|
Post by arietty on Apr 16, 2009 21:59:15 GMT -5
I tried to post about this on the thread but there is no reply option. Hope it is okay to start a new thread.
I read waaaaay too much online (as do you all I'm sure, LOL). One thing that pains me greatly is to read the comments on news sites and blogs about big families in the news. The Duggars, Nadya Suleman.. if you've read these 10's of thousands of comments you will know what I speak of. Pure Venom directed at these families, venom, ridicule and rage. How dare anyone have a bunch of kids when there is a recession on!!! You would think you would get away with it if you were rich but people love to hate on Angelina Jolie too and accuse her of kid collecting. The Duggars are seen outside of Christian blogs as freaks, lets just talk about Michelle's vagina in the most derogatory fashion, she asked for it etc..
I was extremely upset at the hatred directed at Nadya Suleman. I kept thinking, what if that was me? What if we'd decided to have another baby (a 9nth) and ended up with multiples which are more common with age? NO ONE would have any sympathies for me because I had had the nerve to go back and make MORE children after already having 8 children. I have heard such disgust and "well she asked for this" attitude towards large families that have a baby with Down's Syndrome or severe health problems.
The Quiverfull book is a wonderful read and I'm glad it's out there. It's gotten a lot of online coverage, as have the Duggars and Ms. Suleman. Sometimes I *do* feel I am now in the firing line for having a big family and I am not always keen to reveal it in some forums. People don't see you, they see your "clown car vagina" to quote a particularly odious joke about Michelle Duggar.
I'll be interested to see where this goes. I think the hostility has definitely gone up a notch.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Apr 16, 2009 22:22:58 GMT -5
I agree with you that the clown car comment about Michelle Duggar is pretty mean, not to mention anatomically inaccurate (surely they mean "uterus") and the term "Octomom" is condescending as well. And on the other end of the spectrum, those of us with only one child get a lot of criticism, too, and as for those without kids, I really feel sorry for them - not because they don't have children (unless they really wanted them but couldn't have them for some reason), but because they are targets of criticism, too.
The world is full of critics. There isn't some magic path you can follow that will make you immune to it.
I once read an article about the actress Mary Martin. She talked about advice she had received from her father. When she was in school, she had a classmate who was constantly criticizing her. Her father told her to ask herself if the criticism was true. If so, she should learn from it. If not, she should ignore it. At the time I read this I was young and thought her dad was being pretty cold, but as I grew I realized the value of his advice and took it to heart.
Another relevant anecdote - author Dorothy Canfield Fisher tells of addressing a group of high school students. One of them asked her how she felt when people didn't like her. She replied that there are always going to be people who dislike you for exactly the same traits that make other people like you. She went on to say that she could tell by the look on the questioner's face that it never occurred to him that people might dislike him. She added that looking around the room, "I could see I had brought the bad news to every one of them".
|
|
linnea
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by linnea on Apr 16, 2009 22:45:17 GMT -5
I read waaaaay too much online
Not me! No sir!
. . . . um, actually, one of the things I've been reading too much about is Nadya Suleman, and I think she's kind of a different case. IMHO, she's clearly delusional about her ability to care for her children, besides being completely self-absorbed and guided only by attention-seeking. And she had an unethical doctor who violated the standard protocol, thereby putting both her and her children at risk. It's a situation that never should have happened.
But that said, you're right, she doesn't deserve the kind of hostility that's directed at her. I just feel sorry for her kids.
It's an unfortunate part of our culture that anyone who's in the public eye is seen as fair game for all sorts of criticism (especially anonymously, on the internet).
I must admit that I've seen that comment on Michelle Duggar before, without ever thinking of how offensive it is. And I'm tempted to say, well, she does flaunt her family on TV, so she should expect comments (sort of like how politicians are caricatured). I hadn't thought of how that reflects on other large families, who aren't putting themselves in the public eye.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Apr 17, 2009 0:02:45 GMT -5
reading too much online..? who...? me...? noooo.... :-p
anyway, Both people with very many kids, and people with none, get labeled selfish, and I don't think it's really worse for either side. And most of the time, the people throwing the insults are just assholes.
On the other hand, there's reasons why having many kids is getting more and more frowned upon. We have over 8 billion people and counting in the world; we're running out of farmland, living-space, food, water, non-renewable resources, and even resources that are technically renewable. Everywhere in the world, people are working on stabilizing both the population-growth and the diminishing of resources.
