Train Keeps a Rollin'

In the ongoing train wreck saga that is Nadya Suleman, there is certainly no shortage of material to write about. Where do I start?

In this interview with Ann Curry of the Today Show, Suleman defends herself against her many critics. Apparently (and not surprisingly), the primary thrust of anger directed at Suleman concerns the fact that despite having no job and 6 children already to support, she deliberately set out to have an entire brood of additional children with no means to support them, leaving the expense to the taxpayers. Interestingly, in her first interview with Ann Curry, Suleman had stated she and her children do not receive welfare, however it has since come to light that she receives food stamps as well as a total of $1,800 per month in SSI payments for her autistic son and 2 other children with disabilities (said disabilities, by the way, are more likely in multiple births - another reason it is selfish to be implanted with multiple embryos).

Suleman's explanation? "I am not living off of any taxpayer money. If I am - if it is food stamps - it's a temporary resource. We receive no cash and it's every month - about $190 - and it's going for food."

Excuse me? So in one sentence she states she is not living off taxpayer money, yet she states she receives food stamps. Who does she think pays for said food stamps?

She then goes on to defend herself against statements made by her own mother who claimed that Nadya is incapable of of caring for 14 children. Nadya's response? "What human in this planet is capable to take care of 14 independently without support from family, from friends, from church!?"

Precisely! This is exactly why a jobless, broke, single mother with 6 kids has no business having 8 more!

Let me ask you a question, Nadya. Did you consult with your family, friends and church members before you voluntarily got implanted with a multitude of embryos to ascertain whether they were willing or interested in "helping" you with a new litter of 8 children? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps people have their own lives to live, their own spouses and/or children to care for? Maybe they would like to focus on them. Maybe they would like to attend to their own families, instead of sacrificing their time, money and effort to accommodate your selfish desire for a boatload of kids that you have no means to support or care for.

Suleman says (with a chuckle) that we've all heard the saying "it takes a village to raise a child. Well, this will take a lot of villages!"

Thanks, Nadya, for volunteering us all to take care of the problems you've created.

Despite her desire for the villagers to rally together to tend to her family, she simultaneously holds the view that people should not "dissect" her life or make judgements about it. "It's really kind of sick because I think people really need to focus on their own lives...and stop trying to fixate on other people. I think that's unfortunate for them."

Good point, Nadya. Actually, we'd like to focus on our own lives, but since you recruited us villagers to raise your children, our focus has understandably shifted to you.

On a separate, but related issue, I pose a question to you today. How is it that someone who has no job, lives at home with her parents, has a boatload of children to support and is living off of food stamps, disability payments and student loans, can afford to have substantial plastic surgery costing (according to one plastic surgeon) in the area of $20,000? Don't know what I am talking about? Check out these 2 photos of Suleman - one from a few years ago and a recent photo - and tell me if anything looks suspicious to you:

Let's connect the dots here. Could it be that her obsession with having children has been fueled (or exacerbated) by the rampant pronatalist glorification and worship of breeding and motherhood in the media? Could it be that Suleman craves the adoration heaped upon the Queen-of-all-prolific-Mothers, Angelina Jolie?

I have written quite a bit about the danger of media pronatalism and this is the ultimate example of what can happen to people who get whisked away on the pronatalist train as it careens down the tracks.

(I don't blame Angelina, by the way. She is apparently just as creeped out by Suleman as the rest of us.)

Sad, Regretful Baby-less Celebs

Today I thought it would be interesting to spend a little time on the despicable way the media promotes the message that motherhood is the ultimate fulfilment in life and women who opt out of motherhood are destined to a life of unhappiness and regret. Of course, you, my childfree friends and sympathizers, and me know this message is complete and utter hogwash and recognize it as part of the rampant pronatalism designed to keep women bound to their reproductive roles at the expense of other fulfilling endeavors. We are completely innundated with this message from every direction, every second of our lives, but magazine covers like this illustrate it so blantantly and obnoxiously, they just beg for discussion.

I came across this magazine this morning while waiting in line at the supermarket. Just look at the cover...a small off-to-the-side photo of a despondent-looking Jennifer Aniston looking away wisftully as the caption reads, "39 & Wishing she'd had Brad's Babies". Her hair is stringy and she's not looking her best. Meanwhile, a beautiful, radiant and obviously deliriously happy Angelina Jolie, gets a huge, center-stage photo. Her photo triumphs over Jen's and she looks the most beautiful she ever has. Her caption reads, "Angie's Joy, Jen's Pain...After 3 years, ANGELINA'S got it all While JEN'S Still Tortured by "the Woman who Ruined my Life and Keeps Wondering What if..."

Ever since Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt broke up, rumor has had it that their break-up was due to their differences on having children - Brad wanted them, Jen did not. Whether this rumor is true or not doesn't matter. What's interesting is that underneath all this focus on Jen and Brad's breakup, and Angie's subsequent reign as Goddess Mother, is this message:

"See, Jen. This is what you get for being a selfish bitch and not fulfilling your duties as a woman. You wanted it all, didn't you? You wanted to have fun in the sun, pursue your acting career, be caught up in all the Hollywood glamour and be a big hot shot, maybe make it big in the movies and you sacrificed having babies (horrors!!!) so you could be so self-centered! Well you got what you deserved because look - ANGELINA wasn't selfish - she had babies like she was supposed to and LOOK AT HER! She's more beautiful than you, she's far happier, a bigger star than you AND she got BRAD PITT! What do YOU have? You're still single and can't seem to keep a man and now you're sorry, aren't you? You are a sad, pathetic excuse for a woman!"

Oh, and while we're here, let's also take notice of the rest of the this magazine cover because the Angie and Jen story apparently wasn't enough baby-obsessing for OK Magazine this month. We have Jamie Lynn Spears and her beau with the caption "Ready for Baby" (a pretty upbeat tone, don't you think, considering she's 16, unmarried and pregnant?) and underneath, a smily photo of Anna Nicole's daughter and her father, Larry Birkhead, showing that even when mommy celebrities are dead, we must still obsess over their babies.

So in addition to providing enough disgust to make me want to barf up my breakfast today, magazine covers like this beg the question...is there NOTHING ELSE going on in the celebrity world other than the glorification of breeding? Are the stars capable of nothing more interesting to entertain us than screwing and popping out their spawn?

And the scariest question of all: Who's responsible for this fixation on celebrity breeding? Is it the media, or is it US?