As the mother of two wonderful boys (mayhem and destruction), I can understand the desire to have a child, yet this desire to reproduce should not obscure the ability of some potential mothers to exploit others. Some women have turned to surrogacy to become mothers, and in the process have ignored the system of exchange, and the potential it has to reduce womens bodies to their wombs. Womens ENews has an article detailing the exorbitant cost of surrogacy. It seeks to draw attention to the fact that with a declining economy, surrogacy as an option is becoming, more and more difficult to utilize as an option. We are meant to feel saddened that one group of women are having difficulty exploiting another group of women, for the purposes of projecting their genes into the future. According to the article, “After fertility treatment, the expenses of surrogacy break into about four categories. Legal expenses range from $5,000 to $6,000. The carrier’s health insurance ranges from $26,000 to $30,000. The carrier’s fee–for services and living expenses–ranges from $20,000 to $45,000. The fee for the agency (which includes a legally-mandated $1,500 screening fee to check the carrier’s background)–ranges from $3,000 to $25,000.” Where oh where is a western woman to turn to make sure that her child is genetically related to her? The answer is obvious isn’t it. Let’s just fall back on the poor, and WOC. Western culture has a history of breeding us when it is convenient, all the while decrying our “rabbit” like fertility when we choose to have our own children. Yep, that’s the problem with the third world, too many women having babies, but it certainly is not problematic for western women to fly over there, and pay women to give birth to children. Whose fertility matters? Remind me which bodies count?
“Intended parents may cash in their airline frequent flyer benefits to meet carriers in India, Eastern Europe, Mexico, Russia, Thailand or South Africa, but once these air miles run out, they may be unable to afford $2,000 plane tickets so they can continue monitoring pregnancies and legal proceedings.”
Oh dear, due to financial restrictions you may not be able to aptly police the woman that you have chosen to exploit. Heaven forbid that western women are unable to make sure that the leash does not aptly restrict the blood flow. What if mammy forgets her place? What if Mammy makes a decision that is not in the best interest of my genetically superior child? But with every problem there is a solution. India is becoming a magnate for the surrogate industry precisely because the women stay in clinics or supervised homes, to ensure that their every movement can be appropriately monitored. We must not forget that westerners are paying between 6-10 thousand, and they deserve their moneys worth. Let’s over look the fact that women are taking this option because it represents the equivalent of years of labor.
But what about supporting the choices of women? After all, women are willingly choosing to become surrogate mothers. We can pretend that this is not a choice constrained by circumstance, but the relevancy of the system of exchange cannot be ignored. This is simply a new form of colonialism wherein womens bodies, instead of land are being used to project western hegemony. This is an exploitation that is specific only to women, a man cannot be exploited in this way.
Each and everyday in our consumerist, capitalist economy we are part of a system that exploits third world countries. We have created informal colonies so that we may consume more than our share of the global produce, and yet we can still wax prophetic about choice, and agency. Pointing out that women will be able to educate their children, buy homes and invest the money they earn from surrogacy does not negate the fact that this is still exploitation, and had this predatory system not been in place, India would not be the new breeding ground for infertile western women. How many choices can you buy with a dollar a day?
It is arrogance to prioritize western biological imperatives in this way. Our DNA is no more necessary to the progression of humanity as a species than the DNA of an impoverished woman of Delhi. This is not a case wherein both sides will ultimately be satisfied, as the surrogate will always be aware that it is her body that was reduced to the level of brood mare to provide for her children. How many auction blocks do WOC have to stand on? As I have said on many occasions our identification as women only matters when it is used to benefit others. We are the downtrodden, ‘unwomen’ of the world unless of course, you happen to be in the market for a spare womb.
{ 29 comments }
This is so utterly repugnant that it literally defies description; slavery really hasn’t been outlawed, has it? Of course, as you succinctly point out – it isn’t ‘choice” when it is one of the few viable economic alternatives.
Sorta like drug dealing in the western world. I know that is not popular but in a lot of places, that IS the only viable economic alterantive – not saying it is right, just that it is a reality.
THe Handmaids Tale indeed (Margaret Atwood).
Great post, Renee, thank you.
