Surrogacy

I apologise if my flippant remarks re KK were misogynistic. No doubt they were unkind. As a woman I don't really see myself as being misogynistic when I am being unkind about another woman but I accept others may interpret my casual insults as that.

I leave my apology here and hope the thread isn't derailed.

Sorry, they weren’t meant to be scare quotes. My understanding is that one of the Kardashian’s used a surrogate for health reasons due to some form of previous complications.
I strongly object to that, for the reasons in Barrackers post.

I have no way of knowing if that is true or not. The stated reason was Health and I think it’s appalling to pass the health risks on to another woman.

GRA

It's a conversation

Someone said a woman had a surrogate to keep her figure
I said is that what she's said or was it for health reasons, if that's an assumption it's misogynistic
You said she had it for "health" reasons - scare quotes included
I said, maybe she had it for health reasons

The implication that she did it because she's vain, when that is not known as a fact and actually she's said something else is misogyny.

I was mainly commenting on the PP but your addition of "health" reasons feels like casting doubt.

I mean this is a side track and I don't give a toss about KK or know her real reasons for doing anything

I just don't like casual misogyny, that's all.

Gestational carrier is I believe the language used in the USA

To really attempt to render her as nothing but a baby-growing-sack that is somehow unrelated to the foetus.

There's another thread going where I wrote a long post about how the view of the woman who gestates the baby as unrelated to it if it's not her egg, is a very male view. Because their only contribution is dna that's the be all and end all. For women it's 2-fold, the egg but also the growing of the baby contributes to it. This part is ignored because misogyny and because this is all viewed through a male lens where dna is all and women's role in growing and birthing is an irrelevant aside.

Where have I made a misogynistic comment?

I oppose all surrogacy as I have said. Yes I was being flippant referring to Kardashian's figure/sex life but then that is what she is so famous for. I am aware she has said it was for health reasons, but she has already had two children the usual way and I'm not convinced there is suddenly a serious health issue and if there is then all the more reason not to transfer that risk to another woman as per Barracker's posts. Of course it could have been a decision heavily encouraged by her husband. Not sure that absolves her. Is it less misogynistic to say it's rather greedy when they already have two children?

Surrogacy is the buying and selling of women's bodies and of babies.

Babies are deliberately conceived in order to be removed from the gestational mother (see how language changes to describe new situations?)

And women are in almost all scenarios owned by the commissioning parents for the duration of the pregnancy (and before) while their health in the future is considered irrelevant once they have handed over the baby.

Slavery. Not something that anyone should consider ok

Why not read my posts

By all means object to surrogacy, which is indeed misogynistic.

However, making misogynistic comments about women who have used surrogates and putting it all on them while ignoring the men in the picture > is not OK.

I don't think you understand what I am saying.

To clarify I object to woman using surrogates for any reason, including their own health. Is that clear enough?

Please read Barrackers posts.

I object to ALL surrogacy on the basis of what’s best for the child and bodily autonomy for women.

Promoting surrogacy IS misogyny.

Sorry must have been a glitch

Here it is www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3548396-Radfem-online-spaces

You see you say "health" reasons.

Maybe is was for health reasons.

The assumption that it's to keep her figure is misogyny.

I also am against surrogacy for any reason > try reading my posts.

I am pointing out though the misogyny in flagging a famous woman who used a surrogate and

1. Saying it was to keep her figure and
2. Ignoring that she is part of a couple and it's a joint decison

Being against surrogacy doesn't give a free pass to make misogynist comments about people who have used surrogates. That's just not the way to go about this conversation at all.

Oh. We had a recent thread on ‘Radfem online spaces’ that I was going to link to for women’s groups but that thread seems to have been taken out by the ban hammer. Odd.

Besmirching - yes, OBJECT are..

I think the Kardashian’s used I surrogate for ‘health’ reasons. I also object to that. See Barrackers posts.

