Jamie Reidy shares the story of a Tennessee man who has the balls to ask the state for help with support for his 30 children.
CNN’s Brooke Baldwin reports on this deadbeat dad:
First things first: this dude’s sex ed teacher from high school needs to be tracked down and fired, since this fellow obviously doesn’t know where babies come from.
Secondly, the Father of The Year candidate needs to get sponsored by Trojan or another condom company.
And think about his poor USPS mailman for a second: Father’s Day on his route must be a back breaker.
The really crazy thing is that he’s never been on a date with the Octo-Mom! Talk about a reality show.
I’m against mandatory vasectomy laws. But I’d grab a clipboard and start collecting signatures for an amendment just for this clown. How about you?
huh
“I’m against mandatory vasectomy laws. But I’d grab a clipboard and start collecting signatures for an amendment just for this clown. How about you?” Hopefully you’re on your own on this one. I’m with you for four words. I’m against mandatory sterilization. From a bodily autonomy perspective, I don’t feel that limits should be placed on the number of children anyone can have, including through sperm donation. I understand the arguments for it such as accidental incest, but I don’t see how that differs greatly from prosecution of pregnant women for smoking or drinking alcohol. It’s different if a child… Read more »
WHAT?! Why would the state need to help HIM? The state is helping HIM by paying for his kids! This guy pays $1.97 or something to some of these mothers per month. If he were actually raising any of these kids on his own, then yes the state should help him the way it does a woman, but WTF?! Pay a man who has 30 kids but is not actually raising any of them on his own for WHAT?!
Nevermind. Don’t answer. I can’t even come back to this conversation I’m so disgusted.
“This guy pays $1.97 or something to some of these mothers per month” That doesn’t answer the question of how much the mothers contribute to the financial needs of the children from money that they have worked for to earn. “If he were actually raising any of these kids on his own, then yes the state should help him the way it does a woman,” Are you willing to tie the quality of the way a mother raises a child to the assistance that the state provides her? I think in your mind raising a child is simply having custody.… Read more »
Um, what? We don’t have jack information on what the mothers are doing, why they decided to have babies, what relationship he had with them, their qualities as a mother etc. Right now its a stew of assumptions on all our parts, which pretty much means we are all wrong to some extent. I’ll go out on a really dangerous limb here and guess that there are race, cultural, and socioeconomic issues at play both in our reactions and the media coverage. Again, the people I feel sympathy for here are the 30 kids who may or may not have… Read more »
Joanna – you are right! Why should the taxpayers have to pay for these idiots breeding at whim?? Unfortunately, there are children that will most likely follow in their parents footsteps… they are the victims in this whole mess.
Joanna – forgot to mention earlier – by the state paying for his children the state is rewarding him and his partners for their irresponsible behavior. Why would any of them stop??
So, when there are thirty children from the same father involved, suddenly they are *his* children, yet in a divorce they magically become their mother’s children? Unless he’s had thirty paternity tests, what makes him so sure the children are his?
You’d think he’d give it a break after the first few??
At any rate I’m wondering why none of the mothers are being called to task for their irresponsibility.
He shouldn’t be in this situation, but there comes a point when he isn’t going to be able to earn enough to pay for the kids. So someone will have to pay for them.
I think that point came and went with the fourth or fifth child.
Both men and woman should be using protection if they don’t want a child.
I consider both him and the mothers idiots and don’t feel sorry for them.
William – you are so on point. I don’t feel sorry for the idiots but I do have great empathy for the children that may have no future due to the irresponsibility of their bio parents.
Honestly I saw my favorite response to this over at MenRights reddit.
The responder called all 12 of them (the man and the 11 women) idiots.
I’m against mandatory vasectomy laws. But I’d grab a clipboard and start collecting signatures for an amendment just for this clown. How about you?
On the real, forced sterilization? After the history of Eugenics in this country?
Low blow man. Low blow.
