Warning: Contains offensive language!
If you can ignore that misogynist bs that is spewing out of Lil John's mouth, this is actually quite catchy.
Also, I read all the comments from the previous post. I have been formulating a post about political morality vs. gut feelings/reactions, but it's not ready yet.
Lauren's Journal
My Podcast Link
03/03/2009 09:47 #47932
Cooking By The BookCategory: randomo
03/01/2009 17:21 #47917
Computer HELP!Sigh...ok, so for my job I have to do notes via the computer... but every time I log into the website I get this:
ERROR:
Cannot locate proxy which supports Remote Scripting.
Was RSEnableRemoteScripting method evoked?
I installed Java and enabled it in a bunch of places but no luck. Every site I look at it is in developer language that I don't speak, let alone understand.
Oh...and that is the message I get when I use Internet Explorer. I can't even get to that page when I use Mozilla.
Por Favor...
ERROR:
Cannot locate proxy which supports Remote Scripting.
Was RSEnableRemoteScripting method evoked?
I installed Java and enabled it in a bunch of places but no luck. Every site I look at it is in developer language that I don't speak, let alone understand.
Oh...and that is the message I get when I use Internet Explorer. I can't even get to that page when I use Mozilla.
Por Favor...
paul - 03/01/09 18:54
Thats sounds like something very custom to that application and something out of your control. I mean, it sounds like a server error or a proxy that is refusing your connection. You definately will have to contact some your company's tech support.
Thats sounds like something very custom to that application and something out of your control. I mean, it sounds like a server error or a proxy that is refusing your connection. You definately will have to contact some your company's tech support.
02/25/2009 10:41 #47883
Reproductive RightsReproductive Rights means more than having the ability to have the option of abortion...it also means that women have the right to HAVE children. The key word here is CHOICE. This is a tricky commentary I've been struggling with over the last few days...but I will do my best.
By now you should have at least heard of the "Octuplet Mom" that is all over the damn tabloids and news stations.
She is getting all kinds of flack...including something the other day about a gun. I dunno. It's tempting, don't get me wrong, to think, what the hell is she doing? She already had a bunch of kids, she has no husband and no job and now she's got eight infants on her hands. Who will support these kids, America wonders. We will! That's what's going on in most people's minds I imagine.
Before I get into this...I want to remind those of you who don't watch TV, or at least not quality programming such as these shows...that there are many, many women who have tons...yes, TONS of kids... and who are not getting half...or any of the negative responses that Octuplet Mom is getting. For example:
John and Kate plus Eight have their own show on TLC...and the only reason they have their own show is because they have EIGHT kids. The show chronicles the trials and tribulations of raising such a large family and there is always commentary by John and Kate where they are all made up and sitting in chairs alone looking calm and relaxed. The picture of a happy, heterosexual, married couple who just happen to have kids.
Then there is this show with the Dungar Family:
They have, I believe, 18 or 19 kids! They are of some religion where you can't use birth control, obviously. They home school all their children and have a real estate business to provide for the little fundamentalist army they have spawned. Once again, happy heterosexual couples who are married and ready to keep producing, and America is ready to keep watching in awe. Maybe a little disgust, but once again, not half the flack that the single Octuplet mom is receiving...
Sigh.
The point here is not to say that John and Kate Plus Eight or The Dungar Family should be getting more negative attention for reproducing as much as they are, but really looking at why Octuplet Mom IS getting so much. We approve of certain women reproducing, and that approval seems to have no bounds when it comes to how many that particular woman can reproduce. She must be married, obviously, to a man who can support her babies for her, and she must be at least middle class or higher. Preferably she should be white...although I guess if she meets enough of the other criteria that would prevent her from being labeled a "welfare queen," then we might let that one slip.
May I remind my dear readers that women, women of color, immigrant women, poor women of color especially, disabled women, and mentally ill women were STERILIZED against their will in this country. Why? Who decides?
Women's reproductive abilities have long long long been used against us. Whether we were having too many babies or not enough, whether they were white babies or light skinned babies or healthy babies or boy babies or whatever the hell men wanted at the time.
