Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Sunday times 'Style' sexism on surrogacy

100 replies

Carriemac · 21/03/2021 09:47

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.

OP posts:
LizziesTwin · 04/04/2021 14:56

Her request for kindness made me snort. How kind will she be when the woman who bore a child for her needs pelvic floor Physiotherapy? Or treatment for any other of the conditions that pregnancy cause?

FightingTheFoo · 04/04/2021 18:54

Err how is “Maybe stop renting other women’s wombs and treating babies as commodities" trolling?

"As such I welcome informed debate, but I don’t get much of it, sadly. Just the odd, anonymous naysayer flaming me with such ridiculously misinformed comments as the one above"

I mean, how is the comment "ridiculously misinformed"? She rented another woman's womb to have a baby. Ergo treating the baby as a commodity. Just like any commercial exchange - even one disguised as an altruistic exchange that just happens to include money on the table - the product being bought or sold (or bartered) is a commodity.

OhHolyJesus · 04/04/2021 19:08

I don't think it's trolling either, Fighting

Beresiner sounds more and more fragile each week, with a distinct use of language as used by SJWs.

I also think that if you place your family and your personal life in the public eye you can expect to get some that disagree with you and yes, she says she welcomes it but here she is saying she a) doesn't expect us to fall in line with her POV and b) when mild criticism is received it is 'trolling' and not debate (in pretty sure that the comment is exactly what informed debate looks like, informed being because she's been talking about the surrogacy arrangement in the column).

Maybe other emails she received called her worse but as others receive graphic rape and death threats because they mention female biology I can't muster much sympathy. It really isn't trolling, it's disagreement.

I take this to be a sign of a increasingly fragile ego and an inability to hear criticism on a subject she says she's an expert in (an expert of her own experience perhaps, but she was a Beauty Editor, not a family lawyer, obstetrician or surrogacy agency employee. I was an expert in my own pregnancy, of my own body, but bowed to the expertise of those who have successfully delivered babies when the time came to get my baby here safely as I figured they know a bit more than I do.)

I'd take her advice on a deep cleanse face pack or an anti-ageing moisturiser though.

Carriemac · 05/04/2021 10:35

I agree , she's an intelligent person and having a baby now will bring home to her what that poor surrogate has given up.

OP posts:
RabbitOfCaerbannog · 05/04/2021 11:20

Err how is “Maybe stop renting other women’s wombs and treating babies as commodities" trolling?

I can see why she might be offended and hurt by this. But her being offended because she feels her situation is somehow different does not = the poster sharing ridiculously misinformed comments. She rented a womb and bought a baby, a woman risked her health (and indeed life - which is the case whenever a woman gives birth) so that she could have a family. Advocating for more women to do this and fuelling a marketplace for babies with her very high profile column should be open to challenge. It seems naive not to expect that.

She says: "I write about myself with the assumption that some people won’t like it" - she is aware that it is a controversial area, so she is asking for the right to express her own challenging views, but to not feel challenged in return. For things to be framed in a very specific way - perhaps she could describe how? - so that her own feelings don't get hurt.

WeRoarSometimes · 05/04/2021 20:11

@OhHolyJesus
@TheRabbitOfCaerbannog

Hear, hear. With bells on.

The Sunday Times lady wanted a baby and she was prepared to put another woman's health at risk to achieve that.

She sought out a country where the rights of women are of little concern to legislators and where buying babies is not against the law.
A commercial arrangement facilitates the process of removing newborn babies from their birth mothers in the absence of any safeguarding risk.

Why on earth should she be applauded?
Why should this be acceptable?
We are at a point where the worth of young women will be based on exploiting their reproductive health.
(Slams cup of mint tea down.)

OhHolyJesus · 05/04/2021 22:29

She sought out a country where the rights of women are of little concern to legislators and where buying babies is not against the law.

Beresiner mentioned that this came up in her meeting with the social worker prior to the parental order being granted. I always wondered how that would play out in that situation, how you would explain how you went abroad to access commercial surrogacy (California was it?) which is illegal in the U.K. but in the end you didn't buy a baby you just paid 'expenses'. I wondered if you might fudge it a bit and say how you suddenly realised how exploitative it was and decided to stay on home turf for the 'altruistic' version.

SB has been open about the whole process for the purposes of the column so we know she had multiple egg donors on Russia (known for its excellent human rights record and protection of women - 22 women die every day I hear) and has one embryo on ice there presumably for Baby no.2 (but she would need another surrogate mother/womb to rent unless Rebecca will go another round).

As Baby M was already here, is related to Mr B and no parental order has ever been rejected by a judge I do wonder what you would have to do to raise eyebrows.

