Nadya Suleman. This name will live in infamy, all because she wanted to be a mom -- a lot.
I am of two minds regarding this mother of octuplets. On the one hand whenever I think of her, I think, with a violent shudder, "Ugh!." In fairness, I think this of all women who have litters of babies. On the other hand, however, I have a rising sense of anger with the ways in which this woman has been depicted in various media. The commentary has been extraordinarily uncritical. Yes, she is a single mom. No, she doesn't seem to have remunerative employment. Yes, she seems slightly, well a little more than slightly, unhinged. But in what ways does she differ from Michelle Duggar , the human brood mare featured on TLC's so-called reality show 17 Kids & Counting? In what way does she differ from Kate Gosselin? She is the mother of sextuplets and star of the so-called reality show Jon & Kate Plus 8. The most obvious social fact is that Ms. Suleman is not married, but the more insidious social determinant, the one that seems to be driving the majority of the prejudiced discussions, is the fact that she is not middle class or above.
The commentary has been nothing, if not predictable. "If she already had 6 children, why would need more?" "She's not even married." "She doesn't have a job," "She's irresponsible," etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. These criticisms have reached crescendo. Above the din, I find myself asking this one persistent cultural question: "Isn't she only acting out the cultural imperative for women to be mothers? And if so, what is it about this particular woman, that has raised the ire of feminists and anti-choice people alike?"
Our society says to women that unless we become mothers, our lives are essentially meaningless. Once we become mothers, we are expected to make definitive, declarative statements about the superiority of motherhood to all other endeavors in life. When women make social and personal statements about the realities of motherhood, she is often given subtle negative sanctions. Women who do not to have children are suspect, unless it is discovered that they have biological fertility issues, in which case, they become pitiable. Nadya Suleman, Michelle Duggar, Kate Gosselin and many others, are living, breathing, breeding embodiments of this cultural, reproductive imperative. Yet, Ms. Suleman receives chastisement (at best) while the Duggars & Gosselins received lucrative contracts to chronicle and display portions of their lives in the media.
Though I am a strong proponent of taking women and men out of old, tired, unproductive gender role patterns, I find myself more angry with the hypocrisy of those who criticize her than I find myself being angry with her. Though I do believe her to be unduly focused on "becoming a mother," when I think about her situation in the most objective way that I can, I wonder how different her single-minded drive to be a mother is any different than the single-minded drive of a person who forgoes creating a family in favor of a career that they love.
Other questions that cross my mind include, where are the religious right, anti-choice people to defend her? It seems that Ms. Suleman would be a person that they would champion for her decision to "be fruitful and multiply." Where are media supporters -- the ones who want to tell her story? Mostly, those voices have been negative. Why is there criticism of her doctor? In a society in which the free market is supposed to reign and any way in which people can make money is acceptable, why is he criticized? This seems a stunning contradiction of our core U.S. value of science and progress. Would he have been criticized if we found out that he had helped Jim Duggar overcome infertility, only to go on and sire 18 children? the double standards are legion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/10/octuplet-mom-nadya-sulema_n_165508.html
Discussion Questions
1. In an analysis of the media coverage of Nadya Suleman's pregnancy and childbirth, explain the socio-cultural messages presented using at least one, no more than two theories.
2. Compare and contrast Nadya Suleman's situation with that of Kate Gosselin and Michelle Duggar.
3. Using three major points, address the role of gender and media in the development of a public persona of Ms. Suleman and the public's response to her.
I believe that each of these families situations are very different, and though I try to stay as open minded as possible, I don't see much sense in the Nadya Suleman case.. And i feel pretty educated on each situation so lets compare.
ReplyDelete1. The Duggars. Though "17 kids and counting" seems outrageous.. the Duggars actually have everything figured out. All these families share the fact that they want all these kids, but the Duggars pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and provided... They make tons of money from the property they own and rent... they make their own soap, buy clothes from thrift stores...etc. The duggars have ZERO debt (which is amazing esp. since the average american has about $8000 in credit card debt) and a huge house, and all the children are well cared for. Most of all though, even though they seem to lead an "unconventional" conservative lifestyle... they all seem really happy and love eachother so.... here's to you Duggars.
2. The Gosselins. Jon and Kate turned to IVF when they were unable to have children. They finally got pregnant with twins. 3 years later they wanted just one more... and got 6.This situation is different from the other 2 families in that they did not ask for all these babies, but embraced them as they came. These poor people are run ragged with 8 small children, but though people giving them things, sponsorships (gap i believe gives the kids free clothes for the free advertising), and help from family and friends, they are making it. Not to mention i imagine their show on TLC brings in the dollar bills. Anyways, its clear from the show that these kids are so stressful, but its clear that they love them a lot and they do all that they can to give them all the oppertunites other kids have, however exhausting that may be. The last thing that sets them apart is they were absolutely done having kids after the 6 babies.
3. Nadya Suleman. I watched her interview on MSNBC and though i like to be open minded, she seems a little weird. She has worked through college and had 6 babies through IVF while in school... using her financial aid to provide,as well as "disability" and da da da.... welfare. SHe had her last implant of embryos because "there was leftover sperm being frozen, and she didnt want those little embryos not to have a chance at life".. knowing that she would probably have multiples. This to me was outrageous. thats like saying "oh i have to try and get pregnant every month because that egg is dropping and i dont want all those eggs to not have a chance at life... cmon. not to mention now she has a litter of children... living at her mothers house and receiving something to the tune of 500 a month in welfare..plus disability checks for her autistic child and one with attention deficit disorder. Im not hating on the fact that she wanted to have kids so bad, and i do believe she's a loving mother, but i don't agree with how she went about it. She provides the environment, but she cannot financially support her own children. She is putting them at a disadvantage for life. It will be interesting to see how the kids are socialized, if they agree with their moms decision when they understand it, and if they turn out to be successful as they get older.
I agree with Trisha's comment about the families, and would like to elaborate a little on the statements on the Nadya Suleman paragraph. Not only did she perform her obligation to society with flying colors, she also is teaching these children two very important ideas that will greatly influence the rest of their lives. And that each of them are probably going to pass on to the next generation of Suleman. That they should pursue the desire to procreate and that the government can pay for it all. And if all 14 children have multiple children of their own...
ReplyDelete