So basically, what I am trying to say is this. I understand the temptations. I fight with it myself sometimes. the almost instinctual judgment wells up and we say, you shouldn't have babies that you can't take care of. It seems so simple. But it is not. We are talking about a long and complicated history of women's bodies being used as a tool to manipulate, abuse, coerce, and blame women. And history is not some giant in the hillside that no longer haunts the villagers.
By now you should have at least heard of the "Octuplet Mom" that is all over the damn tabloids and news stations.
She is getting all kinds of flack...including something the other day about a gun. I dunno. It's tempting, don't get me wrong, to think, what the hell is she doing? She already had a bunch of kids, she has no husband and no job and now she's got eight infants on her hands. Who will support these kids, America wonders. We will! That's what's going on in most people's minds I imagine.
Before I get into this...I want to remind those of you who don't watch TV, or at least not quality programming such as these shows...that there are many, many women who have tons...yes, TONS of kids... and who are not getting half...or any of the negative responses that Octuplet Mom is getting. For example:
John and Kate plus Eight have their own show on TLC...and the only reason they have their own show is because they have EIGHT kids. The show chronicles the trials and tribulations of raising such a large family and there is always commentary by John and Kate where they are all made up and sitting in chairs alone looking calm and relaxed. The picture of a happy, heterosexual, married couple who just happen to have kids.
Then there is this show with the Dungar Family:
They have, I believe, 18 or 19 kids! They are of some religion where you can't use birth control, obviously. They home school all their children and have a real estate business to provide for the little fundamentalist army they have spawned. Once again, happy heterosexual couples who are married and ready to keep producing, and America is ready to keep watching in awe. Maybe a little disgust, but once again, not half the flack that the single Octuplet mom is receiving...
Sigh.
The point here is not to say that John and Kate Plus Eight or The Dungar Family should be getting more negative attention for reproducing as much as they are, but really looking at why Octuplet Mom IS getting so much. We approve of certain women reproducing, and that approval seems to have no bounds when it comes to how many that particular woman can reproduce. She must be married, obviously, to a man who can support her babies for her, and she must be at least middle class or higher. Preferably she should be white...although I guess if she meets enough of the other criteria that would prevent her from being labeled a "welfare queen," then we might let that one slip.
May I remind my dear readers that women, women of color, immigrant women, poor women of color especially, disabled women, and mentally ill women were STERILIZED against their will in this country. Why? Who decides?
Women's reproductive abilities have long long long been used against us. Whether we were having too many babies or not enough, whether they were white babies or light skinned babies or healthy babies or boy babies or whatever the hell men wanted at the time.
So basically, what I am trying to say is this. I understand the temptations. I fight with it myself sometimes. the almost instinctual judgment wells up and we say, you shouldn't have babies that you can't take care of. It seems so simple. But it is not. We are talking about a long and complicated history of women's bodies being used as a tool to manipulate, abuse, coerce, and blame women. And history is not some giant in the hillside that no longer haunts the villagers.
gardenmama - 02/26/09 17:34
I feel a little sorry for this woman that she has this empty space she keeps trying to fill with children who will likely end up with the same empty space because there won't be enough of mom to go around. That being said - rights come with responsibilities and part of being not necessarily even a good parent, but at least a somewhat effective parent is taking care of your children. She doesn't seem to have the finanacial means or the physical means she'll need to provide for all these children. It's sad for them all.
I feel a little sorry for this woman that she has this empty space she keeps trying to fill with children who will likely end up with the same empty space because there won't be enough of mom to go around. That being said - rights come with responsibilities and part of being not necessarily even a good parent, but at least a somewhat effective parent is taking care of your children. She doesn't seem to have the finanacial means or the physical means she'll need to provide for all these children. It's sad for them all.
theli - 02/25/09 20:23
The answer is that they can't take care of the kids. But that's the whole point. Any civilized society will likely have social services that will then take the kids away from the irresponsible mother.
The kids suffer, of course. There may be some good foster homes. But the system as a whole tends to be overburdened. And as for the woman...if she cares that little about the well being of her children, then she probably doesn't care that they'll be taken away.
Despicable. But, again, she in some way "wins", assuming that a significant goal in life is to continue your line. You can't blame the children for having an irresponsible mother. So the line will not sustain a punishment worthy of whatever crime someone might think has been committed.
