BBC internet article about being a surragate

[Melamin]

Or wanting to be one - it is a pipedream

www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/427e42d2-fbcc-46aa-8996-16634612be53?intc_type=singletheme&intc_location=bbcthree&intc_campaign=bbcthree&intc_linkname=article_surrogate_contentcard12

That article is bollocks on so many levels. Don't believe everything you read folks

It is a shoddy article Absolutely.

I feel it is shoddy. It rings alarm bells for me. This happens to me a lot, because I had a mother who worked in child protection and I absorbed a lot of stuff, even though I have never gone near it myself.

I am trying to learn to apply critical thinking and understand why does not ring true. Glad of all help

I beleive that it could be the thoughts of a real person - I have heard mentally ill people speak in such a way when they are ill, bordering on delusion/ psychosis and detaching from reality.

I do think it is exploitative to publish their views - how on earth does it help anyone? Not least the person themselves.

but I did feel materially connected to them - they were me, little detached bits of me - and previously I might have been very cavalier about the whole thing, but once I'd had one, I knew exactly how serious it was, I could never be a surrogate now

I can understand that scrambledegg. On a human level that is lovely, and presumably that is the evolutionary device that kicks in to make us care for the baby and make sure it survives. Tt puts the baby inside our bubble of existence and identity.

The person in the article on the other hand is dissociating from that. Not thinking of the actual life of the baby, only of their own expereinces and fulfilling their own needs. They might get a horribel shock if they went ahead, but also it owuld be worng to 'farm babies' from anyone who did this but didn't care about the baby afterwards.

Why is so much modern shit about dissociating? Which is a mental health condition.

when you say you believe everything you read it makes you sound naive and gullible.I don't believe everything I read. Do you?

I didn't say that. It's a first person account of someone with mental health issue's feelings about pregnancy and surrogacy. Not uncommon feelings either actually, at all. Many people think surrogacy is just a nice thing to do ah female socialisation, 9 months of health issues for someone else then are forced to deal with the emotional ramification later, it's one of my many issues with surrogacy.

We live in a society that isn't honest about pregnancy, we'd probably have a negative birth rate if we told women the truth. We downplay and gaslight women with sexual health issues after because the pain isn't relevant if they can still accept a dick with a little bit of anaesthetic cream.

The article would have been really interesting to discuss in FWR if we hadn't gone straight down the "it muse be a man with a fetish" route. Which people like Daim will be furiously screen shotting to show an irrational fear of trans people on MN.

As a gender critical feminist I feel obliged to distance myself because unless you know something you'd like to share with the class this is not helpful.

I am trying to learn to apply critical thinking and understand why does not ring true. Glad of all help smile

I think it's because it's clearly the words of someone speaking through a fog of MH issues. It's annoying as well because it's someone feelings that there is no discussion of the rights and wrongs of surrogacy, or even the consideration that it might be vulnerable women with MH issues who choose the task.

When men have a child via surrogacy they're "brave" (everyone is brave these days

The woman who risked her health, life and future fertility for strangers is just a "surrogate"

I think it's because it's clearly the words of someone speaking through a fog of MH issues

I think this is important. I don't think an agency with experience and legal backing would encourage a person who expressed themselves in this way. If they think they are destined to take this route, they would then start looking at less supported routes.

The lack of further discussion makes it seem like it is the way to do surrogacy.

We're just reviewing a shoddy article about female experience

And coming the conclusion, often made on here, that if it isn't the right sort of female experience it must be a man.

I agree with Kwatah. I don't think this is written by a man. The portrayal of pregnancy in most media is that it is a very positive experience. Women "bloom"- there used to be (may well still be) a maternity and baby wear company called "Blooming Marvellous". Many women do bloom.

The writer has almost no experience of pregnancy. Even "morning sickness" is portrayed in sit coms and films as a bit of a joke rather than the thing which hospitalised Kate Middleton. I think it is quite believable that someone could see just the blooming, life- creating aspect of pregnancy and not see past that.

It does sound as if it is written from lack of experience and as you say the portrayal of experiences of pregnancy are often jokey caricatures in films and sitcoms. A lot of it is sensationalised for the story.

