Pictures worth that thousand -
Feb. 6th, 2009 08:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kyburgSeriously.
Check the pictures of the house. Don't notice all the PHOTOGRAPHERS camped out, of course.
The envy is just OUT there. I mean - if she'd won 8 million dollars, that would be one thing. There are socially acceptable ways to go wow, you got some - when it's money.
When it's children? Dude. Gloves come OFF.
*shakes head* When we restrict assistance to children, and only those people who have children - and then do not extend the same assistance (perceived value) to the same people who pay taxes and do NOT have children - what can you expect. The simple perception is that you're stealing, and the brains stop there and spin.
I wonder how much louder people would scream if she decided that some of the kids needed to be placed for adoption.
For my mind, it's not an issue for me - it's very clear there's a lot of people watching (whether they should be or not is another topic for another day) and if anything goes toes up, we'll ALL know (and sell some more advertising dollars).
Everyone I've ever known to have higher order multiples, has had volunteer support. If people are willing to do that? I'm fine with it - everyone has their own take on it, and that one is at least supportive and useful, neh?
But people taking time out of their days to do drive-by bitchslaps? *sigh* Get a better hobby, jeez. That sort of thing only darkens your soul.
(And puts book to that family's assertion that their children would be better off dead without them - and justifies their killing them, and then themselves. How DARE they have kids and not support them? FAILURE. FAILURE. BLAM.)
Find a way through. Only way out, after all.
Check the pictures of the house. Don't notice all the PHOTOGRAPHERS camped out, of course.
The envy is just OUT there. I mean - if she'd won 8 million dollars, that would be one thing. There are socially acceptable ways to go wow, you got some - when it's money.
When it's children? Dude. Gloves come OFF.
*shakes head* When we restrict assistance to children, and only those people who have children - and then do not extend the same assistance (perceived value) to the same people who pay taxes and do NOT have children - what can you expect. The simple perception is that you're stealing, and the brains stop there and spin.
I wonder how much louder people would scream if she decided that some of the kids needed to be placed for adoption.
For my mind, it's not an issue for me - it's very clear there's a lot of people watching (whether they should be or not is another topic for another day) and if anything goes toes up, we'll ALL know (and sell some more advertising dollars).
Everyone I've ever known to have higher order multiples, has had volunteer support. If people are willing to do that? I'm fine with it - everyone has their own take on it, and that one is at least supportive and useful, neh?
But people taking time out of their days to do drive-by bitchslaps? *sigh* Get a better hobby, jeez. That sort of thing only darkens your soul.
(And puts book to that family's assertion that their children would be better off dead without them - and justifies their killing them, and then themselves. How DARE they have kids and not support them? FAILURE. FAILURE. BLAM.)
Find a way through. Only way out, after all.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-06 07:35 pm (UTC)She and the kids will get by just like the Duggars do, trading off the publicity and letting the older ones help with the younger. As an aside -- why is it perfectly okay when it's done in the name of religion and the goal is outbreeding the heathens, but not okay when she just wants the kids for themselves? I think if people really wanted to be helpful, they would put this woman through treatment so that whatever is at the bottom of this for her gets resolved, and then at the very least leave her and her children to live their lives. They'll do better together than apart; nobody has indicated in any way that she's an abusive or neglectful parent, and all the griping has been along the lines of "money out of our pockets" which says more about the people griping than it does about anything else. Like anything else involving any particular uterus, just because one wouldn't make the same choice doesn't give one the right to dictate what the uterus' owner can and can't do with it.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-06 08:51 pm (UTC)This really, is the crux of the issue. It's not that the taxpayer issue isn't a valid point. It's just currently irrelevant.