I'm not arguing that the line should be punished, of course. But the issue is definitely more complicated than most give it credit.
Personally, I think society might benefit from there being somewhat less emphasis on this "family line" or genetic imperative. Not having children is selfish in its own way, but then again...
The answer is that they can't take care of the kids. But that's the whole point. Any civilized society will likely have social services that will then take the kids away from the irresponsible mother.
The kids suffer, of course. There may be some good foster homes. But the system as a whole tends to be overburdened. And as for the woman...if she cares that little about the well being of her children, then she probably doesn't care that they'll be taken away.
Despicable. But, again, she in some way "wins", assuming that a significant goal in life is to continue your line. You can't blame the children for having an irresponsible mother. So the line will not sustain a punishment worthy of whatever crime someone might think has been committed.
I'm not arguing that the line should be punished, of course. But the issue is definitely more complicated than most give it credit.
Personally, I think society might benefit from there being somewhat less emphasis on this "family line" or genetic imperative. Not having children is selfish in its own way, but then again...
metalpeter - 02/25/09 19:16
Well you make some good points but.....
Here is the thing how can one women by herself take care of 6 kids on her own. I don't mean money wise I just mean take care of them and be a decent mother one is tough enough. For anyone with kids or who knows anyone think about how much work one baby is, now you have to take care of 8.
I think she may be a "welfare mother". Yes there are single moms out there, but that isn't what I'm talking about. You have women who have a kid young and get on the system. Then to get more money they wind up having another kid by a different father (that is how they play the system) oh don't get me wrong I'm sure they have lots of fun sex nothing wrong with that along the way.
But see this brings up a bigger question what about the rights of the kid. Kids, babies and the unborn do have rights. That is why most states make late term abortions illegal. At that point the fetus is a alive and has rights. If someone ever wanted to end abortions that would be the way to do it. A living fetus has just as much right to live as a women has to control her body so who wins.....?
I don't think it is fair for the kids there life is going to suck, assuming they even live. How can you have 7 sibelings your own age and have any kind of life. I would say even with two parents with two good jobs the kids would suffer. Is it still better then being a foster kid? Well Maybe but not sure. What about the Kids rights. Why does a kid have to wear dirty clothes and be mocked at school for being the dirty kid? Or maybe mom can get nice clothes and the kid can starve and pass out in class and be the dump kid. What about the kids rights?
Well you make some good points but.....
Here is the thing how can one women by herself take care of 6 kids on her own. I don't mean money wise I just mean take care of them and be a decent mother one is tough enough. For anyone with kids or who knows anyone think about how much work one baby is, now you have to take care of 8.
I think she may be a "welfare mother". Yes there are single moms out there, but that isn't what I'm talking about. You have women who have a kid young and get on the system. Then to get more money they wind up having another kid by a different father (that is how they play the system) oh don't get me wrong I'm sure they have lots of fun sex nothing wrong with that along the way.
But see this brings up a bigger question what about the rights of the kid. Kids, babies and the unborn do have rights. That is why most states make late term abortions illegal. At that point the fetus is a alive and has rights. If someone ever wanted to end abortions that would be the way to do it. A living fetus has just as much right to live as a women has to control her body so who wins.....?
I don't think it is fair for the kids there life is going to suck, assuming they even live. How can you have 7 sibelings your own age and have any kind of life. I would say even with two parents with two good jobs the kids would suffer. Is it still better then being a foster kid? Well Maybe but not sure. What about the Kids rights. Why does a kid have to wear dirty clothes and be mocked at school for being the dirty kid? Or maybe mom can get nice clothes and the kid can starve and pass out in class and be the dump kid. What about the kids rights?
theli - 02/25/09 18:06
Ahh, hahah... I have way too much to say about this. So I'll *try* to keep it short.
This woman is a thought experiment come to life. It brings up the question of what exactly society "should" value and what we really feel is fair play. And how much we truly respect wealth in this society, over pretty much any other aspect of life.
If "genetic survival", if the family line, is meant to be important in one's life, then how could you fault what this woman has done? From where she was, there is no possible way she could obtain the resources necessary to gain an edge in that survival game. When you're born poor, when you live in poor environments, it is INCREDIBLY difficult to pull yourself out of that.
