i also think it's ludicrous that Michael Phelps got suspended yesterday for smoking pot. for reals? what's wrong with people? maybe he should have been a little more aware of cameras in the area before he inhaled, but come on—he's twenty-three! just because he broke a bunch of swimming records doesn't make him above the normal stupid stuff kids do. i just think, with everything else going on right now, to make an example of him in this way is a wee bit insane.
but what i really, really want to vent about is Nadya Suleman. i wasn't going to share my two cents about her until i heard that a big reason why she decided to have so many babies is because she was an only child and felt she lacked "certain connections" growing up that way. and now i just cannot keep my mouth shut.
first of all—i grew up an only and had a fabulous time. i had a vivid imagination, loving parents and a boatload of friends. i grew up knowing how to be self-sufficient and OK with being on my own when necessary. of course i have some of the hang-ups all onlies have, but they're no more severe or bothersome than the hang-ups anyone has based on their birth order.
my point is—even if, for the sake of argument, we say that Ms. Suleman had a crap childhood for various reasons, that is not a reason to have eight more children when you already have six under the age of seven—and especially not when the eight new ones are in need of serious medical attention and probably will be for many years.
it just makes me angry. i've ranted about this before, i know. but so many people don't think before they have children. they go, "ooh, i'll have a baby!" and they make it about themselves. "ooh, i'll be a mommy" or "ooh, i'll be a daddy" and that's where the train of thought ends.
it seems to me that taking on the responsibility of parenthood is simply about ensuring that the human being you create will—at the very least—not be a detriment to society someday. at best, you hope they will do something good in the world, whether it's winning a Nobel prize or being a really great friend to someone.
kids are not something you own. they're not created to make you feel better or complete or purposeful. they are human beings. and if you do it right, they only depend on you for a small fraction of their lives anyway. if you're that empty or that sad or that lonely—get a dog! get a friend! get a hobby!
actually, Nancy Snyderman summed it up perfectly this morning in an interview. "when you lack a connection in childhood you go see a therapist," she said. "you don't have fourteen babies."
i was actually thinking the other day that all pregnant women should probably have a psych evaluation when they first see their ob/gyn or have their first ultrasound. if the evaluation doesn't go so well, they should be required to seek help on a regular basis throughout the pregnancy. i know this breaks all kinds of privacy rights and civil liberties and whatnot, but seriously—i've said it before—you can't drive without a license, and if you do, you're in big trouble. you can't own guns without a license and if you do, you cause big trouble and you're in big trouble. if you get married without a license, it's not legal.
but there are absolutely no laws to prevent anyone from becoming parents, and that baffles me. absolutely baffles me.
i'm reading this book right now called The Gathering. it's fiction and it's a little twisted, but it's about a big Irish family. a big, troubled Irish family. and the whole book is basically the narrator railing against her parents for being so irresponsible and having so many damn kids. because she and all her siblings have been done a disservice, growing up so lost in a crowd of names and faces. a part i read this morning struck me as so true—she said it's always the same with big families—one always dies, one's always a drunk, one's always mad. i obviously have limited experience with big families myself, but the experience i do have is very similar to that description.
and that's what i keep thinking about regarding Ms. Suleman. fine, she's got all these kids now and she's going to love them all, and without any help, but there is only one of her, and fourteen of them, and they all need a lot of attention in order to thrive. the great irony—the real sadness, actually—in this situation is that her kids will probably grow up feeling the same way she felt growing up—lacking a connection.
and, as she's proven in such a mind-boggling way, kids who don't feel loved enough or safe enough or truly cared about can grow up to do odd things. irresponsible things.
if i were one of her kids, i would seriously question why she chose to have me (and all my freaking siblings) when the deck is so very stacked against her—she doesn't have a job, she doesn't have a partner, she obviously doesn't have a very strong or supportive family. she's just setting her kids up for a life of struggle, in my blunt opinion. and i find that extremely selfish.
she does, however, have an agent and possible book and TV deals.
awesome.
mb
Posts
