Another gushing story in The Times about surrogacy

[Theluggage15]

The Times seems really to be pushing surrogacy at the moment. Another’feel good’ story today, this time about a single man who couldn’t find another man to share his dream of becoming a father, so went and found a surrogate himself. Now the law has changed that you don’t have to be in a couple to use a surrogate, he was able to go ahead.

Lots of gushing comments underneath and a comment from one of the staff who I think is the bloke The Times had an article about last week (2 dads have surrogate baby) explaining to one negative commenter that no this is not a womb for hire at all, as only expenses are paid so it’s all lovely.

What with these stories and the Sophie Beresiner column, it feels like they’re doing all they can to promote surrogacy.

Apologies, I don’t know how to do the share token thing.

That story has also been shared today in the Daily Mail and Metro today. It’s a syndicated story by the looks of it?

I think their editorial position is supportive but the Sophie Beresiner articles are a bit of a misfire. They don't really allow negative comments but it's not a series that presents surrogacy in a good light imo.

Here you are OP - share token:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7f9e2b9c-60cc-11eb-8bcc-6c1a7cf205dd?shareToken=4585b6ec332470803e5333f21acdefdb

I noted the pompous comment from the staff member - In no way was Faye's womb "for hire". This is altruistic surrogacy

Words matter and as ever, the bald truth is mangled into flowery language to disguise reality. And as usual, the 'winners ' are men with their every demand granted and the losers always women and children.

None of my comments have been published. This is The Times own version of The Guardian trans issue. Affirmation only, only positive comments allowed, or strictly moderated comments that allow the odd opposing view to try and disguise how they manipulate them. I can’t imagine Janice Turner is happy with men freely being celebrated for their successful hiring of women’s bodies for their own needs then getting to write about it without challenge or journalistic integrity. It would be good if she wrote something about it.

One of the difficulties in talking about this is that, just as with trans issues, an individual's experience/individual journey is always centred in these articles. That makes it difficult to challenge because - as in this story - there is an individual and worse, a child at the centre who quite rightly should be protected from criticism.

Thus if you raise objections, you're seen as mean or unkind. Puff pieces like this appear to be replacing informed discussion in the media about the issues. We've seen this tactic before as women's right's have been steadily appropriated by males demanding access to them by centring their own stories of unhappiness and demands that women are used to resolve them. Now it's women's bodies and children's rights being used to fill the gap in unhappy men's lives and the tactics are the same.
I believe there's even some evidence of regulatory capture by the normal suspects in the current government review of surrogacy?

My comment was greyed out, is now gone entirely.

My comment has also been pending for some time now... Shameful moderation.

Here's the piece from Saturday's magazine. Note that it's by one of the dads - who just so happens to be the Times head of investigations (the other dad oversees content strategy at Audible). At least it doesn't airbrush out or dehumanise the woman who gave birth.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/two-gay-dads-on-the-reality-of-starting-a-family-through-surrogacy-w7hxg3k2n?shareToken=cd4f002621ea83a7d61962f03490325e

There is another Times writer who had a baby by surrogacy, she's had loads of articles about it, mostly in the Style section, I think.

I think there is a bit of a 'in' club going on at the Times and the blocking of dissenting voices only adds to that.

On the article "Two men, a baby… and a surrogate" (the writer is Head of Investigations at the Times, Sophie B is the communist who writes a weekly column The Mother Project in the Style mag) the comments were actually pretty mixed - has anyone had trouble commenting on that one too? There might be a blanket ban on anyone questioning their media agenda...if so is that against IPSO guidelines? It could be worth mentioning on Freedom of Expression consultation responses (closing this Sunday!)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/two-gay-dads-on-the-reality-of-starting-a-family-through-surrogacy-w7hxg3k2n

Sorry that image didn't post well - click to see Sophie thinking Paul is hilarious.

I think the only vaguely negative comments that were allowed to stand was when SB was discussing who should attend the birth. Certain sycophants in the comments were encouraging her to push the birth mother to have SB and SB's husband at the birth even if that meant the woman's own husband couldn't attend (because of Covid limits).

A few commentators pointed out that the woman giving birth should choose the person who'd be most supportive to her ie her husband.
But it's the only time anything vaguely critical was allowed to remain. And, to be fair to SB, she did say she didn't intend to ask for the woman's husband to be put out.

If anyone wants to send their thoughts, whether you are able to comment or not (or have a subscription, or not) this is one of the email addresses to try.

[email protected]

The Times isn't the only newspaper pushing this ahead of the Law Commission's draft Bill of course but it certainly doesn't appear to be impartial.

It's a shame as they have been great in hate crime, women's rights and the conflict with Self ID and even schools and toilets.

Maybe Janice is working on a piece to balance out the last three pro-surrogacy articles. Where are you JT we need you?!

And even women who commission a baby, my feeling is by thair actions they could be unlikely to know how to put someone elses needs first iykwim?

Thank you for the share token @persistentwoman!
My comment has been deleted. I wasn’t rude but there you go. Surrogacy is lovely apparently, no downsides at all.

I don't see the issue with non profit surrogacy. SB seems to be quickly discovering that parenting is a shit load harder than having a baby. She's annoying and self absorbed, but I don't begrudge her the baby or the reasons she wanted that rather than adoption. Also no issue with gay men having surrogates. After all, how would equal opportunities ever progress if men aren't given the opportunity to do the caring part of parenting? Obviously paid surrogacy is rather more questionable and SB never really went into why she thought it was fine.

Mine has suddenly appeared.

Yes, some negative comments have appeared! Maybe the moderators have changed shifts.

Here is the Facebook link where comments are currently switched on.

www.facebook.com/147384458624178/posts/4261511973878052/?d=n

Another one whose comments seem to be instantly deleted.

Certain sycophants in the comments were encouraging her to push the birth mother to have SB and SB's husband at the birth even if that meant the woman's own husband couldn't attend (because of Covid limits).

The attitudes of some of the cheer leaders are very telling. After all, you hire a woman (sorry, she doing it for free of course because it's all lovely and altruistic) and having had her kindly offer the use of her body you get to call the shots and treat her like a servant. How very Gilead.

My comment was moderated until someone sensible realised I was only stating facts.

I’ve really started to fall for the daily mash of late. Nice to read some common sense.

They have let through more critical comments now. Sometimes I wonder if they keep some comments suspended so that they get buried, resulting in fewer 'likes' when they finally get let through...

That seems highly likely talesofginza

There are quite a lot of critical comments now which is good. Balancing out the ‘he’s going to be an amazing dad’ based on nothing at all apart from his determination to rent a womb.