Strollerderby

Thank you!

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Stop talking about her, and she will disappear.

Shannon, while I don't hate Nadya Suleman either, I don't agree with your list of reasons.  Yes, I understand there is something psychological going on here, but that doesn't make the woman exempt from responsibility.  Yes, the doctors and the system are partly blame, but I certainly don't think Nadya should be viewed as a victim.  And comparing our society's treatment to Nadya (your #4) doesn't add up.  This "poison" your referring to is not "all the same."  Your post just sounds like another defensive person who views the attack on Suleman's right to reproduce personally.  She's an extreme case.  Why can't we hold her responsible for her actions?

It's bizarre how out of whack people are getting over this woman and her children.  The hate and nastiness directed at her is beyond what's reasonable.  I get that things are tough now.  People are worried about jobs, healthcare, mortgages, the economy, etc... but this woman is just a small blip on the radar.  Nothing as bad as bringing down the banking system while taking $50 Million in bonuses, or sending people to die in a war where no WMDs were found.  I'm disgusted with the things this woman chose to do but it doesn't affect my life except perhaps she might get a few pennies of the taxes I pay.  It's over the top to go batty about it.  If you're getting mad about things out of your control, teach your kids something new today, do some volunteer work or maybe go for a walk among some trees.  It'll make you feel better.

Thanks, Shannon!

The fertility industry gave me my last two children...God bless them.  The doctor who happens to be a fertility doctor is to blame, don't blame the whole industry for one jackass.

Well said, Shannon. Thank you.

The hate is the result of Nadya Suleman running headlong against the very-recently-developed zeitgeist of our very-recent times.  It's a powerful force, filled with despair and fury and fear.  It's all the rage people are feeling over their inability to maintain their standard of living (while people who just pop out babies or run companies into the group and are richly rewarded); it's the result of small mistakes ruining lives (say, having a health problem or being laid off and unable to make a mortgage payment) because there's little-to-no help available for those situations all while watching the financial industry cannibalize itself for greed and then being handed OUR money because their mistake was "too big."  A single mom with a kid or two is basically on her own, but if you have yourself a liter you've got it made.  Mess up a little, that's too-bad-so-sad; screw up HUGELY and suddenly that's OUR problem as a society.

All of that said, I think you're onto something Shannon; I'm pretty sure that all the "sew her up" and "kill the bitch" comments I've seen on MSNBC's site are more the result of society's general contempt for women and a 30-year culmination of the "welfare queen" stereotype.

HOWEVER: if she stopped giving interviews and hiring publicists and creating websites begging for money, she'd be able to live a fairly private life, but I don't think she's remotely interested in that.  

I like #4. Read it a couple times.

Agreed. I think we should focus on the doctor, on the lack of regulation and standards in the sperm bank industry. I also find it interesting that a couple of single parent with a reasonable job, a good education, and a loving heart has to go through more hurdles in adoption than a single mom with questionable motives who wants to buy some sperm.

I wholeheartedly agree. Good post.

I think you're grasping at straws here, particularly with #4. Sure, all those others share some blame, and it's very valuable to discuss their role in this debacle, but the ultimate responsibility lies with Nadya Suleman. I do not hate her and do not understand why she is receiving death threats, but she has endangered the lives of 14 children and unless she's declared mentally incompetent she's responsible for her actions. End of story.

I am amazed that 95% of what I read, and 95% of what I hear is outrage at the mother.   She is not the only woman out there that has a larger family than she can afford.

The outrage should be at the doctor.  

Put me in the camp with those who think you're reaching with #4 there.  I don't hate this woman.  I think she's clearly ill in some way, and that she's made a horrible decision.   But while I admit that there are certainly people who disagree, I think your average parent sees all the other options you listed as reasonable parenting options.   I don't think there's *nearly* as much sahm v working moms!  Fight! vibing out there as the media would like us to think.   Pretty much everyone I know, especially under the age of 60, sees both as reasonable parenting choices.  Intentionally birthing huge brood with no visible means of support?  Not a reasonable parenting choice.

Thank you. The voice of reason finally speaks.  I kept feeling like the hateful comments I was reading all over the internet about this woman were inspired by some sort of messed up ideology.