I have to admit, I’d never put much thought into whether or not surrogacy should have a place in a better (feminist/anti-racist/socialist/etc) society – this post makes me think no.
yet there are times when surrogacy is good – like if a sister carries, because her sister can’t. it becomes bad when it takes on this tone, when it becomes a choice between years of backbreakibg labor or 9months of not owning your body…
so, i ask AGAIN, where are the artificial uterii??? you know, the sci-fi answer to these problems (all of them! abortion and surrogacy and everything)
oh, wait, this doesn’t impact men directly, so its not important
Well, I don’t know. In a better society, we’d have almost every child be a wanted child, so what options would childless couples have? I think there still might be a place for surrogacy, My mother actually contemplated offering to surrogate for her infertile niece, before she chose to adopt. Carrying a child to term is enormous work, but if a woman is willing to do it without a significant level of coercion… yeah, I’m not sure that’s possible, either, but we are talking improvements/ideals.
This ‘third world baby hosting’ thing, though…ugh.
This is one of those things that I find interesting.
If women choose to become prostitutes, we’re supposed to be supportive of their choice and make sure it’s safe and legal and bla bla bla, right?
If women choose to be surrogates, we’re supposed to be shocked and horrified at the exploitation.
I really think this should be an all or nothing proposition, here. If women are poor stupid helpless things who can’t consent to surrogacy and must be protected, I hardly think women are competant to be sex workers.
If you’re infertile and you adopt, you’re seen as noble and giving and whatever, but if you do IVF or surrogacy, Christ, what an asshole you are.
So here’s my question. If you adopt a baby and do not provide medical care or shelter for the biological mother, how is this more noble and less exploitative than providing medical care and paying a gestational carrier? In both cases, a woman is pregnant and someone else ends up with the baby. What’s the difference?
Oh, and no, I don’t think gestational surrogacy is an ethical black/white area. It’s not necessarily good, it’s not necessarily bad. I just find the hypocrisy involved here interesting.
If women choose to become prostitutes, we’re supposed to be supportive of their choice and make sure it’s safe and legal and bla bla bla, right?
Okay that was completely dismissive. The idea is in both situations to acknowledge that these are constrained choices. We cannot act is though these are autonomous decisions because these women are oppressed by class and gender.
Renee,
“We cannot act is though these are autonomous decisions because these women are oppressed by class and gender.”
A large number of womens’ choices are constrained choices because of class and gender. How do we decide which choices we/they get to make?
…and again, me? Not pro- or anti-surrogacy, not trying to say there aren’t massive ethical problems, here.
Akeeyu, there isn’t one single feminist position on prostitution nor on surrogacy. Personally I don’t think either is innately bad, but both are bad when women are forced into them by economic circumstance rather than choosing them freely. And in that case, the answer isn’t to ban the practice or to sweep in and rescue these women, it’s to work to give them better economic options so that they’re not in the position of having to make that choice.
As for adoption – I do see adoption as problematic in cases where the parents would prefer to keep the baby but feel forced to give it up for adoption because they don’t feel they can afford to keep it. But in cases of orphans or children whose parents just didn’t want a child, then there’s no issue.
“We cannot act is though these are autonomous decisions because these women are oppressed by class and gender.”
The average wage in India is roughly $1740 per year. A woman surrogate can earn more than twice that. This salary differential is GREATER than that in the U.S. where the average salary is more than $42,000 per year and a woman can only expect to receive, by your numbers, $20,000 – $45,000 for her surrogacy services. It seems to me one way for a woman to rise above her class and gender is to put herself into a higher income bracket and it is awful self-righteous to tell women in poorer nations what is and is not an acceptable way to use their bodies to improve their situations.
From what I can tell, your problem isn’t with paid surrogacy generally, but with outsourcing Western paid surrogacy to surrogates who will work for cheaper abroad. Indeed, I don’t see how this is vastly different from the outsourcing America does to make other things. Would you have a problem with a woman reduced to her fingers and hands (as opposed to her womb) for making sneakers in a Nike factory? What about the Mexican auto worker inhaling toxic fumes and destroying his lungs because he lacks the bargaining power and health standards of wealthier nations? Poorer people are “oppressed” by gender and class in all employment choices they make. Would you still deny the auto worker or shoe plant worker the same opportunity to improve the financial situations for their families? These are grown-ups making grown-up choices. Sometimes these choices are difficult and they frequently suck but we shouldn’t sit in our comfortable opulence telling them what is best for them.
Fertility treatment, legal expenses, “the carrier’s health insurance,” “the carrier’s fee,” “the fee for the agency,” etc. That’s a whole lot of money. Imagine how much good it would do if the parents adopted a child and put all of that money toward that child’s well-being, education, etc. Or if they adopted a child, and donated a chunk of that money to the foster care system.
