. She came across to the rest of the world as being pretty narcisstic.
I’m glad that people are supportive of nady’s rights to choose. Really. There’s one problem though….(actually, 14 problems)
Those kids didn’t “CHOOSE” to be born, and because of her actions, there is a small (VERY small) chance that they will be born without social, physical, emotional or mental disorders. Children ABOVE ANYONE have the right to be in a home where they will not ONLY be loved, but properly cared for. (unfortunately, it’s a mathmatical probabality that they won’t get the nuturing they need)
“HORRAY!!” for nadya excersizing her rights to choose! Lets praise her!!! It’s a good thing that the children she decided to have don’t have rights, because they certaintly didn’t have a choice.
Very well written article. Finally someone who is unbiased and recognizes that if we limit Nadya’s choices then we limit ALL womens choices.
The only thing that was not correct was about the Duggers, the reason why they have so many children is that she had a miscarriage while on birth control and decided to stop taking it. She uses no birth control, she has sex, she gets pregnant…I think that some people fail to realize that not everyone wants to use birth control and along with having sex there is the possibility that you may become pregnant. There are some who may have more sex than the other but who are not fertile. Some people are really fertile, oh well. It’s their choice.
Also, Nadya had 6 embryos implanted, not 8. One split into 2.
To jjsurly, you don’t know her, so how do you know that they will not be properly cared for? There are many families that have more that 14 children that live in the world. She is not the first and will not be the last woman to have a large family.
What I believe is that everyone is targeting her but not the doctor. Here is another instance where the male doctor treats the female patient and the woman carries all of the blame if something out of the ordinary occurs. Just another example of our society and how women are treated.
This article needs to be sent to Dr. Phil, Oprah, Inside Edition, Entertainment tonight, Children Services and every news station out there.
This woman is being persecuted because she is a woman, plain and simple.
If it weren’t for Kaiser violating her rights and holding that news conference without her permission, we would not even know about her.
Now, Kaiser has told her that her babies will not be released to her because her home is not big enough! It was reported on the news that Nadya called Dr. Phil crying about what Kaiser had told her.
I am calling for everyone to call Kaiser to protest what they are doing. It is not legal for a hospital to state that if a child is healthy enough to leave the hospital, that the can not because of the size of a person’s house.
Here are the numbers;
(562)461-3000
1-800-823-4040
I wrote this in response to an email joke that was sent to me about Nadya Suleman called new Breakfast at denny’s which consisted of 8 eggs, no sausage and your neighbor pays.. clever but very crass when you’re thinking about a family . I don’t believe its narcistic to give your life for others.
Now. Here’s a mother of 14 kids who actually wants kids, values them. Ow she wasn’t expecting 8 kids at once, however she has them and is going to love them.The kids will have the added value of multiple siblings. I would much rather see my tax dollars going to support a lady like this then paying for a crucifin in a jar of urine and calling art. People want to have unprotected sex and then think they have a right to abortions or aids medication to the tune of billions of dollars. If this little trooper starts a trend of more people being born in america and less immigration, I’m all for it. Come on, your the one that complained about immigrants taking over the country and not enough being born here. So give the little lady a break, have a joke about her and then stand behind her and her kids for support. When you weigh in all the alternatives that we’ve been paying for, this is change we can believe in. Brian Hildebrand palinite on twitter
Most comments here are out to protect the octumom and, in the least, worry for the welfare of the 14 children now and to the future. Now, I see how far the feminist movement has dragged us into.
I have nothing to against the women but I do very much disguised for the fact that she using her children as the money makers or, even worst, as a hostage against the taxpayers. Surely, feminists here in the United States always demand they’d have the equal rights, but does any of them ever consider to let innocent children to be ahead?