Yet somehow I couldn't put my finger on what it was; and why it felt so over-the-top, almost dangerous and reminiscent of some sort of witch hunt/lynching/mob mentality.

You put a sociological perspective on it.  And you are so entirely correct.  Thank you!!

How can anyone say this author is "reaching with #4"?? It is #4 that entirely describes why so many people are having a fit about this woman.

#4 is not "reaching."  #4 is the underlying ideological truth to all the insanity, hatred, mob-mentality and media buzz.  It's why the public loves to hate her. -- Not to mention the horrific economic blight we are experiencing creates a ripe environment to make this woman a target for mass-transference of anger and frustration over our own personal financial difficulties.  

Obviously the writer of this blog is intelligent and worth her weight in Ph.D.  God, there is so much ignorance in this world it is simply alarming.  Look a little deeper folks, when you respond with knee-jerk hate and rage... there's usually an underlying reason.

Thanks again, Shannon. And thanks, J.D.

We the American public help subsidize the Duggar and Gosselin families every time we watch their OMG! Look At Our Huge Families! shows. Yeah, Kate and Michelle have husbands, and I believe their husbands have income-generating jobs (does Jon work a paid job? I don't know). But if Jon or Jim Bob kick the bucket before all those kids are living independently, then I guess everyone who feels free to take potshots at Nadya for being a single mom to an environmentally-unfriendly number of kids will also take aim at Widow Gosselin and Widow Duggar. Or is it different for children who were conceived in wedlock? I thought we stopped stamping kids' birth certificates with "ILLEGITIMATE" in 1973, but sounds like the stigma's still alive and well in the social sphere.

Your tax dollars are paying infinitely more for "corporate welfare" and our stupidly expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than they are for anyone's pitiful, below-poverty-level-living public aid benefits.

So the fertility industry is doing sacred work when it's helping upper middle class white women make two or three miracle babies, but when the same industry gives a mentally and financially unstable woman the ability to create 14 children, suddenly it's the devil and needs to be regulated?  It's still the woman's responsibility.  Period.  It's the same as saying "Fast food restaurants are making me fat...they shouldn't let me order those super-size fries."  That's a little too convenient.  Sorry, Ms. LC Cate, PhD.  I'm still not buying it.

I do agree that some of the anger at this situation stems from issues that people have with motherhood in general in our society. I also fear that the condemnations of Suleman will lead to worsening treatment of other women who have built their families in some "unconventional" way.

The one thing I have to disagree on is whether these children are in danger. It might not be danger in a typical sense, it might not even meet standards of neglect, but I am very afraid that these kids, all of whom are under age 7, will not get nearly the amount of parental or adult attention they deserve. 1/14th of a parent's attention sounds like a pretty raw deal to me, especially at an age when that attention is most necessary (0-3 or 0-5 depending on who you ask). I really hope for these kids' sake that lots of other adults (whoever they may be) are involved in their lives, because entirely apart from money issues, I don't believe this one woman can give them what they need.

"The one thing I have to disagree on is whether these children are in danger. It might not be danger in a typical sense, it might not even meet standards of neglect, but I am very afraid that these kids, all of whom are under age 7, will not get nearly the amount of parental or adult attention they deserve. 1/14th of a parent's attention sounds like a pretty raw deal to me, especially at an age when that attention is most necessary (0-3 or 0-5 depending on who you ask)."

The same worry goes for the Gosselins and the Duggars, you know? Why so little outcry for the Gosselin and Duggar children to be taken into Department of Child Welfare custody or relinquished for adoption to "good homes" out of concern for their wellbeing? And why no condemnation on Kate & Jon for refusing to selectively reduce their sextuplet pregnancy (or, for that matter, on *their* RE for transplanting six embryos instead of the suggested 2)?

If the Duggars and the Gosselins partially support their giganto-families via celebrity status, why is everyone so shocked that Suleman seems to have thought she could do the same? Why is everyone crying Irresponsibility and Mental Illness on this one family and not on those other two?