I wonder how much this influences young women, if they are not in a position to be around friends and family who are experiencing pregnancy?

You do understand that this is merely my own personal opinion, yes?
I care not a jot if you reach a different conclusion. I'm not trying to convince anyone, and I'm on the fence.
I'm speculating, based upon my personal experience of the writings of women regarding their own female bodies, and men, who wish they had female bodies.
In my opinion the perspective infuses the writing.
Women talking about their periods sound very different to transwomen talking about their 'periods'. I've read enough appropriation and propoganda in the last few years to know that it is rife currently. And there has been a sharp backlash against women condemning surrogacy in the last few weeks. So perhaps I'm alert to it.

If I read something which instantly sounds dubious to me I bounce the idea around to see whether my perception is groundless or not. I'm not resolved to believe one thing or the other.

I'm merely sceptical. Others are too. If my suspicions turned out to be groundless I wouldn't be perturbed at all. I'd use that to inform my future judgement.

The alternative to my scepticism is naive and wholesale acceptance.
We should question the truthfulness of what we read, now more than ever, in my opinion.

Bit confused as to why people seem to think it’s bollocks?

I first thought about surrogacy at 19, I was 30 when I did my first(and currently only) surrogacy journey. I think it’s a very misunderstood subject, I don’t think people realise that there is a kind of yearning to want to do it, a lot of surrogates have thought it over for a number of years before actually being a surrogate(always advisable to make sure you have finished your own family anyway in case you lose your fertility) Although at no point did I ever worry about becoming attatched or not wanting to hand the baby back to its parents, I don’t know why or how but I felt completely confident that I would be fine and I was.

I genuinely found it to be one of the most fulfilling things I have ever done and yes I would consider doing it again if circumstances were right.

I wasn't speaking direct, or only to you, Baracker but comments like.

I am wondering whether this is in fact a troll who has decided to get a bit of propaganda out there about how some women really want to do this. But it reads like a male fetish fantasy

Yes MH or male

Another one thinking mental health or male

Not buying it either, had seen it and also immediately it seemed a 'male' thing to me,

don't exactly strike me as being open to considering alternative viewpoints.

I can understand someone wanting to experience pregnancy without necessarily wanting the lifelong commitment of bringing up a child.

This comment on the other hand is nuanced and thoughtful- not a kneejerk "must be a man"
It seemed to me that she is in denial of the fact that she desperately wants a baby. Like her logical mind is telling her a baby is too bigger commitment and her carer is more important

It's only an opinion.

But the thrust of the article is saying that the primary motivation is to experience the physical sensation of pregnancy.
It is almost an afterthought that an actual person would be created, and exist afterwards, and who would need to be passed on to someone else.
The creation of a baby almost appears to be a byproduct of the main goal, an inconvenience or irrelevance. Certainly a secondary consideration compared to the driving motivator, which is personal physical sensation. A child resulting from this would one day learn that their mother brought them into existence mainly because she fancied experiencing pregnancy symptoms but didn't want the child that came as part of the package. Imagine discovering you'd been purposefully created purely to satisfy a physical urge by a mother who had no other use for you?

This desire to experience solely the physicality, even the negative aspects, yet entirely divorced from any emotion about the actual baby, its needs, the life it will lead, is truthfully the sort of writing I have read more by men more than women.

I'm not saying it's impossible that a woman might feel this way. But it does read more like a fetishistic desire, rather than an altruistic sacrifice.
If it is a woman, I would hope that she wouldn't be accepted as a surrogate given her mental health, motivation, and outlook.

But the thrust of the article is saying that the primary motivation is to experience the physical sensation of pregnancy

I can understand that. I'm female, I've been pregnant, I've given birth. I did not get this instant reaction that the article must be fake.

I decided after one baby I didn't want any more. There were various reasons. I loved my son so much I couldn't imagine loving another child and practical reasons. But in there was also the feeling I'd been intrigued by what the the experience of being pregnant would be like and I'd had the experience, everything worked and no need to repeat it.