From that perspective, having more than 2-4 children is basically seen as a selfish, irresponsible desire which will cause the exponential growth in population, (since those children will likely have children eventually too) and resource depletion. and at that point it doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, since even the rich can't make their own water, food, metal, oil, etc...
why they bitch about people who adopt, is beyond me though... adoptions are actually the best way to go about having a large family and not add to our unsustainable growth.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Apr 17, 2009 0:17:43 GMT -5
I think some of the concern is about adopting from other countries. I remember when Madonna adopted a child from I forget where there was a lot of discussion about whether she had used her celebrity to bypass that country's laws about foreign adoptions.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Apr 17, 2009 1:25:23 GMT -5
I think some of the concern is about adopting from other countries. I remember when Madonna adopted a child from I forget where there was a lot of discussion about whether she had used her celebrity to bypass that country's laws about foreign adoptions. aaah, ok, that makes sense. I vaguely remember there being a lawsuit against her because of that, too.
|
|
|
Post by justflyingin on Apr 17, 2009 4:59:09 GMT -5
I think some of the concern is about adopting from other countries. I remember when Madonna adopted a child from I forget where there was a lot of discussion about whether she had used her celebrity to bypass that country's laws about foreign adoptions. aaah, ok, that makes sense. I vaguely remember there being a lawsuit against her because of that, too. I think it had to do with the fact that the biological father was against it, but the child's mother signed the child away. (but the biological father couldn't care for the child, either.) I wish they would let international adoptions go through a lot easier. Many people would love to adopt and have room in their hearts and pocketbooks for lots of kids but they can't afford the adoption fees and rigamarole that they have to jump through in order to get the kids.
|
|
|
Post by justflyingin on Apr 17, 2009 5:05:46 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Posted by arietty on Yesterday at 8:59pm was extremely upset at the hatred directed at Nadya Suleman. I kept thinking, what if that was me? What if we'd decided to have another baby (a 9nth) and ended up with multiples which are more common with age? NO ONE would have any sympathies for me because I had had the nerve to go back and make MORE children after already having 8 children.[/glow]
I don't think there would be the same reaction. Not if you are paying your own way. I personally think if the government has to provide everything for you because you can't afford anything, then the government may have the right to tie your tubes as well!
I think what frustrated me is that she appears to be "bent on making the system work for her". IOW, she has several of her little ones on Social Security disability, already, thus providing her with an income until they are turn 18, and with these 8, probably most of them will have some health problems. They can then be put on Social Security disability and that provided with royalties from a book and tv appearances, she is set with an income.
The trauma of having 8 tiny babies day in and day out, however, would be very high. Stress level would be "way up there." Maybe she is a very laid back personality!
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on Apr 17, 2009 6:31:20 GMT -5
Hm, well, since I was the one who used the "clown car" reference for Michelle Duggar I think I'd better explain where I'm coming from and why, though it was certainly uncharitable of me, I'm not really sorry or rather that I think Michelle Duggar (though not her children) is fair game.
Let me back up and say that things people say on large anonymous boards about, say, Nadya Suleyman are generally pure unadulterated spite regardless of who they are about. The comment section associated with newspaper articles are generally a sewer of unintrospective, racist, sexist bile.
And that is something that simply can't be ignored when discussing the generic contrast between Michelle Duggar's treatment by the public and Nadya Suleyman. One is seen as "white," "upper class," "clean," "well organized," "productive," "maternal," generous, etc... while the other is seen as exactly the opposite. Nadya Suleyman is seen as non white, out of control, unmarried, undominated by a man, disorganized, unproductive, lower class. etc...etc...etc... In addition there is always a kind of backlash against copy cat behavior. While Michelle Duggars et al are seen as authentic and original, Nadya Suleyman is seen as derivative, imitative, manipulative, fake.
And there are good reasons for those contrasts to be drawn because they really reflect something that is clearly going on with the two mothers. But whence comes the judgement?
Well, Nadya Suleyman specifically comes in for a ton of judgment because she willfully choose to bring children into the world that she knew she didn't have the mental, physical, moral, or sheer maternal skill to parent. And not only that she went and did it again after landing herself with enough children to overwhelm a better mother. She's no different than a woman who abandoned her first children to have the others. She's delusional, vapid, manipulative and will be a terrible parent for those children. There's simply no question about that.