I am mad as hell !!! Are you kidding me, what were you thinking and better yet what was your doctor thinking. I am a single mom of 3 and in 1996 I became disabled. My kids were 5,10 and 15 and it was very hard for me. I had 9 surgery’s within a 10 year period and I didn’t start a web site to ask for help. My disability was not of my own doing, you on the other hand had a choice. How dare you start a web site and ask for help !!!! But I see you still go and get your nails done! You are on welfare and the state is paying for your 6 children and now you have 8 more but still find time to get your nails taken care of…. Something is not right here. I also hear that you are looking at million dollar homes. Are you kidding me. Me and my kids lived in dumps that were cheap and dirty but I would always clean them and try and fix them up as much as I could and when the landlords would come over and see all the work I had done so that my kids would not be embarrassed to have friends over they would raise my rent, every time. So we moved 15 times in 14 years. That was hard on all of us but it was not because I didn’t want to work, I couldn’t. But we got through it and we are better people because of it, what about you? You think because you made a BAD choice to have 14 children we should all chip in and pay for that AND have you look at million dollar homes? Sorry but no way and I will do whatever I can to see that you don’t get your million dollar home and have your nails done when you should be home with your kids. I truly feel sorry for your parents whom by the way seem to be the ones with the burden of taking care of the children. You should truly be ashamed of yourself and the audacity to think that it is up to us to take care of you and your children much less to buy you a home. Maybe every time someone needs help we should go around the neighborhood and ask for money so that we can start a web site and ask for donations and supplies. Raising 3 children was extremely hard and I am sure everyone struggles because we always want what is best for our children. We manage to find ways to get them what they need not always what they want. But to do what you did knowing that you did not have the means to support them, since you already couldn’t support the 6 children you already had I just find it extremely hard to swallow. Have you no shame or guilt for what you are doing to those 6 poor children and what you are about to do now that you have 14. I always try and find the good in people, granted I am not a saint by any means but for the life of me the only thing I can make of all of this is MONEY. You want to be in the spot light and have everyone pay you and your children’s way and I for one will not be a part of it and certainly hope that others will feel the same. I do however feel terrible for your children, they did not ask for this and now you are going to go on every tv show that you can and cry for help, start a web site, oh wait you already have done that. How do you think your children will feel when they get older? Did you ever think of them and their feelings and how this is all going to effect their lives. It makes me ill when I see you on the television acting as if you are the wonderful mother when we all know that you leave your kids at home with your mother who by the way should be enjoying her life not watching after your 6 children. So I guess now she will be watching 14 and where will you be. Well, I don’t know what else to say except you should be ashamed of yourself and maybe you should start thinking of your children rather then your fame and the money you want to get from all of this.
Well, Rhonda may not be the most fluent writer among us but she does possess the most common sense. It is beyond ridiculous to state that Ms. Suleman is being persecuted for being a woman; if that were true, all females would be victims of persecution all the time. Are we not women? I think Renee Martin has wasted her lovely rhetoric and persuasive skills on an unworthy subject who strains everyone’s senses of proportion and propriety. While I understand the impulse to be upset that “She has been referred to as a bitch, compared to a dog” it’s really not hard to understand the metaphor. The woman has treated herself that way by producing a litter of babies. In fact, never have I heard of a woman who could more accurately be called a bitch.
The idea that the truth of an argument can only be tested by straining it to its utter extremes doesn’t cut the mustard. Things that are fine and even good in moderation,like babies, may be just downright bad in the extreme,like 8 premature, likely devel. disabled, infants with an imbalanced mother who, even were she the most able person on the earth,could not handle this. She is looking at 40 diapers a day minimum, for goodness sake!
Thank you for your well written article. I am taking a friend to lunch on Friday who lives in a group home and struggles with mental illness and financial worries. My colleagues and I work less hours because of the economy. At a local store, I saw an ad requesting donations of candy to be used in Easter baskets. My friend’s Mother died in his arms on Wednesday while they were out walking. I know people are suffering and in pain for many reasons. I also know that life is not fair. However, I won’t stand by and let Nadya be called a “bitch” and ridiculed. I won’t jump aboard that particular band wagon. It serves no useful purpose. Perhaps all the energy for ridicule, debasement and name calling directed at Nadya could be harnessed and used to help needy folks in our own communities.
