Article: Do We Only Like Large Families if They are White?

[maybeizfundie]

I'm very interested in the large families in Japan. That must be tough, not just practically but socially.

My Ethiopian husband is one of nine children. His mother then took in another little girl who she fostered for a while. She grew to love her and kept her to raise even though the fostering stipend ran out. They are extremely poor, so that was a serious sacrifice to do so.

Interestingly, growing up in a large family like that, in the middle of the severe kind of poverty most of us can't even wrap our minds around, hasn't put my husband off having bunches of children. Just hasn't happened as easily as we thought it would.

[MrsKay]

Okay, let me clarify a bit: First, I'm not racist, nor am I entirely white. Second, I apologize for commenting when going on fuck all for sleep. I don't get all of my views from the media. I'm talking about people who only go by what they see on television - I'm not one of those people, but I know a lot of them, and they assume that every person of color is like the women you see on Maury (just using that show as an example, since I don't watch much television, and that one is usually on when I do). They conveniently forget that plenty of white women are on there, too. They then take those views into the real world, which *I* do not do - sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Also, and forgive me if I don't word this properly since I still haven't slept, I did not mean to insinuate that I blame people of color for this, that they bring it onto themselves, or whatever. I apologize if I gave that impression. I meant that I would like to see more large families from different cultures putting themselves into the spotlight, as much as they feel comfortable, so that people can see that darker skin does not = welfare mom/dad. I understand why they'd feel reluctant to do so, given the way they're often treated, and I also understand that they can't control how the media chooses to portray different cultures on television. I was speaking mainly from frustration, wishing that there would be like some mass rebellion against the overload of big white families and too few families of color. Call it wishful thinking, that several big families of different cultures could just bombard TLC until a few of them were portrayed with equal attention and enthusiasm as the Duggars.

I hope that makes a bit more sense. I honestly meant no offense, and again, apologize for not being able to find the right words to express my thoughts.

[persuaded]

I do remember hearing about this family. IIRC, they were immigrants from Africa and lived in Texas.

I believe the reason this family hasn't been all over the airwaves is because they made the active choice to avoid media involvement... showing remarkably good sense in my opinion. They will occasionally (as in once every several years) do a brief interview, but basically they just aren't interested. So yeah. Smart folks and their kiddos are blessed.

I am the mother of 5 children, two lily-white bio kids, one Ethiopian child, one very dark-skinned black child and one lighter skinned mixed race child. When my husband was still with us and we'd go out with the kids, folks were unwaveringly warm and friendly.... I assume because it was obvious the children were adopted. Once he left and I'd be out and about with the children sans wedding ring, the difference in the way folks treated me was jarring. They were very condescending, often rude. It was quite an adjustment, I can tell you. For the past several years I have worn a headcovering and long skirts/dresses and I get a whole new set of reactions, lol. I am often met with confusion and some really weird questions/statements... sometimes people think I am a nun which makes me do this---> :D

[JesusFightClub]

Okay, let me clarify a bit: First, I'm not racist, nor am I entirely white. Second, I apologize for commenting when going on fuck all for sleep. I don't get all of my views from the media. I'm talking about people who only go by what they see on television - I'm not one of those people, but I know a lot of them, and they assume that every person of color is like the women you see on Maury (just using that show as an example, since I don't watch much television, and that one is usually on when I do).

Thanks MrsKay! I'm totally understanding where you are coming from now and I agree with a lot of what you say. :)

Want to write a bigger post on the issues you brought up but I also want to say thanks for clarifying.

[lilwriter85]

I do remember the African immigrant couple with octuplets. The father in that family was arrested for domestic violence and right after that they stopped talking to the media.

[valsa]

I do remember the African immigrant couple with octuplets. The father in that family was arrested for domestic violence and right after that they stopped talking to the media.

You are correct. He hit his 63 year old mother-in-law with a chair after she got in between him and his pregnant wife, three months before the babies were born.

[persuaded]

You are correct. He hit his 63 year old mother-in-law with a chair after she got in between him and his pregnant wife, three months before the babies were born.

Whoa... remember when I said those parents had good sense and the children were blessed?

Never mind. :shifty:

[lilwriter85]

Thanks valsa for posting about the mother-in-law incident. I couldn't remember exactly who the victim in DV incident was. I also remember people and organizations that offered to help the family with diapers and other supplies withdrew their offers when that incident became known to the public. Then the family stopped talking to the media completely.