Michelle Duggar seems to me to be just as materialistic, exploitative, manipulative and quite likely quite as bad a mother but in a different more acceptable way. One reason why its socially acceptable, of course, is her echt whiteness and the fake bourgeous capitalism of it all. That is, the pretense that she and her husband are entirely paying for (and capable of paying for) all those children. And that's harmful because to the extent those kids don't need social services they aren't more meritorious than kids who do and pretending that women and their families don't need help sometimes--paid childbirth services, educational therapies, speech therapy, public school, etc... does tremendous harm to struggling families who are made ashamed that those things aren't "really necessary" or are "just like welfare" or are "socialistic" and "unbiblical."
On the larger point--should people make fun of Duggar or Suleyman or what does it mean that they do? Well, I have a feeling I'd like to share (very carefully.) Reading everyone's story here has reminded me that there are about a gazillion ways to be a christian in America and that many people go in and out of fairly small congregations and churches and don't really see themselves as part of a larger christian movement (the dominionists, for example, or the Dobson wing, or whatever). But for the rest of us, the serious non christians in this country, we are coming out from under years of scorn and contumely from self identified Christians with a capital C like Rick Warren, Dobson, Buchanan, Falwell, etc...etc...etc...
Personally, I've seen myself as a woman, a Jew, an Atheist, a Liberal, a Feminist, a sexual person, a mother, a Democrat told that my life and marriage were not good enough by hundreds of public figures among whom, in her way, I place Duggar. For the last eight years (if not longer) lots of people have had their sexuality made fun of, their families traduced, their children pilloried and all in the name of christian love. Kids have been kidnapped from school and sent to re-education camps because of their sexuality. They have been abandoned by their families because of their sexuality. Women who choose to limit their family size have been pilloried as abortionists, baby killers, a danger to society even if they haven't had an abortion while women who empty themselves of all ambition for their daughters and themselves are exalted as pure vessels of a higher power.
Nadya Suleyman came in for a lot of undeserved criticism because the far right had to grapple with the contradictions in their own public political position vis a vis "snowflake babies" and the notion of the fertilized cell as identical to a fully formed human being. If all those fertilized cells were already soul bearing human beings Nadya Suleyman ought to have been seen as utterly meritorious. In addition, she didn't even have the nasty sex! how pure is that? She was practically another virgin mary. But clearly she did it, though it was no sin, out of self love. She was some kind of demonic, hyper individualist, femi-nazi, or something. Watching the right wing tie itself into knots over Suelyman's perversity, her willingness to use tax dollars and overburden social services etc...etc... was a hoot. In Utah, CA, AZ, Nevada and Texas right wing Christianist polygamous groups like the Warren Jeffs patriarchal cult have subsisted for years on government hand outs which pay for their second and third wives and families. Its called "bleeding the beast" and its considered quite meritorioius as long as the people receiving the welfare checks are white women and their husbands and multi families in the name of some kind of patriarchal god.
All of this isnt to say that I'm not sorry I quoted TBogg making that joke about MIchelle. I am. But its to say that it comes out of a deep wound about the role such women play in subjugating and rendering difficult the lives of other non christian women.
aimai
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Apr 17, 2009 9:15:24 GMT -5
Who is the "they"? The countries from whom the children will be adopted? Those countries have a responsibility toward children who are potential adoptees. Once a child is in a foreign country, her original homeland no longer has access to monitor her well being. If those countries aren't strict about the "rigamarole" that potential adoptive parents have to go through to adopt a child, they aren't safeguarding the child's interests.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Apr 17, 2009 19:11:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pandapaws on Apr 18, 2009 13:41:02 GMT -5
As a person going through IVF, I'd like to comment on Nadya Suleman.
While I agree hating on her really doesn't do any good there are some good reasons to be annoyed by her actions and her doctor. She had 6 kids already through IVF. So we know IVF has worked for her. Putting back 6 embryos (that's the number they claim they put back and two split to become 2 sets of twins) in someone under 35, who has successfully had previous IVF pregnancies is POOR JUDGMENT. My clinic will only put back 2 embryos if you are under 35 and they are very strict about this. The doctor shouldn't have done this. He put the mother and the babies at risk. We still don't know if the babies will have any life long problems from this, and I hope they don't. It was a bad idea all around and I hope they escape any ill side effects from being born so early, it will be a miracle.
I know Suleman claims they put 6 back every time but I don't believe her. I think she has a few screws loose.
