From the Sunday New York Times, Alex Kuczynski tells her own version of Baby Mama. She opted for surrogacy after years of infertility and failed pregnancies and IVF attempts.
At 31 weeks, my baby was kicking and stretching. On the sonogram screen, I could see that he was doing his customary sit-ups. The monitor broadcast the slushy sound of his heartbeat.Then she tore off the sonogram images and handed them to me with one hand; with the other, she reached down to wipe the gel off the stomach of the woman who was bearing my child.I did not give birth to my son. He is the product of my egg and my husband's sperm. After half a decade of trying to become pregnant, sometimes succeeding but always failing to carry a baby successfully to term, I came to the conclusion that if we wanted to have a child who was genetically related to us, we would have to find a woman with a more reliable uterus to gestate and deliver our baby. That was in April 2007. I was 39 years old. Exhausted by years of infertility, wrung emotionally dry by miscarriage, my husband and I decided we would give gestational surrogacy -- hiring a woman to bear our child -- one try. It was a desperate measure, to be sure, and one complicated by questions from all the big sectors: financial, religious, social, moral, legal, political.
What I appreciate about the piece is its directness and honesty. Alex covers many of the issues that come up for a couple choosing surrogacy, with humor and sincerity. She even touches on the issues of class that are implicit in these kinds of arrangements. Probably because Alex was already a writer for the NYTimes, she was able to tell her own story, which makes it seem less sensationalized than a piece written by a third person. But, for the same reason, there are more critical perspectives toward surrogacy that are still missing from these debates. I would love to see a similar article to Alex's, written by a surrogate mom, for example. Even so, these stories are an important realistic counter to movies like Baby Mama.
More from feministing on surrogacy, here and here.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The real life accompaniment to Baby Mama.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10670
I am pleased to see a difference in tone to this account of surrogacy, but I still cringe at the lengths some people go to just trying to have a biological child. Could they just not adopt? Oftentimes, adoptions are not inexpensive, I don't know. Something just does not sit right with me on this.
This story does a tremendous disservice to surrogacy. I understand it's a very expensive option, but couldn't the Times have found someone who isn't dripping with privilege, money and vanity? Of course they could have - but that wouldn't fit in the Times, arbiter of classist "trend" pieces centering on the wealthy and shallow.
I'll let this post from one of my favorite progressive blogs enunciate my rage.
I've done some reading on surrogacy as it relates to my primary field of study, the sociology of the body, specifically body labor.
I wonder if this piece would have come across as classist without the pictures. I found it to be fascinating. In this kind of economic exchange, it's hard not to implicate class privilege. The surrogate in this case doesn't seem to be economically disadvantaged, just struggling to put two kids through college. Which is true for a lot of people.
While I understand the questions about why the author didn't just adopt, I know that adoption is the right choice for me (if I'm not barred from it for being in a queer relationship), that isn't true for everyone. Adoption isn't a simple, easy choice, nor is surrogacy.
For me personally, I didn't really look at the pictures until after I read the article and noticed what commentators had said about them. Even without seeing the photos, I felt the article was incredibly classist. This was mainly due to the author's condecsending explanation of why she chose her surrogate, her lack of exploring her surrogate's reasons in depth, and her wanting to prevent her surrogate from going to Las Vegas during the pregnancy although it was perfectly fine for the author to go white-water rafting, among other things.
I would argue that the fact that most people struggle with paying for college means that most people are economically disadvantaged in a country whose higher education system is so expensive. I don't think that reality should be brushed off. Also, if you are being a surrogate while your daughter is donating her eggs at the same time, I think it means you're more than just having a hard time paying the bills.
Ultimately I found the article really condescending towards middle class people in general, and the author's own cocooned, privileged lifestyle jarring and alienating.
I hope you don't think I was attempting to brush of the reality of how expensive higher education is. I understand that it can be a tremendous burden, but I don't think that struggling to pay for a higher education is a sign of economic disadvantage. But then again, I come from borderline working/middle class family, so parental support for college seems like a luxury to me.
I'm having a hard time understanding why struggling to pay for college shouldn't be considered a sign of economic disadvantage. This sounds kind of silly, but maybe we're just defining "struggle" differently.
I come from a working-class family that is just scraping by right now because we're putting two kids through college with a limited budget that's being squeezed further by the credit crunch. I've always had to have a job, sometimes two or more, to help pay for college, as well as my sister. My dad has to work overtime and mom needs decent hours at her job for us to be able to pay everything. Sometimes we don't make it, and I'm watching my family sink into chronic debt because of that. I don't consider my family poor, but I know if one thing goes wrong everything will fall to shit. I consider that being economically disadvantaged, and I see a lot of people in similar situations.
