Above is one of the misogynous comments etched with venomous guile, like a scarlet letter, across a media image of Nadya Suleman. She is facing a particular form of contempt, a rage reserved for the woman who has the audacity to have many children without f*cking or living with a man. "Bad Mom Legacy" indeed! How dare she have children without having sex with "the father", or at least having the patriarchally correct decency to pretend to rely on "one man" for support?!A follow-up on the post below:
One of the things I like about blogging, as opposed to publishing via a press or periodical, is that I retain the ability to adjust things, should adjustments be necessary, to clarify a thought or position. Such was the case with the last post, on Nadya Suleman.
But, not only did I revise the piece, I also then reposted it without the "Read more" link at the bottom, leading to, uhhh, the rest of the piece.
I can't guarantee there will be no more changes to that piece but I can assure you that as of right now, the whole piece is available to be read! (Below.)
END OF POST.
Julian,
ReplyDeleteI noticed this piece (I read your blog probably every day or nearly) and was reminded of conversations I've had about this subject with other people, all self-described feminists all highly critical of "Octomom" until the subtle or not-so-subtle effects of misogyny and patriarchal brainwashing was pointed out... I'm preaching to the choir here, but here's a recap of my arguments just to maybe brighten somebody's day.
I heart Nadya Suleman. Hearts! She is a champion of all women: a woman exercising her right to employ her uterus in the manner and at the time she sees fit. I was told she was bad and wrong because she is burdening whomever in her extended family, and replied: her mother / father / sisters / whomever do not and should not get a vote in the use of her uterus. If those people choose to extend their energy to assist in providing care for her children, that is a choice they are free to unmake. They receive plenty of my admiration and praise for doing so, but absolutely no sympathy - nobody is forcing them to participate. So there are already plenty of children in foster care - what does that have to do with Nadiya Suleiman's uterus? If we devolve into moralizing about the other poor children or what she should or should not have done - why don't YOU open YOUR home to some of them? She desperately wanted each and every one of her children - the first six as well - how many women enjoy the luxury wanting a pregnancy, let alone enjoy or exercise the self-determination she did in achieving and bringing these pregnancies to term? Bearing octuplets is a feat of physical prowess and strain worthy or exceeding Olympic proportions - an act of athleticism few would survive, let alone succeed at. And if there are already too many people on the planet, I rest assured most if not all of those children will grow up with no illusions about the consequences of having a large family.
Three cheers for Nadya Suleman and for women's self-determination in action.
Hi Miss Andrist,
ReplyDeleteI was stunned by the racist misogyny that was "delivered" her way, by many c-sections, with lots of verbal knives.
I wish people would come to understand what is and what is not our business.
Misogyny, racism, classism, homophobia, heterosexism, capitalist exploitation, sexual and wage slavery--all that ought to be our collective business to put out of business.
What Nadya Suleman does with her body and her children: not our business.