I don't hate her, she just gives infertility treatments a bad name. They can be done responsibly and most of the time they are.
|
|
mary
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by mary on Apr 18, 2009 19:15:04 GMT -5
I don't hate Nadya Suleman. I just think she's a crackpot. The bottom line is that her kids are going to suffer because she's a narcissistic attention junkie.
And she's trademarking the name "Octomom," so I guess she isn't finding it derogatory.
I also don't hate big families. At all. I just think people should be sensible about what they can reasonably handle.
Nadya Suleman purposefully set out to have IVF, with supposedly 6 embryos (which only time will tell I suppose), when she already had 6 children, no steady income, and soon no place to live. She is worthy of contempt.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Apr 18, 2009 20:44:57 GMT -5
Nadya Suleman purposefully set out to have IVF, with supposedly 6 embryos (which only time will tell I suppose), when she already had 6 children, no steady income, and soon no place to live. She is worthy of contempt. So what about the QF mom who has an unemployed husband, is on whatever welfare they qualify for and goes ahead and has an 8th kids? Or 10nth kid as one woman I was on a list with did? There are a LOT of QF families living in poverty, a QF list I was on that was private did a survey once as to who was on benefits of some kind and it was the majority. Are these women worth of contempt? What about a woman having another baby with an abuser? Is she worthy of contempt? If Suleman had had a husband I am quite sure the negative attention would have been a much shorter lived news event. I think there would have been more focus on the doctor. People really do love to hate her (or have contempt, to use the nicer word). When she was on welfare she was hated for that but every single thing she's done to earn money has been used against her and earned her contempt. Man if I had octuplets I'd be gong on Dr. Phil too, I would be doing as many interviews as I could while the interest was hot to get some money in the bank for the future when on one cared. When she lived in a teeny house people were disgusted, when she bought a bigger house people were still disgusted because she had to money to do so. There is literally nothing she can do that will not earn her disapproval. Anyway I don't think purposefully setting out to have a seventh child when you are single and of dubious financial status is any different than purposefully conceiving *another* baby in a QF family that is poor. Some of these QF families are living in trailers and tents, one of the Above Rubies daughters had like 9 kids in a ONE room house. Just picture any of those families and remove the husband from the equation--suddenly it's a full scale horror show worthy of a nations outrage. And yet frankly many of the husbands are quite useless. There's plenty of QF families where the mom has a home business that, while she presents it as just a little Prov 31 thing is actually the main or only income for the family. The father is chronically unemployed or even better, an evangelist doing God's work which translates into him doing whatever he wants and earning nothing. But it's his ministry of course so it's laudable, HAHA. At least Suleman is marketable, contempt pays.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Apr 18, 2009 21:02:31 GMT -5
So what about the QF mom who has an unemployed husband, is on whatever welfare they qualify for and goes ahead and has an 8th kids? Or 10nth kid as one woman I was on a list with did? There are a LOT of QF families living in poverty, a QF list I was on that was private did a survey once as to who was on benefits of some kind and it was the majority. Are these women worth of contempt? What about a woman having another baby with an abuser? Is she worthy of contempt? there's choices and "choices". Is a QF mom contemptible for having many kids while in poverty? no. is QF contemptible for promoting such untenable baby-making? yes. Is an abused woman contemptible for having babies? no. Is the emotional and physical abuse that makes her remain in that situation contemptible? yes. so, what is it that forced Nadya Suleman to have that many babies? unless she suffers some mental disease like narcissism or something similar, it was indeed her free choice to do this(as far as I can tell). And using your children to feed your need for attention, or even MAKING babies to feed your need for attention, that IS contemptible. And maybe so are our modern paparazzi-like media, for buying right into people's fame-cravings.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 18, 2009 21:50:13 GMT -5
So what about the QF mom who has an unemployed husband, is on whatever welfare they qualify for and goes ahead and has an 8th kids? Or 10nth kid as one woman I was on a list with did? There are a LOT of QF families living in poverty, a QF list I was on that was private did a survey once as to who was on benefits of some kind and it was the majority. Are these women worth of contempt? What about a woman having another baby with an abuser? Is she worthy of contempt? there's choices and "choices". Is a QF mom contemptible for having many kids while in poverty? no. is QF contemptible for promoting such untenable baby-making? yes. Is an abused woman contemptible for having babies? no. Is the emotional and physical abuse that makes her remain in that situation contemptible? yes. so, what is it that forced Nadya Suleman to have that many babies? unless she suffers some mental disease like narcissism or something similar, it was indeed her free choice to do this(as far as I can tell). And using your children to feed your need for attention, or even MAKING babies to feed your need for attention, that IS contemptible. And maybe so are our modern paparazzi-like media, for buying right into people's fame-cravings. so... both equally bad actions but the question is where goes the blame? For the QF or abused woman, the blame goes to the "system" and for the Octomom she gets it? It's a rational distinction but I think the doctor needs more blame. From one thing I found he was using her to up his "success" rates over the years, he had a small practice and sometimes she provided a significant portion of his "successful" births he used to market his practice to others. So... maybe again we can decry the completely irresponsible behavior but perhaps point the blame again somewhere other than the person who will live in this mess for the next 18 years...