From the column:

For Mr B it goes against every fibre in his being to sit by and let someone smack-talk his wife and now, worse, his baby. Of course it does, because it simply isn’t compatible with how we function in the real world — they wouldn’t be walking up to Mr B and shouting abuse in his face. “Why is it we have to go through so much personal verification to make a payment online,” he asked me last week, looking up from his phone, “but when you want to post an abusive comment you don’t have to link yourself to your identity? If you feel the need to say it, own it.”

It's possible people email her directly and anonymously to say Baby M shouldn't be here or other awful things but I don't think that would be the tone of the emails. Surely it's about her actions and that of her husband, the baby didn't ask for any of this and is not accountable for the circumstances of her birth. If anyone was targeting a baby he or she would obviously be insane.

And

"The opportunity for open discussion is important, particularly on a topic as widely misunderstood as surrogacy, and it’s fine to write what you want, but let it be known who wrote it and what kind of person you are. Even better, why can’t we just choose kindness, especially now?"

Well we could afford kindness to babies but putting that to one side, I take her point and there is nothing I say here I wouldn't say to SB's face or anyone else who bought a baby (or who sold one, though I would probably have more questions) and I've seen SB engage with those posting comments and that is all moderated so I don't know maybe don't give out your email address? SB would probably consider anything mildly critical as 'abuse' as it would be disagreement...perhaps she would call me a SERF -Surrogacy Exclusionary Radical Feminist...

It's a new one on me and a badge I would wear proudly!

I would like to know what Rebecca's expenses included though, the money has never been discussed, that remains off limits, it's almost as if some things are private.

Clymene · 05/04/2021 22:54

No, surrogacy isn't 'widely misunderstood' Mr B, it's increasing understood. Which is why it's illegal in so many countries.

People seeing surrogacy and thinking it's a really shitty exploitative way of getting a baby that's biologically related to its father aren't misunderstanding it; we're seeing it for what it is.

Carriemac · 11/04/2021 10:16

More justification from her in the article today. So Unfair - all that legal protection. And then she admits how flawed the US system is .

OP posts:
Carriemac · 11/04/2021 10:19

And any anti surrogacy comments are deleted

OP posts:
OhHolyJesus · 11/04/2021 10:23

I think it's time to complain to the Times if you have anti-surrogacy comments deleted.

I doubt it would make any difference but we should register our thoughts. With the influence within being so pro-surrogacy they might not have taken the public temperature and if you're a subscriber they might listen if it will affect them financially, in the same way that readers have left the Guardian over women's rights and they now encourage you to donate to them when you read any online links.

Beresiner is never going to change her narrative, in the same way as Susie Green isn't going to. Both involve their children so they can never move from their belief that they did the right thing.

Carriemac · 11/04/2021 10:39

Had my comment deleted for breaking guidelines . It was a mildly critical comment, definitely not personal

OP posts:
WeRoarSometimes · 11/04/2021 11:16

Comments being deleted for simply being mildly critical sound much like the #NoDebate being thrust at us whenever we raise concerns about the safety of women and children.

I'm not mentioning names as it may result in my post being deleted. I have written to the author of a pro-surrogacy article at Marie Claire about why they feel the laws require 'catching up' and why the focus ought to be on safeguards not, commissioning parent desires.

The article starts with
'Why the law needs changing fast'
And then mentions the US further into the article.

Since when is the US more progressive when it comes to the legal protections needed for women and children?

The biology of females and their reproductive capacity what makes them vulnerable in society. If we want laws to 'catch up', shouldn't we be looking at other countries where the law affords women better protection against exploitation because of their capacity for pregnancy.

For example, Sweden, France, Germany.
Do the laws of these countries need overhauling because of recent decisions to ban surrogacy?
Or is it because the legislators have decided that women should not be putting their health at risk for the desires of others with more money?

Perhaps it is no coincidence that all three countries also offer universal access to healthcare to their citizens, so the state provides health services for ante-natal care and delivery of babies.
There is also extensive post-natal care provided to new mothers.
E.g New mums in Germany have an on-call midwife service for a couple of months after baby arrives and a daily visit for the first couple of weeks.

OhHolyJesus · 11/04/2021 11:50

Comments being deleted for simply being mildly critical sound much like the #NoDebate being thrust at us whenever we raise concerns about the safety of women and children.

You could almost wonder if the erasure of women/mother was in some way connected...

OhHolyJesus · 11/04/2021 16:12

The comments have had a clean up haven't they? Now onto 14 and all saying congrats.

Maybe SB does it herself.

Theluggage15 · 11/04/2021 16:16

I made a comment this morning which was critical. It went straight to pending approval, I then received an email saying it was approved and it was posted. Now it’s gone! I then made a comment that only nice comments were being approved and that was rejected as breaching guidelines!
How do you complain about this stuff?!

Theluggage15 · 11/04/2021 16:21

I just made the comment’Hi Sophie’ and it was rejected!! Grin

OhHolyJesus · 11/04/2021 16:25

I think you can complain directly.

