The Dionne Quintuplets

Everyone knows we're in the midst of a new Great Depression. But isn't it a little spooky that so many things from the 1930's are repeating themselves? Such as: a nation, mired in bad economic times, is distracted by a case of multiple births.

Today, we have the "Octo-mom."

But some seventy years ago, it was the Dionne Quintuplets.

Somehow I doubt we as a nation will be still following these 2009 kids six years from their birth.

Nor will there be a mass rush to merchandise the unnatural octuplets.

And of course, the ever-prophetic The Simpsons nailed it all ten years ago, with the episode entitled EIGHT MISBEHAVIN'.

     Posted By: Paul - Sat Feb 07, 2009
     Category: Babies | Body Modifications | Celebrities | Drugs | Fads | Family | Human Marvels | Obsessions | Pop Culture | Technology | 1930s

if i recall correctly, those 5 children were taken from the parents by a goverment agency and then exploited. i read it somewhere years ago. they claimed the parents didn't have the ability to care for the kids. even though the parents had done nothing wrong, for the purpose of the exploitation. and of course the quints were a naturally occuring birth. the mom didn't have herself implanted with a litter of babies for the purpose of exploiting them for money herself. but todays mom will keep hers, ironic isn't it. oh and the buried lede, according to the ny post headline, this woman is mentally ill and prolifically procreated inorder that a larger number of children get to play the genetic lottery for that mental illness. so thoughtful of her to share with so many. and you notice there is no dad listed anywhere. she already has to share the loot with her parents as well as taking care of the kids, i guess she didn't want to share it with one more person. i wonder if the sperm donor got a stud fee. babies as a money making publicity stunt is rather distasteful, don't cha think? 🙄
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 02/07/09 at 11:26 AM
wow, i just came back and read the link. (didn't have time before) it appears from the children's accounts, after they grew up, that they were treated even worse by the parents than the government. they were taken for bs reasons but appearently they should have been checked on later because the parents had issues. very sad, i wonder, will the eight just born have any better story when they are grown? i hope they do.
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 02/07/09 at 12:35 PM
Exactly Patty, exactly. But it doesn't have to be publicity. There are those who procreate for a bigger check from the government, or foster more children for more beer and cigarette money. But so long as adults are in charge, kids will always be exploited for monetary gain. Look at poor Uncle Fester, Jackie Coogan. The California Child Actor's Bill was termed the Coogan Bill. His mother and step father spent all of his roughly $4 million in earnings and back in the 1920's that was massive. We need a license to drive, fish, hunt, practice medicine and teach. We have waiting periods to get fire arms or pets because our backgrounds need to be checked. There are no licenses for parenting and the only waiting period involved is the 9 months from "Oh bay, give it to me!" to "You bastard! You did this to me!"

Now I don't condone keeping people from reproducing, that of course is unthinkable and impossible. I believe that there should be required classes during the pregnancy to drive in the common sense aspect. I know that's also impossible, but I wish something could be done. I have a son that I would die for to protect and could never think of exploiting for my own gain. I wish I could say I don't know how people can do that, but I can see how it is tempting.
Posted by DownCrisis on 02/08/09 at 11:32 PM
i guess we all do the best we're capable of, just some people aren't capable of very much. there aren't any good answers and sometimes what happens to kids put into the system is as bad or worse that their home life was. your son is lucky to have a level headed guy like you for a dad. good luck and remember you are going to make mistakes, we all do, just try to make them on the small stuff. sounds easy enough doesn't it? 😉
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 02/09/09 at 12:19 AM
i can see the resemblance beckers, but i don't get the silly putty thing.
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 02/09/09 at 09:09 PM
emilie, this post was more than a year ago so i do not remember the particulars and i do not have time to re-read it now. but i commented on the article posted at the link, if that is incorrect then i apologize for any offence i caused with my opinion. that said, as you say not everything on the net is as it is represented and i do not know you are telling the truth of your identity either.
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 03/01/10 at 07:56 AM
According to the autobiography published by the three surviving quins in 1997 (Family Secrets: The Dionne Quintuplets' Autobiography), theirs is a tale of "struggles with social isolation, parental physical and sexual abuse, and their efforts toward recovery."

So who should we believe, the quins themselves or Emilie here? 😕
Posted by Dumbfounded on 03/01/10 at 08:32 AM
exactly dumdfounded. as always, you have the right answer honey.
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 03/01/10 at 09:41 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.