Several people seem to have misinterpreted my posting of my student's
comments about the hoopla being made over the septuplets in Iowa.  For
example, one person wrote in a private email:

>>You may tell your student from me that this mom made a choice to
>>have children and wasn't looking for any freebies or handouts....

Don't get me wrong, this student herself didn't think there was anything
wrong with having a lot of children -- she comes from a family of 11
children!  She was just commenting that lots of people have said rude things
to her parents over the years about all their kids, and "how could they have
so many", etc.  Her mom's last pregnancy was twins.  This student goes to
college partly on a merit scholarship, and sends money home to her parents
from her part-time job  (she is one of the oldest in the family).  This
comment was also made in light of earlier discussions we've had in class
about common American attitudes towards children (being viewed as an
economic drain, a hassle, an inconvenience) versus attitudes in many
traditional cultures, where children are the reason for living, the way for
a woman to achieve status and respect, the parent's old-age support and
protection, and economic benefits to the family as they start earning income
or contributing to the household workload at a very young age.

And from Lactnet, this comment:
>When hundreds of thousands of families in this country are
>>being housed, clothed, fed, Christmas gifts, school supplies, medical
>>care provided for etc., all on tax dollars who are in that situation
>>probably because of less sound decision making and some continue to make
>>poor decisions again (and again) and we just add these children to the
>>lists without a hint of cry of outrage.

This comment puzzles me, as there certainly has been a huge "cry of outrage"
from anti-welfare people over the past few years -- in the newspapers, the
news magazines like TIME, on the TV news programs, and specials, in
legislative debates, etc.  Remember New Jersey's plan to cut off aid to
women who have more babies on welfare?  This entire view of having children
as being a "poor decision" and people criticizing poor women who continue to
have children, is exactly the attitude we were discussing in class.  And
remember, from an evolutionary perspective s/he who has the most children
surviving to adulthood, wins.  It doesn't matter if they work at McDonald's
all their life, or are a CEO or movie star, ride the public transportation
or drive a Mercedes, dress in Salvation Army clothes or designer clothes.
It's the number of children, not the educational/financial "quality" of
those children, that determines how many copies of one's genes are found in
future generations.


Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
Texas A&M University