Agreed, Danny. This author has a knack for being offensive and shrouding it in humor. You said just recently you’re from NC, Danny. You might know about the fact that women were sterilized up until 1974–and only now getting compensated for it (although, no amount of money is compensation enough, and the victims who are still alive deserve a lot more than they might get). It’s not any funnier when it happens to men.
Didn’t know about the US, but I gather it still goes on in Sweden. There was an incident here where hundreds of unnecessary hysterectomies came to light, but it was a rogue surgeon rather than a deliberate policy.
You might know about the fact that women were sterilized up until 1974–and only now getting compensated for it (although, no amount of money is compensation enough, and the victims who are still alive deserve a lot more than they might get). It’s not any funnier when it happens to men. Yeah I know about it. North Carolina was one of the longest term offending states that engage in Eugenics. 1974, that’s a little over 30 AFTER the horrors of WW2 (along with things done to Jewsish people the Nazis did forced sterilizations as well) were performed and came to… Read more »
Everyone’s looking at this from the wrong angle. Look at this from the standpoint of reproductive biology and human evolution. This guy is a world champion of Darwinian proportions. He has reproduced 30 times that we know of. In a few hundred years, maybe half of the U.S. population will be able to trace their ancestry back to him. If his sons do the same thing, it could happen even faster. Take a good look, everyone. Every generation, more and more people will be related to him…. Think long-term survival of the species. As Charlie Sheen might say, this guy… Read more »
You’re right. If we go by evolutionary theory–this guy, Octomom, the Duggars (that religious Quiverfull family with 19 kids) and the people from ‘Sister Wives’ are KILLING it.
Just a technical point – the guys from Sister Wives or Big Love are killing it. The women are doing worse. Apparently a woman in a polygamous relationship has fewer kids than one in a monogamous one – and her kids have to share the resources with kids who aren’t related to her.
The species at large is also losing out with polygamy – you get fewer kids than if everyone matches up monogamously and you get less genetic diversity.
Assuming our aim as a species is to continue expanding.
That’s one reason he will become the Great Patriarch — everyone else is having fewer children, while he’s having more and more. Survival of the most irresponsible, or something like that.
More stable adults caring for fewer children is a bad thing for the kids? Also, there’s nothing keeping them from having more kids if they choose.
The difference is that the Duggars pay 100% of their children’s needs.
Somehow I doubt that Joanna. Just think about all the things that society provides for everyone. The Duggars pay for all of that? I sincerely doubt that. I assume the kids go to school just as a start…
The Wet One
Ish, not much point in reproducing in huge numbers if you can’t raise them to reproductive adulthood.
Somehow, I suspect those children will generally make it through puberty and be able to reproduce themselves. I’m curious if his sons will approach fatherhood the same way he does. (His oldest may be of reproductive age by this point already.)
Another way to look at it: instead of 30 deadbeat dads refusing to pay child support, he’s replaced them with a single man who’s stretched to the limit. We ought to admire the efficiency of this.
Random breeding does not ensure any good pups…. just sayin’
1.) Even joking about forced sterilization, especially when the person is a minority as minorities have always been the ones considered for such a heinous violations, is disgusting.
2.) He’s not the one who got pregnant. Unless he explicitly told women he slept with that he wanted to raise any children that might result from their intercourse, the government and the mothers should be responsible for supporting them.
“2.) He’s not the one who got pregnant. Unless he explicitly told women he slept with that he wanted to raise any children that might result from their intercourse, the government and the mothers should be responsible for supporting them.” Hold on…what? Do you think that all the mothers WANTED to get pregnant. It takes TWO. He could have put on a condom, helped pay for the woman’s birth control, or helped them get access to Plan B. He could have discussed the options with them once they learned they were pregnant. He’s not the one who got pregnant? Seriously,… Read more »
It takes TWO.
Yes it does so unless there was some form of coercion/non-censensual sex:
He could have put on a condom, helped pay for the woman’s birth control, or helped them get access to Plan B.