I agree that there's a lot of problematic Judge The Mother going on with the Suleman issue, and definitely agree that leaving things alone will be best for those kids. There are other family members involved, and it seems that her support system will be able to get on with the real work of helping 14 kids grow up amidst all of this once the media hullabaloo calms down a bit.

However, I also think that a lot of the vitriol around her stems from the fact that we hear a story like hers, and worry about 'what if a bunch of people did this?' At least that's where a part of my mind went. Regulating doctors is absolutely necessary, but I think that there's also a place for quiet, non-cruel disapproval. If a friend of mine made the choices it seems Suleman has, I wouldn't be able to offer ungrudging support, and sharing our opinions on this situation can help bring that out into the open.

Choosing to embark on a path that will likely result in sextuplets (and which can produce octuplets, as we've now seen) is a decision that will impact a *lot* of people. Knowing that many of those people may feel resentful of that decision is good information for the next person who may feel inclined to make the same decisions Suleman has. Personally, I think that she's probably got a lot of other issues going on, and doubt that there'll be any statistically significant # of people following in her footsteps. But I've seen friends use some of the 'it'll all work out! Just think positive!' justifications for poor decisions, and perhaps naïvely hope that discussions like these will emphasize the consequences of that logic.

I hadn't seen some of the more gossipy pararazzi-esque treatments she's been getting before today, and those really disturb me. I think that having conversations with each other about ART is a good thing, and that discussing this issue can be done in a productive way, but I also recoil from the judgments that are being made against her as an individual. I think that her situation is bringing up people's desire to talk about the public issue (ART regulation) as well as the more base desire we seem to have to judge and mock people, and that the two are getting damagingly intertwined.

I deeply, sincerely doubt that Nadya Suleman will inspire other women/families to take on the enormous health risks associated with higher-order multiples. Though I don't know - maybe the attention given to the Duggars and the Gosselins has made huge families seem like fun, or at least not so hard. I hope not, but you never know.

(And I apologize for harping continuously on the Duggars and Gosselins, but: TV Shows & Completely Unjudged "Charity" Acceptance vs. Death Threats & "Welfare Queen" Accusations. The parallels are too good to pass up when you lay them out like that.)

I like this person's post on the topic, especially the bit about how we give women a million times more crap for making questionable reproductive decisions (you know, having children, having an abortion, that kind of thing) than we give men for theirs:

atlasien.blogspot.com/.../octuplet-rage.html

Which makes me wonder - people who are significantly more bent up about "Welfare Queens" than they are about the current crises of corporate welfare, banking fiascos, Ponzi schemes, and stupid expensive military actions? Is that because reproduction and public aid for families are viewed primarily as a Female Domain, while corporate and military issues are viewed primarily as a Male Domain? We heap all this vitriol and charge responsibility on single mothers to never, ever require public assistance to support their children (never mind that single fathers and married parents sometimes need it too. And never mind that any of us could need it tomorrow), acting as though it's public aid that drains our pockets when only a tiny fraction of our tax money goes to assistance programs. Why is the Single Mother still such an easy target, even when we know for a fact that much bigger chunks of "our $$" are going toward what we might consider more "male" institutions?

Finally, someone's being reasonable about this! I really like how you connected people's condemnation of her to sexism in general. It's so true.

While I think it's her business to have as many kids as she wants, I think it's irresponsible for a fertility doctor to risk creating octuplets, just because we know that the health risks go up sharply when you get into higher-order multiples. This isn't in any way whatsoever to say that I don't value people with disabilities (quite the opposite), but just that we don't need to be doing things that lead to people having disabilities unnecessarily. I'm not in any way one of those "humans shouldn't interfere with g-d's will" people, but I do think this is really different than when a child naturally acquires a disability. I'm strongly against that suggestion a few years ago that we mandate testing every unborn child for Down syndrome, for instance. But if we look at this objectively, imagine that a woman is going to a fertility doctor and saying "I want to do everything I can to increase the chances that my children will be of low birth weight, have a complicated delivery, and have the highest likelihood of developmental disabilities. Can you see what you can do?" Or if someone brings a toddler to my developmental clinic and says "can you guys do some type of therapy to help my child be undernourished, have language delays, and have poor motor control?" Clearly I'd have to tell them that I was not willing to do such a thing, and I'd be legally obligated to file on them for abuse/neglect.