You'll have to take my word of course that I'm female. I might really be all or any of naive, mentally ill or a man.

Lass, other than restating once again that I am merely skeptical, not resolved, not closed to other viewpoints, there is nothing I can say to convince you.

In fact, whilst I'm perfectly prepared to be convinced either way, you seem to brook no dissent whatsoever to the idea that this entire account is anything other than perfectly truthful and accurate.

I suspect that there is no way, whatsoever, of raising the possibility that this may just, perhaps, be not what it appears at face value, without you deciding for me that I have closed my mind. And yet, to me, you are the one who appears to be closed to consideration.

Why not pop on over to the transwomen have periods thread? There are lots of earnest accounts of people who are claiming to be women, and have periods, whilst possessing penis and testicles. Maybe you could tell off the skeptical posters on that thread for their closed mindedness ?

Is it not possible to have a civil discussion that goes:
-Hmm, I'm doubting the veracity of this account
-Really? Rings true to me
-Discussion ensues...
Without flinging into the mix accusations of closed mindedness and kneejerk reactions, and damaging a 'cause'?

Can we not just...discuss without denigration, or assumptions of bad faith?

No actually I was not "brooking no dissent".

I was pointing out , yet again, the absurd knee jerk reaction which appears so often on this forum- that any female experience which doesn't fall within the boundaries of what certain posters deem to be an appropriate way for women to behave means someone is probably a man.

The "brooking no, or little dissent, comes from the posters I quoted.

It is actually bizarre from feminists who claim to reject stereotypes of what it means to be a woman that you (general you) set up your own stereotypes.

You've missed the nuance of my point, lass.

I also wanted the experience of being pregnant. That desire in and of itself is pretty normal, I'd say.
It was the combination of desiring the experience specifically whilst not wanting the baby that resulted, that was notable to me.

And yes, of course we could all be lying about ourselves, it's the internet.

We can only judge people by their words, and how they convey themselves though them.

is it not possible to have a civil discussion

You think the posts I quoted were doing that? Or your patronising response to Kwatah where you were going on about her believing everything she reads was doing that.

You've missed the nuance of my point, lass

Oh silly me. "Nuance" there was nothing "nuanced" in the posts I quoted.

It was the combination of desiring the experience specifically whilst not wanting the baby that resulted, that was notable to me

ergo any woman thinking differently must be assumed to be more than likely lying about who she is or mentally.

What stereotypes, lass?

You have extrapolated from
poster feels dubious about internet claim
to
poster has set up stereotype about women

which is daft.
And you are ignoring the fact that I have posted, repetitively, that I am prepared to accept this might after all be a woman; that it simply rings bells for me right now.

You are framing even the mildest dissent as kneejerk, stereotype, absurd.

Perhaps let me know how I might have otherwise expressed my ongoing skepticism in a way that you might have engaged with rather than characterised thus?

To be honest lass, I think you just enjoy a bit of a ruckus, and you aren't handling disagreement with your opinions in a reasonable way.

You feel this is unquestionably a believable article.
I feel it is questionable.

You've been pretty rude about the very idea that I might dare to question the veracity of an anonymous piece on the internet about surrogacy.

I've tried to explain my rationale.
I've said I'm on the fence.

Not good enough for you, is it? I must be posting absurd kneejerk reactions in bad faith, stereotyping women with my horrid skepticism and refusal to accept things at face value.

It's never especially fun debating you to be honest, because of the way you assume a lack of good faith on my part, and what seems to be a little personal grudge you hold for whatever reason.

I think we should probably give each other a wide berth if at all possible?

I think you are a hypocrite. I find you overbearing and dogmatic. You have little time for opinions which don't agree with yours.

think you just enjoy a bit of a ruckus, and you aren't handling disagreement with your opinions in a reasonable way. this is priceless given the 100s of posts on here about women being shut down/ told to not speak up.

So far as stereotypes- I was referring to the posts proclaiming that because the author of this article isn't presenting in the way certain posters deem to be an appropriate way for a woman the author must be a man. Would you like me to re-post the comments from the first few pages - they were hardly conducive to reasonable debate.