She could have demanded “condom or no sex”, asked for help with birth control or turned him down, or asked for help getting Plan B or turned him down.
But for some reason the coverage seems to be about how he is so awful like it doesn’t take two.
I didn’t mean to make it out like the blame was all on him. It just seemed like the commenter wanted ALL of the blame to be on the women…which I don’t think is correct either….unless they tricked him into it or purposely tried to have a baby to get his money. With that many mothers and kids though (and the fact he needs to ask for help, indicating that he doesn’t have too much money), it seems unlikely. If only we could communicate better about these things, before and after the fact. I wonder why no one ever considered… Read more »
Fair enough, but those women had alot more options than he did when it came to deciding whether to have children or not.
No, he had as many options in deciding whether or not he made a baby. All he had to do was put on a condom. Have sex without a condom = you might make a baby.
Not quite, the moment after he ejaculated he ran out of options, whereas they still had several (plan b, abortion, adoption). I’m not saying he wasn’t irresponsible though, it’s a bit out of this world.
Why do any of you assume that the women aren’t paying the vast majority of the price for these kids, for NOT demanding a condom? This man pays as little as $1.97 a MONTH to support some of these kids, because the gov’t isn’t allowed to take more than 50% of his pay, then it gets distributed between 30 kids. This is BOTH their responsibilities, but he is not taking 50% of the responsibility. Either of them could’ve advocated for birth control, but in any of these cases, clearly neither of them did. Ever raised a kid? It’s a hell… Read more »
I’ve done some cursory looking around on this story, not seeing much about the mothers take on this. We have no idea if the women were aware he had other lovers, though there were 11 women and that means multiple children from some of the mothers. The situation seems culturally, economically, and personally complex to me, so much so that for any of us to call either parent out and say “I know what’s going on here.” doesn’t hold water to me. I agree mostly with Joanna here.
I theory, but Joanna makes a lot of assumptions. She assumes that the guy didn’t want to put the children up for adoption because he didn’t feel that he could care for them. Unless Joanna wants to vilify women who choose to place their children for adoption are being irresponsible, this is an unfair characterization. I suspect that Joanna would believe that a woman who felt unable to raise a child and places them for adoption is giving the child a gift. She assumes that there aren’t at least some children that he doesn’t wish to parent. It may be… Read more »
I fully agree that he needs to be held responsible for his actions. I was responding to what seemed like Aya saying it was all his fault with her line of “He could have…” possibilities. But now that has been cleared up.
Ever raised a kid? It’s a hell of a lot more than $4 per month.
No but I don’t recall saying it didn’t cost more than that. In fact I don’t recall saying anything about the cost of raising a child.
I’m sorry for confusing the issue…it was just a gut reaction to the comment saying it’s ALL on her…as if it had nothing to do with the guy.
By responsibility do you mean paying his fair share? If he has 30 kids but still pays child support, he’s still responsible but his ability to pay the equivelent of the mothers share is diminished. With 30 kids, there isn’t much he can do except get a damn vasectomy, and try to find a decent paying job. But these women also have some level of responsibility in selecting an appropriate father for their children, if they want financial assistance then choosing one that can pay would be a start. He ultimately though failed in being able to provide for his… Read more »
“He could have put on a condom, helped pay for the woman’s birth control, or helped them get access to Plan B.”
Why did these women allow him to have sex with them without a condom? What would be the reasoning behind that?
And why on earth should he pay for the woman’s birth control or help them get access to anything? It would be a nice gesture, but it’s THEIR bodies, they’re the ones responsible for what happens to their bodies after sex.
“Seriously, dude.”
Do NOT refer to me as “dude.”
Sure hope you’re not in the camp that men should have some say as to women’s rights to have abortions or give children up for adoption.
You don’t get to be both – insistent that birth control is a woman’s responsibility AND insistent that men should get a say in reproductive issues after pregnancy happens.
But maybe I’m wrong, maybe you’re not that person.