[justlurking]

Thanks valsa for posting about the mother-in-law incident. I couldn't remember exactly who the victim in DV incident was. I also remember people and organizations that offered to help the family with diapers and other supplies withdrew their offers when that incident became known to the public. Then the family stopped talking to the media completely.

I find this to be sad. Regardless of the actions of the father, the children still needed diapers and supplies. These organizations basically punished the mother and babies because of the action(s) of the father. They sound almost as bad as the fundies and all their "moral requirements" to help people.

[valsa]

I'm sure that if the wife had left him, the companies probably would have reinstated the offers (and perhaps offered more)

I personally would never donate anything to a household headed by an abuser. While you may see it as a "punishment" towards the wife and kids, I have no obligation to give to and thus, from my point of view, tactically approve of the abuser. I will definitely give to help someone leave an abuser though.

[justlurking]

I'm sure that if the wife had left him, the companies probably would have reinstated the offers (and perhaps offered more)

I personally would never donate anything to a household headed by an abuser. While you may see it as a "punishment" towards the wife and kids, I have no obligation to give to and thus, from my point of view, tactically approve of the abuser. I will definitely give to help someone leave an abuser though.

Yes, you have no obligation to give, but that doesn't negate the fact that you are imposing your own moral requirements on someone else's life,and in this case, inadvertently punishing the victim--just like fundies. If fundies had their way, people who were gay, non-christian, feminist, whatever, would never receive any charity or support because they don't ascribe to the fundie way of thinking. Sure, fundies have no obligation to give to groups of people whose lifestyles they disagree with, but that doesn't always make their lack of charity "right".

That said, I don't see how giving things such as diapers, formula, and baby supplies are approving of an abuser. Those items support the people who need the support. I could understand not wanting to give the family money--especially if there was economic abuse and the husband controlled the family finances, but diapers???

[valsa]

Yes, you have no obligation to give, but that doesn't negate the fact that you are imposing your own moral requirements on someone else's life,and in this case, inadvertently punishing the victim--just like fundies. If fundies had their way, people who were gay, non-christian, feminist, whatever, would never receive any charity or support because they don't ascribe to the fundie way of thinking. Sure, fundies have no obligation to give to groups of people whose lifestyles they disagree with, but that doesn't always make their lack of charity "right".

That said, I don't see how giving things such as diapers, formula, and baby supplies are approving of an abuser. Those items support the people who need the support. I could understand not wanting to give the family money--especially if there was economic abuse and the husband controlled the family finances, but diapers???

The difference I see is that gays, non-Christians, feminists, etc aren't hurting anyone. The mother in this situation is, in a very real way, an accomplice to her husband when it comes to hurting her children. She stayed with a man who attacked her while she was pregnant with a VERY high risk pregancy and by staying with a man who is an abuser, she's exposing her children to, at the very least, future violence against her and/or her mother and, at worst, someone who will abuse them in the future.

[GenerationCedarchip]

Very true, I think. Children are a blessing - but only if they're born into the right families, as far as the fundies are concerned.. If children are born to the poor, the unwed, the gay couples, the remarried, the Latinos, the African-Americans....well, they're not blessings, they're symbols of irresponsible sex and bad choices.

It's funny how having many children is a blessing to so many on the religious right, but they get all pious about the fact that they shouldn't be asked to provide women with prenatal care or infant/childcare or financial assistance because after all, having children is a CHOICE! This, after working so hard for so many years to eliminate sex education, funding for birth control, and access to abortion.

Actually Stacy McDonald and her husband are "the remarried." They still seem to be accepted by the fundiest of fundies, though. She mentions this in various places on her blog, but IIRC she takes pains to make it clear that she and her husband were both innocent parties in their divorces.

[justlurking]

The difference I see is that gays, non-Christians, feminists, etc aren't hurting anyone. The mother in this situation is, in a very real way, an accomplice to her husband when it comes to hurting her children. She stayed with a man who attacked her while she was pregnant with a VERY high risk pregancy and by staying with a man who is an abuser, she's exposing her children to, at the very least, future violence against her and/or her mother and, at worst, someone who will abuse them in the future.

Well, fundies would beg to differ that gays, non-Christians, and feminists aren't hurting anyone. It's all relative according to whatever side you choose to stand on.