It"s never especially fun debating you to be honest, because of the way you assume a lack of good faith on my part, and what seems to be a little personal grudge you hold for whatever reason

As for holding a personal grudge I'm afraid you have delusions of your own importance. It was telling that whilst my first post had no reference to you and was not directed at you specifically , you responded as if it were.

You were rude and patronising to Kwatah on this thread.

If you are to accuse me of being a hypocrite then explain yourself or retract, Lass.

I have demonstrated my openness to listen to other opinions, especially those expressed with integrity, good faith and consideration. You're just pissed off that I disagree with YOU.

You've made the foolish mistake on this thread of deliberately misrepresenting my words "MUST be a man" whilst my own words remain showing I've assumed no such MUST.
I've shown the mildest of skepticism, and explained my reasons and you've met it with mis-characterisations and belligerence.

I don't care for the opinion of someone who misrepresents others as you do.

But I'm afraid the 'hypocrite' comment reveals you to be not above unpleasant personal attacks.

Explain, or retract.

I am not just referring to this thread. You are a hypocrite because you have no interest in hearing opinions which differ from yours. Your posts on the school uniform thread for example were breathtakingly arrogant and ignored any other views.

you've made the foolish mistake on this thread of deliberately misrepresenting my words "MUST be a man" whilst my own words remain showing I've assumed no such MUST

Your ego is getting in the way again and you assume I am referring to you.

I was quite clearly referring to and quoted a number of posters. I was replying to your question about stereotypes.

What I said was It is actually bizarre from feminists who claim to reject stereotypes of what it means to be a woman that you (general you) set up your own stereotypes

The idea that I have a grudge against you is just bizarre.

I disagree frequently , indeed most of the time, with your views but for you to spin that into having a grudge says a lot about your own sense of self importance- as if I were searching out your posts. Really calm down. My initial comment had nothing to do with you yet you turn it all into about you.

So no I will not retract no matter how much you stamp your feet .

I am no hypocrite.
I listen to all views, even yours. I change my opinions when presented with a compelling viewpoint.

And yes, I know your school uniform gripe is the bee in your bonnet with me, but you've overstepped decency and fairness here lass. Really poor form to attack my integrity, and double down on the attack when offered the opportunity to reconsider your words.

My posts speak for themselves.
As do yours.

Oh get over yourself "Offered the opportunity to reconsider" "double down on the attack"

Could you be any more pompous?

You twisted what started out as general comments to be comments about you. You have misquoted what I said. I'm not demanding an apology.

Lass not to wade in on the personal fight you have with Baracker but my comment was not knee jerk but I said *Yes MH or male.

Dissociation of thought from reality; fine we all have out there moments, but its another thing to dwell and embellish and have fantasies get out of control... and then we get people who think that we actually should have dissociation of action from reality and consequences for the child. Scary. And so selfish.

Because it does come across as unbalanced and/or immature thought processes, who could be a woman, and/or as someone fantasing (obsessing) about something they want but could never have and the ideas about what it may feel like are not being based in real experiences eg a transwoman.

It has nothing to do with not performing well enough as a woman=must be male. I am only too well aware of too many women that are not very nice or caring.

I have fleeting thoughts of what if pizza had no calories, mmm... but because it is actually impossible to divorce the action of eating the pizza from the calories (bar developing a MH condition like bulemia) I don't dwell on those fantasies and spend time enhancing them, dreaming and what iffing or letting it become an obsession that I wish would come true. Because it won't change reality.

Same as fantasising about being pregnant but wanting to divorce it from the reality that as a result there will be a child in this world who did not ask to be born and who is entirely reliant on adults to give them any quality of life. This is a big deal.

To be able to absolve oneself of responsibility for a child is not something that should not come naturally or easily to humans I don't think - it would be anti-evolutionary considering our babies are born with such high care needs.

I can understand considering surrogacy for family members or very close friends, but not for strangers or anyone that you did not have utmost confidence in and who you would want to care for your own children in the event of your death for eg.

A lot of these comments are the oppostie of knee jerk. The closest we come to knee-jerk, ie ill-conceived ideas, is the original piece of writing.