“Sure hope you’re not in the camp that men should have some say as to women’s rights to have abortions or give children up for adoption.”
You don’t think men should have any say in whether their children are placed for adoption. That explains a lot.
“Sure hope you’re not in the camp that men should have some say as to women’s rights to have abortions or give children up for adoption.”
Can you clarify this better, what do you mean by have some say into giving children up for adoption? It kinda sounds like you don’t think men should have any say on women putting men up for adoption, don’t both parents have to sign off on adoption (unless one can’t be found)?
Or the mother lies about who the father is or claims that she doesn’t know who he is or the father doesn’t contest within a certain period of time, etc.
I clearly stated that its HER body, so she can react to her pregnancy however she pleases.
When the child is born one or both of the parents can decide they want custody and thus financial responsibility of the child. If neither do, the child should will be put up for adoption.
However, to claim that he’s financially responsible simply because she chose not to have an abortion is an outrageously sexist and immoral position.
matera – What about emotional care for these kids??? Helping them with homework, taking them to school and friend’s events, being a role model and an advocate for them, teaching them respect and responsibility?? The state/fed govt. should NOT be held financially responsible for these kids – the bio mother and father need to take on that responsibility. In reality, these kids seem to not have a chance in life. If they don’t have positive role models, adult guidance and proper education they may perpetuate this sad situation. All children need to have a parental bond and/or adults they can… Read more »
Well paying half of the abortion would be a good idea since their mutual act got her pregnant. @Joanna, not sure where you got that idea from for him? I’m pretty sure he’s just saying woman own their bodies, women can abort the child if they wish and thus the responsibility is on them for it as they have options men do not. One option for men would be financial abortion, so I’m not sure what camp he is in, but I 100% support a fathers right to opt out completely as long as they help pay for abortion if… Read more »
Keep in mind though, Archy. When the woman opts for abortions–she’s the one who has to pay for it (with her wallet, her body, and the moral implications). It’s not a cheap procedure and the process can be quite painful. You also need antibiotics and painkillers. When she’s on hormonal birth control, she’s the one who has to pay for it and the doctor’s visits to get the prescription. She’s also the only one dealing with the side effects–risk of blood clots, leg pains, weight gain, loss of sex drive, nausea, gall bladder problems, headaches, fatigue…even hair loss. That doesn’t… Read more »
I think many of those are subsidized in my country (Australia), fairly sure medicare covers BC (if it doesn’t then it needs to!), doctors visit for it should be bulkbilled and may even be covered by medicare fully or mostly. Not sure how it is in the US though, those are issues that need to be addressed and hopefully the current debate on it there will help, I’m happy for birth control to be on medicare/whatever your countries version is. As for the rest, it’s not equal of course but impossible to equalize (without major science anyway). But remember that… Read more »
Aya – it’s comical that you mention “moral implication” in connection with abortion. What is the “moral implication” of having children out of wedlock? Clearly this has become the norm in society – but keep in mind, the children are the ones who suffer. It’s way beyond the monetary consequence… all children need love, guidance and stability in their lives. You harp on the cost of birth control – what do you think it costs to raise a child?? I assure you, more than $15 a month. The government is not in place to support the kids of irresponsible people.… Read more »
Of course it costs more to raise a child, in every way–physical, monetary, responsibility, and emotional. Are you saying that it’s JUST the woman’s responsibility to do so. That the man involved in the conception should have nothing to do with it?
Aya, honey, of course I don’t think it’s just the woman’s responsibility. But I feel everyone on this blog has overlooked that fact that the kids should be the focus. I don’t care if some guy can’t keep it in his pants – I don’t care of some woman will take on any guy. But I do believe they should both be responsible and not randomly procreate. Have a kid because you want it – that’s why I believe you should qualify to have a child. I see women as young as 23 with four to six kids – come… Read more »
And again. That’s eugenics. Making someone get a license to have a child. Not cool.
Please see my prior reply. Thanks!