So... She found a way to out-maneuver society's rules and, perhaps coincidentally, actually recieved a "survival edge". I can only laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. Though I can't help but pity the children.
But then...that's just because I can only see smaller families as preferable, somewhat due to personal experience.
As to the question of reproductive rights... This woman is a fringe case. With any question of rights, there will always be fringe cases. Especially ones which you find disgusting or are offended by.
For those that find the one-child per family law within China despicable, well... Legislation will always have its peril. You attempt to curtail something like this and someone WILL suffer. And, almost certainly, that will be the children, whether or not the progenitor(s) suffer any harm as well.
If that's ok with you just to take out some vengeance on people like her, and by extension people NOT like her but who end up in similar situations despite it, then I suppose making some nice restrictive laws will be your next logical step.
Ahh, hahah... I have way too much to say about this. So I'll *try* to keep it short.
This woman is a thought experiment come to life. It brings up the question of what exactly society "should" value and what we really feel is fair play. And how much we truly respect wealth in this society, over pretty much any other aspect of life.
If "genetic survival", if the family line, is meant to be important in one's life, then how could you fault what this woman has done? From where she was, there is no possible way she could obtain the resources necessary to gain an edge in that survival game. When you're born poor, when you live in poor environments, it is INCREDIBLY difficult to pull yourself out of that.
So... She found a way to out-maneuver society's rules and, perhaps coincidentally, actually recieved a "survival edge". I can only laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. Though I can't help but pity the children.
But then...that's just because I can only see smaller families as preferable, somewhat due to personal experience.
As to the question of reproductive rights... This woman is a fringe case. With any question of rights, there will always be fringe cases. Especially ones which you find disgusting or are offended by.
For those that find the one-child per family law within China despicable, well... Legislation will always have its peril. You attempt to curtail something like this and someone WILL suffer. And, almost certainly, that will be the children, whether or not the progenitor(s) suffer any harm as well.
If that's ok with you just to take out some vengeance on people like her, and by extension people NOT like her but who end up in similar situations despite it, then I suppose making some nice restrictive laws will be your next logical step.
- looks down* The hell...who put a soapbox here? Crap. Sorry guys.
heidi - 02/25/09 17:08
Just cuz it seems appropriate for me to add the legal aspect...
Buck v. Bell (1927) :::link::: is the Supreme Court case that upheld Virginia's forced sterilization statute. The rest of the quickly updated their forced sterilization statutes or implemented new ones. Buck v. Bell legitimized the eugenics movement in the United States. The last forced sterilization in the US was in 1981 in Oregon although the bulk of it was done before the mid-60s. :::link:::
Just cuz it seems appropriate for me to add the legal aspect...
Buck v. Bell (1927) :::link::: is the Supreme Court case that upheld Virginia's forced sterilization statute. The rest of the quickly updated their forced sterilization statutes or implemented new ones. Buck v. Bell legitimized the eugenics movement in the United States. The last forced sterilization in the US was in 1981 in Oregon although the bulk of it was done before the mid-60s. :::link:::
libertad - 02/25/09 16:09
I'm definitely not for forced sterilization or abortions but this case here is completely irresponsible. I agree with just about all the other comments.
People need to start taking in consideration whether they can properly raise the children they bring into this world. In my opinion, people should be pressured more to limit children to what they can emotionally and financially handle. Pressure in the form of counseling and subsidized sterilization offered to some women and men or birth control when wanted. I believe this counseling can be done in hospitals and should certainly have ethical guidelines that are not based on religion.
I believe the doctor who assisted this woman in having these children acted unethically. Nadya was was able to do what she wanted here but will have to face the public condemnation for her selfish actions.
I'm definitely not for forced sterilization or abortions but this case here is completely irresponsible. I agree with just about all the other comments.
People need to start taking in consideration whether they can properly raise the children they bring into this world. In my opinion, people should be pressured more to limit children to what they can emotionally and financially handle. Pressure in the form of counseling and subsidized sterilization offered to some women and men or birth control when wanted. I believe this counseling can be done in hospitals and should certainly have ethical guidelines that are not based on religion.