How come they keep reporting that she she *WORKED* FROM 1999 TO 2006 – when she clearly was on DISABILITY FOR ALL THOSE YEARS??? The woman hasn’t worked in 10 years, collected disability, food stamps, student loans, welfare for her childrens “disabilities” all the while she decided to have plastic surgery, invitro fertilizations and helped her mother lose her home – the selfish woman that she is!!! A few weeks ago there were pics of her BEFORE all the plastic surgery in a magazine at the checkout stand – I haven’t seen those “same” pics on the net but it is clear she has had a nose, lip, eyelid and cheek enhancement -compared to what her features were 10 years ago. I have a medical background and know that good cosmetic procedures can produce slight changes that really enhance a persons features, the lips are a given but she’s had a lot more done by a good surgeon. Now, she’s gunning for a boob and tummy lift. All her childcare is PAID FOR ROUND THE CLOCK. She’s got a free new home despite what they say – She IS NOT PAYING FOR THAT HOUSE – her father arranged it through a non profit gifting donation, the original seller has agreed to. Her mother meanwhile has lost everything caring for her and her children etc. Soon to come – a brandnew large passenger size van -FREEEEEE!!!!I can’t believe while hard working single parents, couples and out of work people all across America just trying to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table – this ingrate produces fatherless children on taxpayers money and donations! Dr. Phil, the ratings maniac that he is, has taken up her plight and no doubt has helped along in some of these backdoor deals. To help her “legitimize” her cause, Allred and McGraw probably warned Nadya not to go through with some of the offers she was considering but to stay open to other ones that will likely come her way in the next year or so. IE. TV shows. I’m so disgusted with Dr. Phil being the bastian of goodwill for this irresponsible mental case because he plans on having dibbs and cashing in on all those innocent babies and the freak show that this woman has created. Those poor neighbors – imagine what it will be like to have 14 kids screaming about their yards and the neighborhood with cameras and staff loitering about. This woman has frauded the system and now taxpayers are paying her way. And sick people like Phil McGraw and others will exploit it under the guise of being helpful, making it likely that more people like this troutfaced clown of a woman will go out and do the same KNOWING – ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS CRANK OUT BABIES AND THEIR LIVES WILL BE TRANSFORMED FROM NOTHING TO HAVING IT ALL. Bail the banks out, bail the de-frauding individuals like Nadya Sulemon out. If we totaled up all the costs of her plastic surgery, the cost of her invitro fertilizations, the cost of her welfare, foodstamps and disability payments for her older children, the costs of her the free student “loans” most of which she got grants, the cost of the babies care during and after the hospital, including future medical, free childcare, supplements, diapers, the cost of her new van, the cost of the new house and other miscellaneous and hidden costs – how much would you say this woman has cost society???? Contrast that to HOW MUCH she will gain in money as income for herself and her children in the coming years through interviews, donations, TV shows and other free opportunities afforded to her. YOU DO THE MATH!!! And I’ll go back to her Mother. The woman looks like she hasn’t aged well and no doubt in part to her daughters shenanigans. Will Nadya, give back to her Mother in compensation all the money she’s lost having to care for the first 6 grandchildren, keeping a roof over their head and making sure they were OK, while Nadya did her cosmetic procedures & invitro’d herself? About the only good thing she’s done is gone to school so I’ll give her credit for that but she used that system to her advantage as well. She’s gotten free childcare through her welfare status at the school as well. She’s a fortunate person to have the ability to go to school FREE, have her children taken care of and have a good enough academic aptitude to pass her classes. How many people with this many children could have made it this far without all the free help she’s gotten?
Wow. The best article on the web written so far. THANK YOU, Renee Martin, for reminding us of these important truths and the purpose of Feminism.
There are too many people on this earth. Ruining it at a faster rate than borer beetle eats a wooden house.
How stupid do you have to be to have even ONE child under these environmentally stressed conditions?
Well, multiply that by 14x. NS is therefore 14 times stupider than the average non-breeder and 14 times less considerate than the average non-breeder is – of this beautiful world we are exploiting at an enormous rate of knots…
Humans are the worst, most destructive plague the earth has ever encountered – and they KEEP BREEDING. Duh!
And they call themselves intelligent. It is too funny to even laugh.
this is an old article. it is very sad that in the time since most articles – if they can be termed such remain full of hate and that most are written by women expressing anger, jealousy and spite. it is surprising to me that women hate themselves so much they are at the forefront of tearing apart a family of children and a fellow woman at any level when millions of men father many children without caring for them in any way. this woman is taking responsibility in any way she can. even welfare is responsibilty. many parents dont even do that they literally bin their kids or leave them to the other parent or give them away. n.suleman is having it all for the first time ever in our history she has broken the boundaries as never before and women who should support her are ripping into a woman just after giving birth and into her 14 kids. she is a good mother and a woman who has everything going for her despite the spite of others. i think there are a lot of very competitive, jealous ladies out there. and a lot of men with inferiority complexes. the hate expressed by such people is more indicative of their mental health not hers. it is an absolue scandal what has happened to her because of cruel, disturbed people. shes a great girl. her kids dont need to explain their existence or apologise for it for one second. they are a credit to their family and that family is a credit to our society where motherhood as a choice for woman may be entirely celebrated – not hated.
anyone who questions that choice needs to question their own mothers in having them – im almost tempted to.
there are a lot of double standards and hypocrisy around. and its not in the n suleman’s household.
If the woman in question was financially capable of raising her children, that’s one thing – but instead she’s having ME pay for it and you.
I’m all for independence of women, but she’s not independent.
The social contract is that if you need help, society will give it to you – it’s not if you want to make obligations that you KNOW you cannot keep.
She’s a beggar using a mafia government to get money.
Just great post! I’d never have discovered this on my own!