Sunday times 'Style' sexism on surrogacy

[Carriemac]

In the Style section- really? Having a baby via surrogacy is not a fashion choice. One comment on Sophie's self obsessed column in her 'journey' says More female reproductive exploitation rebranded as a necessity for the wealthy and entitled. And I completely agree.

Sorry that should say Style section not sexism

You have just reminded me how much I used to love the Style section 20 years ago when we had the paper Sunday Times.

My first experience of hate reading. Clearly nothing has changed in that section!

The comments are (unusually) very critical. Normally they're censored to oblivion under all the surrogacy articles. Share token here:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/215e48b8-859e-11eb-b3fc-5a7300727f02?shareToken=84513a068d604ca7f2b108944198c4e2

Yet another article about surrogacy in which the elephant in the room - renting out women's wombs - isn't touched upon at all. As usual the focus is on the need of the couple who desire a baby, not the ethics of buying room in someone else's body to grow that baby. Pregnancy can take a huge toll, multiple pregnancies carry risks to the health of the mother, it would help if journalists could start asking questions about where this might end up - what safeguards are in place for the women, what it might mean for the children's mental health in the long term if their mother is removed from their lives entirely?

Is this the best form of comparison the journalist can use?

Comparing surrogacy laws with the laws for same sex marriage?
The law for same sex marriages was brought into allow equality regardless of whether you loved someone of the same or opposite sex.

Overhauling surrogacy laws to something its lobbyists consider 'progressive' is about creating further exploitation of women.
All in the name of entitlement.

There is no right to a child , no right in law to parenthood.
I say this as a woman with a history of pregnancy loss.

Yes the comment in the article comparing the old fashioned attitudes to gay marriage to surrogacy was particularly unpleasant, as if people’s objections to surrogacy are just the same as the objections to gay marriage.

Good to see a lot of the comments are not in support. The Times is very keen on pushing surrogacy at the moment, lots of fluffy positive articles.

@Theluggage15

Yes the comment in the article comparing the old fashioned attitudes to gay marriage to surrogacy was particularly unpleasant, as if people’s objections to surrogacy are just the same as the objections to gay marriage.

Good to see a lot of the comments are not in support. The Times is very keen on pushing surrogacy at the moment, lots of fluffy positive articles.

Surrogacy has been [very cleverly] aligned with the rights of gay couples. I clearly remember after Tom Daley bought had a baby that any criticism was immediately met with cries of homophobia. It is almost impossible now to have a discussion about surrogacy without accusations of homophobia.

Bloody hell those comments!

Overwhelmingly critical and many asking for balance in further articles.

Sophie Beresiner herself has even been commenting and others replying.

(I used to like Ollie from MIC, I very much doubt one of his female friends like Binky or Cheska will oblige and he and husband Gareth will be looking for someone of lower income and easier to manipulate.)

I stopped reading the SB column because I found her lack of self-awareness so irritating and the "Yay Sophie!" comments beneath so simplistic and uncritical. What on earth has happened today? Has the moderator had a "Fuck it!" moment?

comments won't load for me - they must have switched them off! Grrr

This is a useful article exploring the ethics around surrogacy for anyone who wants to interested:

unherd.com/2020/04/the-grim-truth-about-surrogacy/

Yes, her fans seem to have deserted her today and the tone is very different. Usually the comments consist of ‘you’re so amazing’ with kisses and hearts and the odd negative comment is swept away. It’s very disappointing how pro surrogacy The Times seems to be.

Good point about Tom Daley and his baby @AfternoonToffee, I’d forgotten about that.

I’m so uncomfortable with Conflating the right to have a child with the right to same sex marriage. Especially when what it seems to really mean is the right of a rich couple to spend money to get whatever they want. How is this going to work for a poor couple who still wants this right.

‘Be nice, show some empathy’ just seems to be rolled out to stop any level of criticism or ethical consideration

I want to support some level of surrogacy but I’m finding it harder and harder because it feels like we’re moving further from the right place.

[quote TheRabbitOfCaerbannog]This is a useful article exploring the ethics around surrogacy for anyone who wants to interested:

unherd.com/2020/04/the-grim-truth-about-surrogacy/[/quote]
Anyone who is interested that should read

@TheRabbitOfCaerbannog
Thanks for posting, that.
Will have a read tomorrow when not so knackered.
All the Sunday papers today have made my blood boil, Times, Observer, Independent, the lot!