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Apr 18, 2009 23:09:37 GMT -5
well, this is why I added the "(as far as I know)" to my comment, since I don't follow this story very closely.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Apr 18, 2009 23:42:11 GMT -5
I think there's a big difference between "contempt" and "disapproval". Contempt doesn't help anyone. It's ugliness looking for a victim. That does not mean that we have to be approving of all actions.
I disapprove of Nadya Suleman's actions. I disapprove of deliberately having children that cannot be supported or properly cared for. I disapprove of deliberate pregnancy on welfare. I disapprove of deliberate pregnancy in an abusive situation. Then there are many other actions that I don't outright disapprove of, but I think are not the best choices.
I don't think that name-calling and displays of hatred are at all the right way to deal with those things, but I think that it is good to be able to express disapproval of certain behaviors. I have no problem with judging them as bad choices and not being sympathetic toward those who make them.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Apr 19, 2009 1:41:06 GMT -5
I for one am tired of the media obsession with this woman. I think the doctor ought to have been given way more scrutiny. He's not under the spell of baby lust or mental illness of some sort and should have been the one to put the brakes on when a woman who is not able to support the many children she already has comes and asks for more.
She ought to get some kind of treatment for feeling like she "needs" this many children as a single parent. I just don't see how a single parent can take on so many children and provide anything like the quality care they ought to get. I would feel the same way about anyone choosing more children in a similarly harsh environment--I'd want them to get counseling to get to the root cause of their wanting to do that.
However, I think our public scorn as a society has little to do with that and more to do with our own economic insecurities right now. I think a lot of the anger over bailouts is getting thrown her way. People have an exaggerated notion of the percentage of their tax dollars going to welfare. It's a tiny fraction compared to corporate subsidies (even before the bailouts) or farm subsidies or our defense budget. I am much happier to help support a woman and her kids with tax dollars than I am to support some of the other things our money goes to.
|
|
|
Post by pandapaws on Apr 19, 2009 6:45:19 GMT -5
However, I think our public scorn as a society has little to do with that and more to do with our own economic insecurities right now. I think a lot of the anger over bailouts is getting thrown her way. People have an exaggerated notion of the percentage of their tax dollars going to welfare. It's a tiny fraction compared to corporate subsidies (even before the bailouts) or farm subsidies or our defense budget. I am much happier to help support a woman and her kids with tax dollars than I am to support some of the other things our money goes to. I agree. And I agree the doctor is the one to blame. He should have known better than to put 6 embryos back. He has to treat everyone the same so whether or not she already has 6 kids he can't make a judgment call on that. But he could limit the amount of embryos he transferred because it becomes a health concern for the mother and babies. I can't stand when people complain about tax dollars going to welfare or children's health care. How can you complain about giving kids health care? Personally, I'd be willing to pay more in taxes so EVERYONE could have health coverage. I believe it is a right, not a privilege.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 19, 2009 10:42:25 GMT -5
I can't stand when people complain about tax dollars going to welfare or children's health care. How can you complain about giving kids health care? Personally, I'd be willing to pay more in taxes so EVERYONE could have health coverage. I believe it is a right, not a privilege. AMEN! Apparently it's all fine to destroy lives, military and Iraqi, but those same people are incensed if anyone suggests that living is a basic right without which no one could exercise any other... Health care is vitally important and it's not like you can do without it for awhile while you shop around... so it's rife for price gouging and such.