Again, I have no problem whatsoever with her or anyone having 14 children, but rather with taking steps to purposely have them all at the same time.

But yes, in the case of this particular family, since the kids are already here, the thing for us to do now is to support and value the family.

Great post, particularly #3, and g8grl's response above.  This woman was arguably the victim of a doctor who violated all the ethical guidelines established by the professional organizations of which he is a part. Of course, part of the problem is that in the US following those guidelines is voluntary.  Yes, it's disturbing that a patient would want to have 6 embryos transferred when she already has 6 children at home, but a responsible doctor would have made clear that that was not a medical procedure he could safely do.  Having a 7th child might have been an unwise choice for Suleman given her financial situation, but it's the doctor's decision to create extremely high-order-multiples (which he has apparently done with at least one other patient in express violation of the patient's wishes) that turned this into a public spectacle and an unimaginably difficult challenge for an already stretched family.

I agree with you, Shannon. The reaction to this woman is off the rails. I don't know her either and will never know the situation, but it does sound like there is perhaps mental instability and poor decision-making there. Although she certainly isn't the only one who grows a family under those circumstances.

In my own situation, I started my family as a single mother by choice. I used donor insemination and had twins. I also have a disability, and for the first year, my children were on medicaid that I paid premiums for. (Now they are covered under private insurance.) My fertility clinic required that I go through a psychological evaluation (something that naturally conceiving parents are not required to do.) And, although I did not utilize IVF, my clinic had a three embryo transfer limit for IVF. I think the fault lies squarely on the doctor, in the case of Suleman.

But it goes beyond that. While pregnant, I was strongly criticized by some who lacked confidence in my ability to handle twins due to my disability. My children are thriving now in a loving family environment. No one criticizes me and parenting choices anymore. So if we are going to criticize her, where do we draw the line? All of us could probably look into our own family situations and see something that other people might consider less than ideal. We may not be as rich as others, we may be divorced, we may have a health issue, we may work too much or not enough, we may have crazy relatives, we may let our kids watch too much TV or not enough. Who gets to decide who has children? Is it the same people who get to decide whether abortion is legal or not?

The thing is, if we want freedom in our lives, we pay a price. The price is that there are going to be a small number of people on the fringe out there who take their freedom farther than most of us would. They may make bad decisions, and yes, we all may end up paying for their bad decisions. But I'd rather pay for a few people's poor choices than have my own choices regulated. This is the case with Suleman. I don't agree with her choice, but I willl fight for her right to have them because in doing so I fight for my own right to make my own choices. And I'll pay for her kids (because it has nothing to do with them, anyway and I want them to be taken care of), so that I might have the security of society coming to my aid should I ever need it.

Also, agree with the poster above that commented on the huge popularity of large families on TV now. i.e. the Duggars, the Gosselins and others. Some (perhaps unstable) people may conclude that our society is accepting and welcoming of large families and that it is not a fringe decision. Or that it is the path to money and fame. The checks and balance system of freedom of choice has a lot to do  with the norms of our society. She may have not expected such a terrible reaction when other large families get nothing but accolades.

In any case, what's done is done. Death threats against this woman are only going to make the situation for her kids worse. There are natural consequences to her actions that she will have to live with. There is no need to throw artificial punitive ones at her.

But that doctor should get his license revoked.

I think that people tend to forget that you can't actually go out and deliberately get pregnant with octuplets. Even if you are 22 years old and transfer 8 perfect embryos, the most likely outcome is still only triplets or quads* (which is still bad, from a medical perspective). And transferring 6 and having some of them split to make a total of 8 is spectacularly improbable*. And then once that happened, having them all survive to be born is even more improbable. People are getting all worked up about the wrong bad decision (on the woman's part--her doctor's decision to transfer six embryos was clearly unconscionable). She didn't decide to try to have 14 kids. She decided to try to have a 7th, and possibly an 8th and 9th at the same time. Still probably not the smartest idea in the world, but hardly on par with deliberately getting pregnant with octuplets!