As for whether the mother is an accomplice in the matter, we will have to agree to disagree. We don't know the reason why she chose to stay with him, and we don't know if the "abuse" was an isolated event. The husband alone should be held responsible for his actions. Instead of refusing to support the mother and babies, perhaps these companies could have put some resources towards supporting DV organizations that help women leave their abusers or lobbying towards stricter laws which punish abusers.

As outsiders in any domestic violence situation, all you can/should do is give the victim the support and encouragement they need until they can make the decision to leave. I personally would never set up criteria that a victim must follow in order for me to give them the help they need.

[bananacat]

I simply cannot abide anyone blaming a victim for not leaving an abuser. If you think she could just walk away and take her kids with her, you are sadly mistaken and you need to seriously check your privilege. It is never a victim's fault that an abuser hurts other people too. If you think that she could divorce him and he'd never see the kids or her again, then you're naive, and that's the nicest term I can think of right now.

[valsa]

Well, fundies would beg to differ that gays, non-Christians, and feminists aren't hurting anyone.

They can also beg to differ when I say the sky isn't neon green, but that doesn't mean they aren't full of crap.

I simply cannot abide anyone blaming a victim for not leaving an abuser.

Sorry, but you'll have to abide it this time. Parents have an obligation to protect their children from harm. That obligation extends to protecting them from their other parent if that person is abusive. If that means leaving the other parent, so be it. If that means doing everything in their power to prevent bringing a child into an abusive situation in the first place (assuming their abusive partner hasn't taken control of their fertility options which, considering these children were concieved with the use of fertility drugs, I'm going to assume the wife had at least some control), so be it. If that means giving guardianship of the kids over to a relative or CPS, so be it.

The fact that one of the parents is being abused by the other does not, at all, invalidate the duty they have towards their children to protect them.

As for my priviledge- I grew up in an abusive household. I lived for over a month in a shelter for battered women as a child. I have also helped women who were leaving their abusive husbands. While it's true I've never been an abused romantic partner, I have been an abused child and a helper of abused women. I don't think I'm speaking from a place of priviledge.

[BlackHawk]

When Nadya Suleman had octuplets, I saw an interview on a news show with a black family that had had octuplets. They children were already in elementary school, and that was the first time I ever knew of their existence. The media made such a big freaking deal about the first sextuplets and septuplets, but both of those families were white. The first octuplets were black and didn't even make a ripple in the media. I couldn't avoid news of the Dilleys, yet I never heard about the first octuplets until another set were born. Anyone who thinks that's not racism is a deluded fool.

But I definitely think there's a large elemental of racism among Quiverfull families. Their stated goal is to outbreed other who aren't like them. It's partly about outbreeding other religious sects, but it's also about outbreeding other races (or just not being outbred by those other scary races that everyone says are taking over the country). And remember that race is somewhat tied to religion, so outbreeding Catholics would entail outbreed Latin-American people.

Do you mean the Chukwu octuplets? I heard all about them, from the day they were born. The reason, however, you don't hear them referenced is because, while they were the first set of live birth octuplets, one did not survive. I think people toe a line there. They don't want to say something stupid, so they say nothing at all. Because you did not hear about them does not mean they weren't covered.

[FloraDoraDolly]

Do you mean the Chukwu octuplets? I heard all about them, from the day they were born. The reason, however, you don't hear them referenced is because, while they were the first set of live birth octuplets, one did not survive. I think people toe a line there. They don't want to say something stupid, so they say nothing at all. Because you did not hear about them does not mean they weren't covered.

The media tends to portray multiples as miracle babies. If a baby dies or has a severe disability, the miracle story no longer works and so the media moves onto some other family. The Dilley sextuplets were unusual not only because there were six of them but also because all of the babies grew into healthy children. I noticed that the media stopped covering the McCaughey septuplets once it became obvious that a couple of the children had cerebral palsy. There was also a family on TLC a few seasons back that had a set of 'tuplets (I don't remember how many) and the one with the severe disability was seldom shown.

[bananacat]

They can also beg to differ when I say the sky isn't neon green, but that doesn't mean they aren't full of crap.

Sorry, but you'll have to abide it this time. Parents have an obligation to protect their children from harm. That obligation extends to protecting them from their other parent if that person is abusive. If that means leaving the other parent, so be it. If that means doing everything in their power to prevent bringing a child into an abusive situation in the first place (assuming their abusive partner hasn't taken control of their fertility options which, considering these children were concieved with the use of fertility drugs, I'm going to assume the wife had at least some control), so be it. If that means giving guardianship of the kids over to a relative or CPS, so be it.