I'm the first person in my immediate family to go to college, and I was fortunate enough to get into a good school that gives me the financial aide to make attendance possible on my family's income. However, I see a lot of people on campus who are wealthier than my family for sure, but who are still honestly struggling to stretch their finances to cover what their loans won't. Most of these students, as well as I, will make it through school, but at what cost to us and our families? Why is it normal that parents have to sacrifice their retirement savings and get a second job in their 50s to pay for a decent education? Why is normal that people without supportive parents have to work 30-plus hours a week while a full-time student to finance their own education? While one can say (correctly) that parental support is a luxury, that doesn't make the crushing financial burden for parents and students any less a sign of economic struggle. Sorry this is so long, I got carried away...
Hint from someone who has been on both sides of this issue:
If, in course of discussing options for people who are for whatever reason not able to have children through standard PIV sex, you put the word "just" in front of the word "adopt," you should stop right there. Just...stop.
If you want to argue semantics, the phrase was carefully crafted to say "just not adopt," not "not just adopt?" There's a difference of emphasis, I suppose. But who the hell cares, right? The point is that both "procedures" are complicated and the adoption option sits better with me than going to heroic, expensive lengths for a biological child. Can anyone really offer me a compelling case, other than one simply of choice, as to why a biological child is so much more important than adopting a child that may need a family, particularly to those individuals who cannot have children through conventional or, oh what the hell was it, "standard PIV sex?"
Skippy, to answer for myself: money. My insurance paid for nearly every dime of my fertility treatments. And shockingly, no one was lining up to help us adopt. To answer for friends of mine: they're too fat, have been on antidepressants, are gay, or have any one of a hundred barriers that get thrown up.
Now, if you want to argue that the system is messed up? I'll be right there with you. I'm adopted myself, and am a huge proponent of it. By I am really, really sick and tired of people who have never been anywhere remotely near my shoes throwing adoption in my face as if I must never have thought of it. We are rightfully annoyed when people do that to women who don't want to be mothers. Why do we feel so justified throwing it at women who do?
I am not arguing that those who ultimately chose surrogacy did not consider adoption. There are financial and emotional hurdles to both options. But it seem as if one could and should mother or father an adopted child just as well as a biological one, with all things being equal I suppose. But it seems to me that one could make a much stronger moral case to spend one's limited resources adopting rather than going to extreme lengths for biological offspring. I do not see as compelling a moral case for a biological child other than simple preferences for genetic relatedness, which is fine, it's ultimately a choice. I just see it as a more selfish one that ends up leaving me scratching my head a bit.
Newsweek ran an article about surrogate mothers:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/129594?tid=relatedcl
It's a good read. Some women do it for the money, but some, like the first woman they profile, do it for the love of being pregnant. Personally, I can completely understand why a woman would want to be a surrogate.
I'm floored that Feministing would give this article a mostly review without mentioning the race/class implications within it. Alex K., the author and wife of an insanely rich investor, almost completely glosses over the issues of class and monetary compensation and is totally out of touch with middle class Americans. This is how she discusses choosing Cathy, a middle-class woman from Pennsylvania, to be her surrogate:
"...Cathy’s application, we saw that she was by far the most coherent and intelligent of the group. She wrote that she was happily married with three children. Her answers were not handwritten in the tiny allotted spaces; she had downloaded the original questionnaire and typed her responses at thoughtful length. Her attention to detail was heartening. And her computer-generated essay indicated, among other things, a certain level of competence. This gleaned morsel of information made me glad: she must live in a house with a computer and know how to use it."
She treats Cathy like an abnormality among the general incompetent, backwater, computer-less populace that must live outside of New york City. Also, take a look at the photos that go along with the piece: In one, Cathy is literally barefoot and extremely pregnant, sitting on a worn back porch. In the other we see Alex K. with her baby in her arms, standing in front of a well manicured estate with her African-American "baby nurse" behind her. ?!?!
I'm not upset that Alex wanted a biological child or that she chose surrogacy, I'm sure her desire for a child was very real and she went through many ordeals to have him. What I'm upset about here is that Alex has no idea what life is like for average Americans who by no means are poor put who decide to bear rich people's children or donate their eggs (like Cathy's daughter did) to pay for higher education because they can't really afford it. I don't think there is something fundamentally wrong with surrogacy, either, but there is something wrong with treating the woman bearing your child as a rental unit.
I've often felt that Feministing does a poor job of discussing class issues. Posts that discuss class-based issues (particularly white working-class issues) are few and far between. The fact that this article received attention, but not the class issues within it, illustrates this.
ktboo11, i concur with you re: the dearth of class-related discussion and this article in particular. i read a lot of blogs by infertile women who are now raising children, both biological and adopted, and the class issues can't be ignored....many women who want to have children feel that adoption is exploitative, which is something else i feel should be discussed here. also, infertility treatments are often incredibly expensive, and, even with insurance, it's rare for poorer women to, say, have a round of IVF. i am all for supporting women's childbearing (or not) choices, but i think the issues surrounding those choices should be discussed here.
and the fact that cathy's daughter had to donate her eggs to pay for her college education is pretty horrifying. many of us (myself included) are either graduate or undergraduate students, and i think this serves as a potent reminder of how lucky many of us are to have the class privilege that we do.