I agree that the vitriol about her status as single and unemployed is based on sexism and the joy that so many people seem to take in judging other people's parenting decisions.

*Don't believe me? Let's do the math. If each embryo has an 80% chance of surviving (which it DOESN'T!!! The odds are probably closer to 50% for the most fertile women), then the odds of 8 embryos all "taking" are only 80% * 80% *80% * 80% * 80% * 80% * 80% * 80% = ~17%. With a more realistic 50% (which is still optimistic for most women), the odds are 0.4%. With Nadya Suleman's ACTUAL odds, (six IVF cycles with a total of 36 embryos, resulting in 14 children = 39% chance for each embryo), the odds are ~0.05%. And remember that she only transferred six embryos, and the odds of an embryo splitting with IVF is about 1-2%, so really, the odds of an octuplet pregnancy occurring were <0.00014%. And then the odds of all 8 surviving this long? Almost indistinguishable from zero.

Was she irresponsible? Yes. Was this actual outcome predictable? Not in a million years.

Oops. I've got to correct my own math. The odds of an octuplet pregnancy were actually closer to 0.0038%, not 0.00014% (I miscalculated the odds of two embryos splitting). Not that that affects my main conclusion in any way, obviously!

I am so delighted to see a voice of reason in the whole Suleiman debate - I was starting to feel like I was the only person who felt sorry for her instead of wanting to string her up and leave those tiny babies motherless.

I think that Nadya Suleiman is a creation of a society that worships the Duggars and the Gosselins - it's only to be expected that if some people manage to pull off having huge families and get that much attention and adulation for it, that someone would try to do it just for the fame. Someone that needy, someone willing to do that to her own body and risk the health of her children for fame, is to be pitied, not hated. The vitriol directed at her is disturbing, and says so much more about the people directing it than it ever did about Nadya.

And what's all this business about her "taking responsibility," anyway? I'm not sure how she could satisfy the people who hate her without putting her head in stocks. What would make you folks happy? If she got a job, she'd be "abandoning her kids." If she stays home to raise them, she's "living off our tax dollars." If she made a public apology (which she owes to no one), you'd still spit on her. She's just a punching bag to cruel people who hate their own lives. It's horrible.

Lula, Jon and Kate did fertility drugs with intrauterine insemination (IUI) not IVF. IUI plus fertility drugs is actually much more likely to result in multiples than IVF. Most people thought that is what Suleman had when we first found out about the octuplets. Nobody actually believed a doctor could be so irresponsible as to transfer six embryos!

I resent her simply because I conclude her decision was a cold and <h1>calculated</h1> method of guaranteeing she'd be on <h2>public support</h2> for the next 18 years.

Think of it - she will have a place to live, 3 squares, and 100% of her time to dedicate to her family.  and <h1>we</h1> get to support her.  No wonder she is despised!

She is not ill - she is VERY smart!

Sorry about the last post... I was trying to EMPHASIZE some words.

Point is, many of us hate to leave our kids to go to work to earn enough to provide for our families.  This woman (and many like her) has found a way to stay home.

I'm just jealous!

Shannon, you assemble tricycles!  I'm going to paint my 14 year old daughters room strawberry splash!  I hate the venom, ridicule and condemnation directed at Nadya.  And you know what?  If it were possible I would give her a house, nannies etc to make her life easier, to make sure her 14 beautiful children grew and developed into their full potential.  Her older children are charming as they talk about their new brothers and sisters.

The little preemies have already found a home in my heart.  My son says it is snowing in Chicago.  Where is spring and hope and new life?  Could it be in Whittier?

1. she's misguided and mentally-ill.

2. there are so many facts about her that makes us hate her: using the tax payers' money to feed her kids.. if she can't afford to feed even 6 why have some more? the money she could've saved from plastic surgery could've put towards the care for her kids.. any respectable mom would put her kids first before herself especially when it comes to looks.. definitely mentally-ill.

3. the fertility industry is a big part of this mess, but it's nadia's CHOICE to want to get pregnant over and over again. another sign of being mentally-ill

here's the main lesson: if you can't afford to have kids DON'T have any.. especially if you're mentally ill..