I believe the doctor who assisted this woman in having these children acted unethically. Nadya was was able to do what she wanted here but will have to face the public condemnation for her selfish actions.
joshua - 02/25/09 14:35
Hmm - I lost my long post too! Suffice it to say she's irresponsible and crazy, and will cost taxpayers millions of dollars for no other reason than to satisfy some maternal urge to have 14 kids with no plausible way to actually care for them. Way too many points on this woman to illustrate that point clearly. Women like her should not be glorified or defended - there is absolutely nothing honorable or decent in what she's done. In other words, people are absolutely, 100% right to criticize her. Wealth only matters to the extent that you can actually provide the means to care for your kids, and race is absolutely irrelevant. In this country there are thousands of minority families with large numbers of kids, who DO responsibly look after their kids. I'm sorry to say it, but what she's done is an absolute outrage and I pity the taxpayers of California. The wrongness of this whole thing is self-evident.
Hmm - I lost my long post too! Suffice it to say she's irresponsible and crazy, and will cost taxpayers millions of dollars for no other reason than to satisfy some maternal urge to have 14 kids with no plausible way to actually care for them. Way too many points on this woman to illustrate that point clearly. Women like her should not be glorified or defended - there is absolutely nothing honorable or decent in what she's done. In other words, people are absolutely, 100% right to criticize her. Wealth only matters to the extent that you can actually provide the means to care for your kids, and race is absolutely irrelevant. In this country there are thousands of minority families with large numbers of kids, who DO responsibly look after their kids. I'm sorry to say it, but what she's done is an absolute outrage and I pity the taxpayers of California. The wrongness of this whole thing is self-evident.
jason - 02/25/09 14:31
I think a value judgment in this case is entirely appropriate. And, (e:Lauren), I sense your gut is telling you this is correct as well. Don't fight it. Whatever race she is is irrelevant when you ask the following questions:
1) How is she paying for IVF?
2) Who is going to pony up the $5M for this year?
3) Who is going to bear the ongoing costs?
And I've got more questions like, "Why is her crazy ass on TV arguing with her mom about fertility?" and "Why is she telling Ann Curry she's having these kids to fill an emotional childhood void?"
The simple fact is that we don't limit how many children a woman is allowed to bear. In this sense nobody's reproductive rights are threatened.
What is objectionable, and tax payers have a right to throw a shit fit about it, is that this woman is gaming the system, taking advantage of everyone else, flipping them the bird and the whole while behaving as if she's entitled to it. No sister, you're not.
If the other couples were in similar circumstances, you could make a similar value judgment. We know enough about Nadya to understand this situation is much different than a situation where people are being responsible.
Because really, what she did was irresponsible, a Dali portrait of motherhood - bankrupting your parents, forcing your neighbors to pay millions and millions over time for them and for her, as well as setting up these poor kids for what is going to be a very difficult, tough, poverty riddled life.
Yeah, the kids - what usually gets lost in the argument of whether their mother has a right to dilate and extract them, or the right to have the public be their daddy, is what is right for the kids? They might as well be set props. The Ann Curry interview was creepy, really creepy and revealing. It's all about Nadya, and all about fulfilling her own needs. No, I don't support that, and yes it should be judged harshly.
I think a value judgment in this case is entirely appropriate. And, (e:Lauren), I sense your gut is telling you this is correct as well. Don't fight it. Whatever race she is is irrelevant when you ask the following questions:
1) How is she paying for IVF?
2) Who is going to pony up the $5M for this year?
3) Who is going to bear the ongoing costs?
And I've got more questions like, "Why is her crazy ass on TV arguing with her mom about fertility?" and "Why is she telling Ann Curry she's having these kids to fill an emotional childhood void?"
The simple fact is that we don't limit how many children a woman is allowed to bear. In this sense nobody's reproductive rights are threatened.
What is objectionable, and tax payers have a right to throw a shit fit about it, is that this woman is gaming the system, taking advantage of everyone else, flipping them the bird and the whole while behaving as if she's entitled to it. No sister, you're not.
If the other couples were in similar circumstances, you could make a similar value judgment. We know enough about Nadya to understand this situation is much different than a situation where people are being responsible.
Because really, what she did was irresponsible, a Dali portrait of motherhood - bankrupting your parents, forcing your neighbors to pay millions and millions over time for them and for her, as well as setting up these poor kids for what is going to be a very difficult, tough, poverty riddled life.