I have complained previously but had no replay despite chasing. I think it really has to be a matter of complaining to them every single time now, in much the same way that it's now necessary to complain to the BBC in an almost weekly basis!

Complaints about editorial matters may be sent by email to [email protected]k_
Or by post to: Feedback, The Times, The News Building, 1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF.
If you would like to make a complaint under the terms of the Editors’ Code administered by IPSO, you may use the dedicated formm_.

Theluggage15 · 11/04/2021 16:29

Thanks Ohholyjesus. I’m going to complain, it’s driving me mad that only one narrative is allowed. There’s no way my comments breached their guidelines unless their guidelines mean nothing negative allowed. Ridiculous. I might just keep posting the same comments just to be annoying.

OhHolyJesus · 11/04/2021 16:38

I have seen some of my comments in the last get posted some time after they have been made. It is crazy that only supportive comments that agree are being allowed up.

Apart from it only showing one side in the column itself it only shows one side in the comments. It also indicates to readers who do disagree that they are in the minority whereas, truth be told, it would probably be quite balanced. Previous comments in pro-surrogacy articles have seen great engagement from both sides but I would say those against surrogacy would be in the majority - at least before the clean U.K. begins.

SB wrote last week about trolls but actually I don't think disagreement is trolling. She has also engaged with posters before, something about the Law Commission's proposals which have been heavily debated here.

Anyway, judging from two or three comments that are getting through the net now you and I are not the only ones who see this as being one sided.

If you get a reply you should post it here, at least MN allows this discussion. Instead of subscribing to the Times I should get a premium account here!

Theluggage15 · 11/04/2021 16:46

Yes there were a lot of negative comments last week which were allowed. I commented last week and it was allowed, said virtually the same thing this week, approved then rejected. Ii must be about specific moderators, as how can their guidelines change week to week.

Still only 13 comments!

OhHolyJesus · 11/04/2021 16:52

Ah well one more has gone then! 14 down to 13. Jan K's has gone. It was there literally 10 mins ago. Her comment was something about waiting to see something critical from the Times on Surrogacy.

"Our lawyers summed it up perfectly when they zoomed us later for a debrief. The firm deals more often with the negative end of the family law spectrum contentious divorce, custody battles etc so they were beaming from ear to ear at the beautiful ten minutes our case took. “So we’re done?” I asked. One of them nodded. “Until now the law said the Randalls were M’s mother and father. What happened today was simply correcting that error and making the right people her parents.”How simply, perfectly put."

And no wonder SB finds it difficult to deal with crisis in when surrounded by sycophants like that.

So parental orders are seen by lawyers as correcting mistakes on birth certificates which correctly record the birth mother... and her partner is listed so women aren't pimped out for surrogacy...but it's all just a 'correction'. Nothing to see here.

I wonder how much the lawyers got paid...

RabbitOfCaerbannog · 11/04/2021 17:05

The biology of females and their reproductive capacity what makes them vulnerable in society. If we want laws to 'catch up', shouldn't we be looking at other countries where the law affords women better protection against exploitation because of their capacity for pregnancy.

If society cared about women it would. However, society's current fixation is allowing anyone and everyone (mostly men) to be their true selves and encouraging everyone else to be kind. Except to poor women that is, and women in jail (many of whom are poor) and women with mental health problems (I've no doubt from my own work that there are socio-economic need and mental health drivers in the case of some surrogate mothers, in some cases a crossover of both - not all surrogate mothers etc). Why on Earth can't we point out to a national newspaper the power dynamics in the relationship between well off surrogate parents (you have to be) and the women who supply them with babies?

WeRoarSometimes · 11/04/2021 17:51

The power dynamic is so heavily skewed towards commissioning parents.
I wrote to the Guardian last month. Their focus for the rights of adult females and female children appears to be on developing nations and Austrailasia. In the women's rights section, transgender rights appear to have increased coverage from UK based journalists over other issues.
Needless to say I haven't heard back at all.
The BBC and other MSM all are covering surrrogacy with a very positive spin. I even thought of VDerbyshire but I think she has left the BBC.

FannyCann · 11/04/2021 18:25

I've just posted a quote from the United Nations regarding maintaining legal parentage for the birth mother to protect children born of surrogacy. It's pending. Doubt it will stay, as the only comments allowed are positive ones. I wonder if Sophie's response to what she views as trolling (ie raising valid concerns about surrogacy) has been to demand that all posts on her comments are not just moderated but totally censored.

I wrote to the editor previously as apparently my comments were no longer welcome. I also suggested they should have some more informed discussion about surrogacy on their pages. I've tweeted the Times and Janice Tuner about this too. No response. (I know Janice is busy sticking up for women's rights in other areas and gets a lot of flack as a consequence so maybe she has decided this isn't her area).

Anyway, since then I have been allowed a few comments but I think Sophie is demanding #nodebate on her articles.