Robin B. sent us a link to a story in the New York Times magazine chronicling one woman’s decision to have a surrogate carry her biological child. Surrogacy is, from one perspective, extremely expensive and, from another perspective, extremely lucrative. The photos accompanying the story illustrate, almost as if by design, how “mothering” is being spread out in systematic ways to different kinds of women. Robin note that the accompanying article bought up lots of issues, but did little to think them through. In contrast, she points to a set of letters written in response.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 7
Liz — December 22, 2008
They must have chose the surrogate mother on appearance because she looks strikingly like the biological one. The biological one also appears to have a bit of a post-baby ponch.
amy — December 22, 2008
Actually they didn't. Her appearance didn't matter, as the child is the biological offspring of the now-parents, not the surrogate.
Y'all should actually read the article. It was fascinating, very well done, and presents lots of food for thought. It is written in the first person by the woman who hired the surrogate, so thinking through the issues raised wasn't at all the point of the piece. It's a lovely story about a gift a woman gave and a gift a woman got.
Tim M — December 22, 2008
Issues like these always make me think of the pictures they aren't showing. The millions of babies dead and dying because people would rather waste millions of dollars on fertility treatment when all they need to do is adopt.
chuk — December 22, 2008
Wait a second, which one gave the gift and which one got it?
Vettekaas — December 22, 2008
Yeah, as she's telling her story, she's not going to want to get into the sticky issues... but she does say some disturbing things. Relieved that the mother was college educated. Don't want somebody with mere high school diploma housing my baby!
"She wasn’t desperate for the money, so our relationship wouldn’t have to feel like a purely commercial enterprise, or a charitable one. The only major factors separating us were the fact that Cathy could have a baby and I could not — and we had that $25,000 at hand."
Sarah TX — December 29, 2008
Those pictures were staged by the photographer (and presumably the editor, if there was one), not by the author of the piece. I found them to be rather telling, not of the opinion of the mother or the surrogate, but of the photographer's point of view on surrogacy. Note that the surrogate was in a similar social and economic class as the mother, yet is portrayed literally barefoot on a broken-down porch.
Clem — January 6, 2009
When I read the article a couple of weeks ago, I was really shocked by the way the surrogate mom and her daughter (who sold her eggs to put herself through college) have no qualms using their bodies to make money. Lending your body to someone else for money in such a way is perfectly legal (and even considered by some as a beautiful thing) while prostitution is illegal and debasing. I must admit I have problems seeing the logic behind these. Shouldn't women be allowed to use their bodies to make a living as they want?
And I disagree with the post from Sarah TX above: both women certainly do not belong to the economic class. If I remember correctly, the article mentions the thousands of dollars the mom spent on fertility treatments, while it also mentions that the money paid to the surrogate mom will be welcomed by her family. While reading the article, it struck me that the surrogate mom "not being desperate for money" might just as well be wishful thinking from the mom's part!