Yeah, the kids - what usually gets lost in the argument of whether their mother has a right to dilate and extract them, or the right to have the public be their daddy, is what is right for the kids? They might as well be set props. The Ann Curry interview was creepy, really creepy and revealing. It's all about Nadya, and all about fulfilling her own needs. No, I don't support that, and yes it should be judged harshly.
theecarey - 02/25/09 14:08
"We are talking about a long and complicated history of women's bodies being used as a tool to manipulate, abuse, coerce, and blame women." I get what you are saying and there is certainly a bigger picture to consider. I struggle with these very thoughts. Often I stop myself and try to see varying perspectives, but of course I am limited by my own experience, knowledge, bias, etc. So in my judgmental and pervasive view, regardless of race, religion, marital status, etc, a person who decides to continually reproduce with no means to financially support the family is placing an unfair burden on not only society at large, but their support network, if they have one- friends, family, community and ultimately on those children. The issue (for me, and many) is that she has six kids already, and decided on more. If she were single and financially (and mentally) capable, I'd likely think, 'go for it'. But I have to wonder what is going on in her mind/life that prompted her to seek out having more, doctor assisted?
I don't know John and Kates financial situation, but they seem to be in a much better position to provide (and they started with two, then had the six, not six then eight!) Definitely NOT my thing. :)
Good stuff to think about though; thanks for the multi-dimensional thought provokers!
"We are talking about a long and complicated history of women's bodies being used as a tool to manipulate, abuse, coerce, and blame women." I get what you are saying and there is certainly a bigger picture to consider. I struggle with these very thoughts. Often I stop myself and try to see varying perspectives, but of course I am limited by my own experience, knowledge, bias, etc. So in my judgmental and pervasive view, regardless of race, religion, marital status, etc, a person who decides to continually reproduce with no means to financially support the family is placing an unfair burden on not only society at large, but their support network, if they have one- friends, family, community and ultimately on those children. The issue (for me, and many) is that she has six kids already, and decided on more. If she were single and financially (and mentally) capable, I'd likely think, 'go for it'. But I have to wonder what is going on in her mind/life that prompted her to seek out having more, doctor assisted?
I don't know John and Kates financial situation, but they seem to be in a much better position to provide (and they started with two, then had the six, not six then eight!) Definitely NOT my thing. :)
Good stuff to think about though; thanks for the multi-dimensional thought provokers!
drew - 02/25/09 13:53
Also relevant is the fact that it took a medical intervention to make these 8 children possible. While I would never take away a person's ability to reproduce, I am not sure I want to help somebody put themselves in a situation that they cannot handle. I don't think ANYBODY, rich, poor, or whatever, should be assisted in having octoplets. I also would not permit a person to simultaneously adopt 8 children.
Yes, I am making a a value judgment, but I do believe that society owes it to the children.
Take the right to bear arms. Not necessarily the most helpful right (imho) but there in the constitution nonetheless. So I won't begrudge the person who decides to buy a gun. But do I want my tax dollars to buy one for the one who can't afford one? NOPE!
If this woman can make 8 babies on her own, that's her choice. But that doesn't mean that anybody has to assist her in getting there.
Also relevant is the fact that it took a medical intervention to make these 8 children possible. While I would never take away a person's ability to reproduce, I am not sure I want to help somebody put themselves in a situation that they cannot handle. I don't think ANYBODY, rich, poor, or whatever, should be assisted in having octoplets. I also would not permit a person to simultaneously adopt 8 children.
Yes, I am making a a value judgment, but I do believe that society owes it to the children.
Take the right to bear arms. Not necessarily the most helpful right (imho) but there in the constitution nonetheless. So I won't begrudge the person who decides to buy a gun. But do I want my tax dollars to buy one for the one who can't afford one? NOPE!
If this woman can make 8 babies on her own, that's her choice. But that doesn't mean that anybody has to assist her in getting there.
janelle - 02/25/09 12:58
Damn. I wrote a really long post and then my computer shut down!
Anyway, I want to preface my statement with, I have no strong opinion on this woman with the 8 kids.