Friend with Carrie Symonds. Interesting. There has been rather a lot of stealth “consultancy” on changing surrogacy laws in the UK in the last 3(?) years.

Only the affluent can afford surrogacy - therefore people with money & influence, like the journalist who wrote this feature, and countless celebrities, are driving the conversation. NB the women providing them with babies are neither powerful or influential. Plus it's now very much attached to gay rights and, in a similar way to the way transactivists have successfully attached trans policy to LGB policy, renting women's wombs and buying babies has been reframed as an lgbt human right.

@MarkRuffaloCrumble

comments won't load for me - they must have switched them off! Grrr

They are still there, including mine.

Exactly, there's a huge power imbalance.
Money, socio-economic status, more likely education and access to legal representation to protect oneself.

One other thing I have noticed is that the surrogate mothers often appear to be single women, and mothers already. The people seeking surrogacy are most frequently couples. There's a siginficant imbalance there within that relationship.

It's given credence on the BBC and there's a whole narrative about this being providing some form of equality to individuals who can't have babies.

Marie Claire is on it now, looking at the BBC programme, saying the UK's legal system needs to be more like laws in the US as there isn't enough protection for those involved, you can be vulnerable to people changing their minds. It mentions the Baby Gammy/David and Wendy Farnell case but gives no background about his conviction for child sex abuse and fails to mention twin Pipah.

The article ends with this:

"The use of a surrogate can transform people’s lives – creating wonderful opportunities for people to have a family. With more people than ever relying on technology to help them start a family, it is clear the law needs to catch up, and quickly, with today’s modern families and fertility choices. Let’s hope we will eventually see the changes in the law needed to offer more protection and clarity to both intended parents and surrogates."

https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/life/sex-and-relationships/surrogacy-why-the-law-urgently-needs-changing-732663

Oh the irony.
'Vulnerable to people changing their minds'.
As in pregnant woman wishing to keep the baby, the baby she has nourished, protected and carried for nine months.
Hmm.

I don't see how this 'alignment'/'levelling up' of UK surrogacy laws in favour of the laws in the US actually works at all to protect who we should really be worried about, the pregnant women and their babies.

The people writing in favour of relaxing UK laws should really consider their own privilege. The glossy magazine pieces, dovetailed with home interiors, and men citing fertility inequality.

I got curious and looked at other laws and policies in the US that treat pregnant women/ port-partum women with such humanity and compassion:

Female prison inmates in county/state prisons still give birth in restraints. (23 states have not banned it). In labour and cufffed or shackled.

Several states still ban abortion and will prosecute women and doctors involved in abortion.

New mothers are entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave but have no statutory pay.
This only applies if you are working for a bigger company, I think it's more than 50 or 100 employees.

If your employer is a smaller organisation, there is no right under federal laws to maternity leave after childbirth. None whatsoever.
You've given birth to a baby and you have no rights to take any time off work.......

On this note the U.S. is the only country in the OECD countries refusing to offer any paid maternity leave to new mothers. The OECD is a group of 37 developed and reasonably rich countries including Aus NZ, Turkey, European states and UK.

We are not talking states blighted by civil war or widespread famine and poverty.
Rich countries, rich governments.

(I'm going to have some chamomile tea to calm down).

Excellent points WeRoar and useful to have to hand.

I feel a complaint letter coming on...

It's similar to referencing Ireland on great human rights laws over Self ID when they use to saw through a woman's pelvis during birth upon until the 1980s, rape in marriage was recognised as a crime in 1990 and abortion was only legalised in 2018 (and that doesn't mean it's widely accessible either).

Instead of check your privilege it should be check your human rights violations you idiots.

The Style section is more about women’s interests than just fashion but I agree the Times has become more pro surrogacy since SB started her column. They tend to promote the values of their pet columnists generally though- Dolly Allerton and Camilla Long seem to have a lot of influence in particular.

^^On a quest for positive change, Ollie wants to use his platform and considerable contacts (“Carrie Symonds and I DM quite a lot”) to speak out. “I’m aware of my influence.

And when did Carrie Symonds get elected to public office? Good to see the prime minister's ----bit on the side fiancé has such a say in the lawmaking in this country.

I think it’s in the Style section because the columnist used to write for that section, rather than a topic in itself if that makes sense?