|
|
kay
Junior Member
A fool hath no dialogue within himself, the first thought carrieth him without the reply of a second
Posts: 75
|
Post by kay on Apr 19, 2009 21:18:44 GMT -5
And she's trademarking the name "Octomom," so I guess she isn't finding it derogatory. I wanted to mention this as well. It's hard to feel bad calling her "Octomom" when she is personally trademarking it. I just can't shake the feeling that she is completely taking advantage of the entire scenario, possibly without having much concern for her children.
|
|
|
Post by justflyingin on Apr 21, 2009 2:27:38 GMT -5
Nadya Suleman purposefully set out to have IVF, with supposedly 6 embryos (which only time will tell I suppose), when she already had 6 children, no steady income, and soon no place to live. She is worthy of contempt. So what about the QF mom who has an unemployed husband, is on whatever welfare they qualify for and goes ahead and has an 8th kids? Or 10nth kid as one woman I was on a list with did? There are a LOT of QF families living in poverty, a QF list I was on that was private did a survey once as to who was on benefits of some kind and it was the majority. . I think if they are going to be "consistent" they should not be on government benefits. It is a farce to claim to trust God with birth control and not trust him with your groceries. The Bible teaches that the husband is to provide for his family. If he doesn't, he is worse than an infidel. This means he needs to provide for his family. For those who take the "absolutely no b/c" route which is based on biblical applications, they dare not ignore a direct "command" which is to the fathers to provide. I also had to get off a yahoo group because I couldn't stand it the inconsistencies. One lady who was wearing a head covering to show her submission was trying to figure out how to seduce her husband during the right time of the month because she wanted more kids but he didn't. (good example of submission, huh?) I was aghast. I couldn't stand it, and they didn't allow too much disagreement in that group. I left.
|
|
|
Post by justflyingin on Apr 21, 2009 2:35:27 GMT -5
If I truly believed that they were caring for the individual, I'd be convinced. Unfortunately, it appears to me to be often more about religions, money, etc. Remember after the tidal wave in Malasia, was it? Many people wanted to adopt the kids who were left without parents, but they called a halt. At least in Poland, they still do let people adopt internationally. I'm not against them being careful. They need to be. But, if someone from the US, for example, wants to adopt an orphan in China, for instance, I think it is great (even if the child is being adopted is being put in a religion I don't like). Why am I glad? Well, I can't help but think that in the U.S. there will be many chances that this child would never have had in their own country. The same goes for the Ukraine, or Poland, for that matter. In the Ukraine, the kids in the orphanages are poor. By comparison, our children's homes in Poland are quite well off, I'm sure. We've been able to host a couple of people who have recently adopted from the Ukraine and stopped here on their way back to the states while they got paperwork done at the embassy in Warsaw. I could wish that anyone wanting a child in the US could just come over here and get them. There see to be so many kids over who don't have parents. Your heart would break if you could see it, too, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by charis on Apr 21, 2009 9:00:09 GMT -5
I think if they are going to be "consistent" they should not be on government benefits. It is a farce to claim to trust God with birth control and not trust him with your groceries. The Bible teaches that the husband is to provide for his family. If he doesn't, he is worse than an infidel. This means he needs to provide for his family. For those who take the "absolutely no b/c" route which is based on biblical applications, they dare not ignore a direct "command" which is to the fathers to provide. We were on WIC which provides milk, juice, cheese, peanut butter, and cereal. We were also on medicaid several times. And when we transitioned to public school, my children qualified for free lunch and breakfast which we accepted. What really irritates me about those who would criticize us for accepting government benefits for which we legitimately and legally qualify is that they strike me as hypocrites because they accept government benefits. For example, if social security was not taken out of our paycheck, I think we could buy plenty of peanut butter on our own dime. Present retirees get far more than they put in, so they are not "providing for their own", my tax dollars provide for them. Where are the folks who are turning down social security benefits? How many of the critics will turn down a PELL grant from Uncle Sam for junior's education. How is taking a PELL grant acceptable and taking food and medical care not? How is using tax funded schooling justified? If we did not have to pay a big chunk of property taxes to support the local public school, we could have put that money toward health care costs. There is no way that we have gotten back from "the system" as much as we have paid cumulatively in taxes... but we are probably catching up fast now that we have 5 children in public school (they say it costs 13K annually for each one's education which is absolutely mind boggling- can we quit pointing the finger at QF home schooling mothers who use WIC for "wasting tax dollars"? Maybe we should reward them instead for "saving tax dollars" by homeschooling?)
|
|