Discalimer
I know nothing about kardashians

The assumption that she (and her husband/partner - it's not just her making these decisions alone but once again the man is invisibilised it's all on the woman) had a surrogate for vanity reasons is an assumption, isn't it? Has she said that she used a surrogate to keep her figure etc? If not then assuming this is the reason rather than anything to do with health etc is misogyny.

Same as women who have sections are regularly labelled "too posh to push" etc although that narrative seems to have died down as women start to talk more about the risks and consequences of both VB and CS, where before talking about risks and issues with VB was not really done.

Jessy what on earth is this?

"- Injury to reproductive system = Clumsy or careless."

I am not on board with your posts they seem to focus v heavily on women and how they are doing it all wrong.

Are there any women’s groups speaking out against surrogacy, do we know?

But criticise that and you are homophobic

I am opposed to all assisted conception regardless of the genital configuration and sexual predilection of the parties..

And yes, I realise of course that many women also use surrogates but isn't it another side of the same coin in many cases? The Kardashian who wants to keep their figure and stay the sexy wife while someone else has a baby for them. The older woman with a younger husband wanting to make sure he is able to have the family he deserves

What utter infantilising nonsense. These are grown-up, wealthy women. They are also selfish and arrogant. I can't stand this idea that no matter how badly a woman behaves some excuse has to be found for it.

Black and Daley are quite clear - anyone who criticises them does so because of homophobia. It doesn't occur to them that making use of women's bodies as gestation factories is actually rather misogynistic.

Black's blogs repeatedly refer to making the process "safer", protecting the (commissioning) parents (incase the surrogate changes her mind). He is appalled at the risks parents take if they use the surrogate's own eggs rather than use an egg donor, as this of course means the surrogate really is the biological mother and all the legal rights she would thus enjoy.

Women are just a means to an end, give us the eggs, rent your womb, give us the baby.

But criticise that and you are homophobic.

Jessy85

I strongly disagree with your post. I am against surrogacy because it is wrong. A women might need a surrogate because she had cervical cancer as a young women and had to have her womb removed. I don't consider whether she is deserving or not to be relevant.

Some one might get kidney disease through no fault or their own. I still don't think they should be able to buy a kidney.

MagicMix - that's exactly what I was accused of on a gushing thread about Daley and Black's baby. I'm not remotely homophobic. But it's a good way of shouting down dissent and questioning.

One of the basic reasons so many nice liberal people go with it is because people who oppose surrogacy are routinely accused of homophobia. Celebrating gay men with babies feels wonderfully progressive to them and they allow the warm fuzzy feeling from being accepting of gay fathers to override their critical thinking about where the baby actually came from.

To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with gay fathers. But I do have a problem with people who buy babies or even accept them as presents. A gay man I know recently became a father with his lesbian friend and I am very happy for them. Another gay man I vaguely know is in the process of buying a baby in America and I think it's horrifying.

So... Infertility = Faulty Woman-genes?

Infertility which could be 'solved' by surrogacy would be due to the woman's genes, yes, since the variable that is being changed is the woman's reproductive system. Similarly, infertility caused by age (which is similarly due to genetic and biological degradation of the reproductive system) could be partly addressed by surrogacy and infertility caused by injury to the reproductive system (which would be rare).

Infertility which is due to the man, or a combination of the man and woman, would be addressed with treatments such as IVF. Surrogacy would not be needed.

So I'm unconvinced that all of the abusiveness of surrogacy is acceptable given that the reasons for a woman needing it are:

• Being old = Too disorganised to be ready for pregnancy in 20s or early 30s.
• Underlying fertility issues = Flawed genes.
• Injury to reproductive system = Clumsy or careless.

I don't think it's ok to coerce vulnerable women into carrying somebody else's baby to solve some of the problems of the disorganised, clumsy and genetically-flawed women who would use/abuse them to get a child.

I have just commented on the other thread. I would only be a surrogate for my child, if they needed me to and I was able to.

@Iused2BanOptimist

Thanks!!!!