The fact that one of the parents is being abused by the other does not, at all, invalidate the duty they have towards their children to protect them.

As for my priviledge- I grew up in an abusive household. I lived for over a month in a shelter for battered women as a child. I have also helped women who were leaving their abusive husbands. While it's true I've never been an abused romantic partner, I have been an abused child and a helper of abused women. I don't think I'm speaking from a place of priviledge.

If you think that the wife can just leave and take her children and she and the children will be safe from the father, then you're just plain stupid. There's no polite way to say it. It seems to me that your father was abusive and you've redirected your hatred toward your mother for not making him change. You need to hold your own father responsible and stop blaming your mother. And if your mother left and he just never bothered you again, then you are the luckiest abuse victim in the world, because it rarely works out that way. Every abuser I have known has spent all his time, energy, and money tracking down and making life miserable for all the victims who dared leave him.

[justlurking]

They can also beg to differ when I say the sky isn't neon green, but that doesn't mean they aren't full of crap.

Like I previously stated, it's all relative according to whatever side of the issue you stand on. The similarities, however, lie with the fact that each side thinks they are morally superior and that the other side is "full of crap". Just because you believe the way you do, doesn't necessarily make your opinion anymore right or wrong.

Sorry, but you'll have to abide it this time. Parents have an obligation to protect their children from harm. That obligation extends to protecting them from their other parent if that person is abusive. If that means leaving the other parent, so be it. If that means doing everything in their power to prevent bringing a child into an abusive situation in the first place (assuming their abusive partner hasn't taken control of their fertility options which, considering these children were concieved with the use of fertility drugs, I'm going to assume the wife had at least some control), so be it. If that means giving guardianship of the kids over to a relative or CPS, so be it.

The fact that one of the parents is being abused by the other does not, at all, invalidate the duty they have towards their children to protect them.

As for my priviledge- I grew up in an abusive household. I lived for over a month in a shelter for battered women as a child. I have also helped women who were leaving their abusive husbands. While it's true I've never been an abused romantic partner, I have been an abused child and a helper of abused women. I don't think I'm speaking from a place of priviledge.

You're assuming an awful lot about this woman's situation, and about domestic violence victims in general. How do you know they haven't made any attempts to protect their children from harm? I am not trying to negate your childhood experience at all, but I do think there is a difference when you are the victim of intimate partner violence and also a parent who has to consider how your options will affect your children. Parents are only human, and will definitely make mistakes; but, that doesn't mean that a mother who chooses to stay wants to see their children hurt or abused in anyway. Your mother made the right choice for YOUR family according to YOUR family circumstances. That doesn't mean that mothers who chose differently from yours are somehow wrong.

Let's be serious, a woman who's pregnant with eight children and living in a foreign country probably feels as if she has very little resources to leave an abusive situation. You apparently take none of that into consideration--all you do is demand that she leave her husband because of the potential that he may abuse the children one day. Instead of helping her by giving her the resources that she needs to feel economically supported to leave, you force her to abide by your own moral code before extending any kind of charity. This sort of "my way or the highway" thinking is EXACTLY like fundie thought! You can think you're morally superior because you're more liberal towards certain issues, but you're just as stubborn when it comes to only helping "like-minded" individuals who follow your program.

[valsa]

If you think that the wife can just leave and take her children and she and the children will be safe from the father, then you're just plain stupid. There's no polite way to say it. It seems to me that your father was abusive and you've redirected your hatred toward your mother for not making him change. You need to hold your own father responsible and stop blaming your mother. And if your mother left and he just never bothered you again, then you are the luckiest abuse victim in the world, because it rarely works out that way. Every abuser I have known has spent all his time, energy, and money tracking down and making life miserable for all the victims who dared leave him.

Bananacat, I'm not saying that leaving would be a walk in the park or even that it wouldn't be dangerous. However, the mother, as does any parent, still has an obligation to protect her children. This may not include leaving an abusive spouse. It may include calling CPS anonymously on her own family (I have seen this done by someone who didn't think she had any other choices, which she probably did not have) Having them intervene on the behalf of her and her children may diffuse the danger she may otherwise face either trying to get the abuser to get treatment, leaving, or getting the children out of the situation. My own mother sent my older brother into foster care for a year to protect him from my father.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree because I believe that, no matter what is going on in their own lives, parents have a duty to protect their children. Although I am a bit curious as to when you think their obligation kicks in (if ever) Does the abuse have to be unequal? Like, say, if a father is beating both the wife and kids, the mother doesn't have a duty to protect the children, but if he's beating the wife and raping the kids, she does? Or even in that case, does she leave the kids in that situation because doing anything else is too difficult? When is she required to put the good of the children first?