But here are somethings I think we should consider when understanding the public outrage. Time and place provides important context to this situation. She made this decision in the state of California while the state government was experiencing a serious financial crisis. Undoubtedly there will be people who are going to respond with outrage that the state can't meet its financial obligations, but is going to be providing welfare benefits to a woman who chose to have 8 kids. Talk show hosts are going to tap into that sense of outrage to increase their ratings and beat the story to death. Might have been a little bit different if it was a different time and place.
BTW, the Duggars have had their share of internet critics. People have said some awful things about the Duggars and about their religion.
American culture values self sufficiency so it makes sense that people would respond a little more negatively to a single woman who is having difficulty supporting herself, let alone her large family, versus the Duggars who generally are financially sound (the Duggars have had things donated to them, but again, donations are different than welfare).
I also think there are some ethical questions at play regarding carrying eight babies to term at the same time versus one by one like the Duggars. But that's a side topic, I suppose.
Damn. I wrote a really long post and then my computer shut down!
Anyway, I want to preface my statement with, I have no strong opinion on this woman with the 8 kids.
But here are somethings I think we should consider when understanding the public outrage. Time and place provides important context to this situation. She made this decision in the state of California while the state government was experiencing a serious financial crisis. Undoubtedly there will be people who are going to respond with outrage that the state can't meet its financial obligations, but is going to be providing welfare benefits to a woman who chose to have 8 kids. Talk show hosts are going to tap into that sense of outrage to increase their ratings and beat the story to death. Might have been a little bit different if it was a different time and place.
BTW, the Duggars have had their share of internet critics. People have said some awful things about the Duggars and about their religion.
American culture values self sufficiency so it makes sense that people would respond a little more negatively to a single woman who is having difficulty supporting herself, let alone her large family, versus the Duggars who generally are financially sound (the Duggars have had things donated to them, but again, donations are different than welfare).
I also think there are some ethical questions at play regarding carrying eight babies to term at the same time versus one by one like the Duggars. But that's a side topic, I suppose.
02/22/2009 12:27 #47856
UnbeWEAVEable!02/17/2009 15:57 #47783
PishawFelly and I spent Valentines snuggled on the couch in our PJ's...cause that's how we roll. Not that I'm not into V-Day...just that I'm not that into it that I put crazy amounts of stock in it and get all worked up about it being perfect. I was hungover, and she was more hungover. We had frozen pizza for dinner. Tell me that's not romance.
I took Ralphie for a walk today...his first walk in a VERY long time. Maybe I'm a bad mommy, but he hates the cold too, so we haven't gone since maybe October. It was nice today though and made me want nothing more than to go outside in a tank top and flip flops and be comfortable. That to me is nice.
Oh yes and I got fingerprinted today! I was quite impressed with fingerprinting technology...I don't know what I was expecting... ink and paper? But that's some fancy stuff they got there.
Oh right...speaking of...I had to go and privatize my facebook and my myspace cause...well, its best I spose. I never really had anything to hide before...not that I really do now, but for my own safety and well being I guess its the right thing...you can still find me on estrip, but hopefully there isn't anything too damaging on here :)
I took Ralphie for a walk today...his first walk in a VERY long time. Maybe I'm a bad mommy, but he hates the cold too, so we haven't gone since maybe October. It was nice today though and made me want nothing more than to go outside in a tank top and flip flops and be comfortable. That to me is nice.
Oh yes and I got fingerprinted today! I was quite impressed with fingerprinting technology...I don't know what I was expecting... ink and paper? But that's some fancy stuff they got there.
Oh right...speaking of...I had to go and privatize my facebook and my myspace cause...well, its best I spose. I never really had anything to hide before...not that I really do now, but for my own safety and well being I guess its the right thing...you can still find me on estrip, but hopefully there isn't anything too damaging on here :)
metalpeter - 02/17/09 19:39
I didn't even know there was a way to make things private on facebook, I didn't even know you where on it. By the way that sounds like a nice way to spend the holiday.
I didn't even know there was a way to make things private on facebook, I didn't even know you where on it. By the way that sounds like a nice way to spend the holiday.
The singing kinda sounds like a spice girls song, not sure if that is a good or bad thing
funny video.
Sounds like an interesting post is forthcoming! Much better than my recent lack of posting...