I had to stop reading after the section about how the author selected the womb to grow her baby. "Wow, this woman has a computer! She's 'coherent and intelligent!'"
The condescension and narcissism comes across in the cover photo and the first paragraph. She looks at the camera in a way that shows it's all about her and starts with all "I" statements.
Her husband is a 54 year old investor with 6 kids already. But the 39 year old author just had to have a baby and she had the money to do so. And she could turn a NYT cover story out of it. Bravo!
I agree. While I was relieved that there was a small modicum of discussion of some controversy, there was an astonishing amount of privilege and condescension.
Baby nurses, in my experience, are not primarily educators. They are the ones who get up at night instead of the parents, and the ones who change most of if not all of the diapers. I was roommates with one for a while. They are more expensive than regular nannies because they are expected to intensively care for newborns. How long they stay usually depends on the finances of the family. I guess it would depend on what the family wants from their help and if they want to be more hands on, it was just not the norm in the families my friend has worked for.
Why is it important to have a "realistic counter" to a commercial piece of art like "Baby Mama"? Does anyone think that's exactly how surrogacy is? Where the film had kernels of truth in its exaggerations is where the best humor is. The film dealt with class issues and the resentments and distrust each character from a different class had for each other. And it was done with humor by funny women. It didn't seem to have pretensions of being anything other than a humorous treatment of a modern phenomenon seen from a woman's perspective. What's wrong with that?
"I came to the conclusion that if we wanted to have a child who was genetically related to us"
Ugh. So peeved by this. I realize that adoption is NOT an easy process by any means but that phrasing seems so....wrong. I wasn't cranky until that point so I'm inclined to believe its because of the phrase and sentiment, not because someones going the surrogacy route.
Many of you are right, there are serious class issues at play in Alex's story. Maybe it's because I have such low expectations from stories like this, but I was pleased to even see her MENTION the class dynamics, however flippantly.
The pictures were definitely a whole other issue. Particularly the one where she is holding her baby, with someone who seems to be an employee of hers (and a woman of color) standing ten feet behind. There is a lot to say about that, to say the least.
And Middleageliberal--
I do think its important to have real-life pictures to counter Hollywood's version of events. Tina Fey in Baby Mama was entertaining, and humor-filled, but not realistic by most accounts. I think it's good that Hollywood wants to take on taboo subjects like this, but I want real women telling their stories to go along with it.
The pictures are inflammatory and only tenuously related to the story. Cathy, the surrogate, is not impoverished, and I can understand why Alex K. would choose her; the potential ethical problems with surrogacy are minimized when you've got an informed surrogate who has options besides renting her womb to infertile couples.
It's meaningful that Cathy made the choice (and it's clear she has choices) to be paid for this service in order to put her kids through college--even if for Alex K. it only serves to alleviate her guilt.
As for the "why not adoption?" posts that dominate the Times comments section...Alex K may be looking to guarantee that her child has a place in her husband's extended family--and cement her role too. This is purely speculative, but I suspect that for a wealthy man with 6 biological children on his third wife, an adopted child would be second rate. Alex K may want to selfishly perpetuate her genetics, but she may also know that the only way to give her child an equal place in the family is for him to be genetically related to his father and 6 siblings. There is nothing wrong with being shrewd about motherhood, and I suspect Alex is.
And what is this about everyone foisting the world's unwanted children on the infertile? If you can't give birth naturally you have to earn your mommy-cred by selflessly adopting an unwanted child? uhg.
And the baby nurse--the caption specifically says "baby nurse" and not nanny--so while the photo has awful undertones, things are probably not as they seem. A baby nurse is primarily an educator, teaching a new parent (who usually has never cared for an infant before) how to feed, diaper, soothe, swaddle, and read the baby's needs. They don't stay long, usually just long enough for new parents to get rest and build some confidence about caring for baby. Knowing a bit about Alex K., you can bet the baby nurse in the photo is the best out there. Gross photo, yeah, but it's staged. It tells us nothing except that a rich woman can and does hire help--we knew that already.
I would have loved to see Cathy write the article, but it's the Times and they love to profile the privileged. Still, it was an interesting read. I liked the honesty and a look at Alex and Cathy's unique relationship.
I'm really sorry if you thought I was making light of your situation, or making it sound as though it's acceptable. I suppose I am just defining disadvantage differently.
I think we pretty much have very similar backgrounds, only any money my parents had when I was in college went to making sure they kept their house, so I received no parental support. I have a lot of debt now, and it is definitely a burden for me.
I agree that the financing of higher education in this country is incredibly screwed up when people are struggling and losing their retirements to fund an education. It's even more screwed up that this seems to be status quo.