And as for my personal life- swing and a miss. My father bears the overwhelming majority of my disdain and I love my mother very much. However, my love for her does not mean that I can’t realize that she was also in the wrong. Love and criticism are not mutually exclusive.

[justlurking]

Although I am a bit curious as to when you think their obligation kicks in (if ever) Does the abuse have to be unequal? Like, say, if a father is beating both the wife and kids, the mother doesn't have a duty to protect the children, but if he's beating the wife and raping the kids, she does? Or even in that case, does she leave the kids in that situation because doing anything else is too difficult? When is she required to put the good of the children first?

If the father is beating the children, then that is considered child abuse and the mother is THEN obligated to report it. Failure to do so would make her an accomplice in the abuse and she should be held accountable for her actions.

[valsa]

Like I previously stated, it's all relative according to whatever side of the issue you stand on. The similarities, however, lie with the fact that each side thinks they are morally superior and that the other side is "full of crap". Just because you believe the way you do, doesn't necessarily make your opinion anymore right or wrong.

I disagree. Some beliefs are just wrong. Fundies can say that homosexuality and feminism are harmful but that's just as wrong as the sky being neon green. I despise that it seems to be on par with a four-letter word if you say someone’s beliefs are wrong anymore. Everyone is a special snowflake and no answer is wrong.

You're assuming an awful lot about this woman's situation, and about domestic violence victims in general. How do you know they haven't made any attempts to protect their children from harm?

If they have, then we're in agreement that they're doing their due diligence as a parent and I have no problem with them.

Parents are only human, and will definitely make mistakes; but, that doesn't mean that a mother who chooses to stay wants to see their children hurt or abused in anyway.

Please feel free to quote when I said that a mother who chooses to stay wants to see her children hurt. Because I'm pretty sure I didn't.

Your mother made the right choice for YOUR family according to YOUR family circumstances.

Actually, she didn't. That's the whole point. Not every woman does make the right choice. Sometimes they put their own welfare, convenience, and/or peace of mind above the welfare of their children. Having participated for a couple years on foster care boards and websites, it's actually more common than you would think (or want to believe)

That doesn't mean that mothers who chose differently from yours are somehow wrong.

Any parent who chooses not to protect their children is wrong. However, leaving an abusive partner is not the only way to protect your children.

Let's be serious, a woman who's pregnant with eight children and living in a foreign country probably feels as if she has very little resources to leave an abusive situation.

Which is why I mentioned not getting pregnant, if possible (as seems likely in this case) as one of the options to protect potential children.

Instead of helping her by giving her the resources that she needs to feel economically supported to leave, you force her to abide by your own moral code before extending any kind of charity.

This woman gave absolutely no indication that she was even thinking of leaving. I see no problem with not donating (a voluntary act) to someone you believe is putting her children in danger. This is very different than what fundies do. As you mentioned before, fundies would like to see that people they disagree with cannot get help from anyone. I'm not saying that this women shouldn't be able to get help from anyone, just that I would not personally help her and can understand why others would feel the same way. I also understand completely why a fundy family would not donate to a gay couple who just had kids (or adopted) and I have no problem with that.

But to bring up another point not addressed yet (not specifically to you, to anyone)- why should anyone donate to any of these HOM couples? Strangers rarely donate a bunch of stuff to people who are having just one child that they cannot afford. I’m not too fond of donating to these people to begin with, because I feel it glorifies HOM and that's how you get batshit insane people like the Octomom.

[valsa]

If the father is beating the children, then that is considered child abuse and the mother is THEN obligated to report it. Failure to do so would make her an accomplice in the abuse and she should be held accountable for her actions.

You're not completely correct. Many states have specific statutes that classify children being a witness to DV as child abuse in-and-of itself. Others don't specifically address it but it can still be used to take children from the home.

[lilah]

Annother reason why the chukwu octuplets don't get as much attention is that one of the babies died a week afer being born. The mom then had a singleton and na,ed her divine favour because she thought god was giving back the baby she had lost. Favour often gets dressed the same and treated like an octuplet even though she is not.