“It seems to me one way for a woman to rise above her class and gender is to put herself into a higher income bracket and it is awful self-righteous to tell women in poorer nations what is and is not an acceptable way to use their bodies to improve their situations.”
Privilege, Privilege…We cannot cleanse our consciences by claiming that this is a free choice. What I am saying is that this is a form of colonialism and I am charging western women with exploiting western women, by using our unfair system of exchange to their advantage. I make no judgment on the surrogates themselves.
Renee, I agree with the distinction you’re making here. It may be a valid choice for a surrogate (or sex worker, in that example) but it doesn’t make the conscience of the person asking that person to do something that is economically coerced lily white, so to speak.
I’m not against surrogacy per se, but the outsourcing to the third world seems problematic. I don’t know that not doing this solves the poverty issue, of course. Adoption of an orphaned or unwanted child seems to me the better solution.
Adoption of an orphaned or unwanted child seems to me the better solution.
Aahh, but here in the United States, the landscape has changed on adoption. More legal rights for women means far fewer single mothers place children for adoption; we raise them ourselves.
And when women in other nations also make gains in legal rights, educational advancement, employment, etc., adoptions dry up…..the search will be on for other nations where desperation leads women to consider surrogacy. When alternatives are available, the vast majority of women do not consider surrogacy. Surrogacy relies heavily on women remaining an underclass. It doesn’t have to be that way, of course, women could be paid well to be surrogates (think: professional (male) athletes—I think the comparison is apt)—-but then, birth-giving isn’t really a valued activity, is it? Gee, wonder why that is?
Come to think of it, what happens to the surrogate if the baby dies? Is disabled? What happens to the surrogate’s family if she dies? I think that is part of the appeal of foreign surrogacy—-avoidance of U.S. law. (just like in other forms of outsourcing). Again—reliance on women as an underclass.
Remind me which bodies count?
Thank you, Renee. There was a similar thread last year on this, and I remarked something about how the same child that is considered worthless when not just birthed but raised by a single mother, suddenly gains value when adopted by a wealthy couple. The societal value of the child derives from the value placed upoon the mother. Yeah—remind me again which bodies count.
Lubu wins the thread. :)
“And when women in other nations also make gains in legal rights, educational advancement, employment, etc., adoptions dry up…” — good point. But realistically, this will not happen in the next century. Bet on it. I wish that weren’t true.
By the time it is true, which hopefully is sooner than I believe, hopefully medical technology regarding fertility will become cheaper, better, more accessible. If we’re optimistic about women’s rights (and therefore fewer unwanted or orphaned children) in other nations, we can be optimistic about reproductive medical advances in ours.
I used to work for a major reproductive health/rights organization, and one of our (and my) principles is that every woman must have the right to decide when and whether to have a child. But does/should every woman have the right to be a mother? And particularly, to be a mother to a child who shares her DNA? The Women’s eNews article seems to be written from the understanding that all women, so desiring, should be able to be mothers to children genetically related to them. I do not argue with the glaring fact that it glosses over (to say the least) the consequences of surrogacy for women who serve as surrogates. But isn’t the desire to raise one’s own biological children more than a sentimental fantasy of the bourgeois? Sure, the genetic diversity of the world won’t suffer if a few middle-class white US women can’t birth their own brood — but shouldn’t we respect that desire? I know that Renee isn’t disrespecting it here — as I read it, she’s critiquing the system of exchange that allows women to be valued differently — but if you want to have a kid, and can’t, should you just consider adoption your least morally questionable option? Or, given that adoption also raises all sorts of questions, — what should you do?
I should add that I write this as someone who is child-free, and, until now, has always considered the adamant desire to have your “own” children an absurd sentimental fantasy of the bourgeoisie. I don’t know if I entirely agree with you, Renee, but thanks for writing a post that unsettled my entrenched thinking on this subject.
I am the child of a surrogate mother. I was born in Kentucky 23 years ago, and my parents traveled there from Italy – where the procedure was, and still is, illegal – and payed a woman whom I never met an exorbitant amount of money to have me.
Am I glad to be alive? Yes. Am I conflicted about the exploitative nature of my birth? Fuck yes.
On the other hand? It was her choice, she was an adult. She had a husband and four children. They were middle class, and the money from the surrogacy put all her children through college. It would be patronizing of me to assume she was coerced into this decision. She knew what she was doing, and what she was getting out of it.
Surrogacy is one of the issues that leave me entirely conflicted. When I was a child I felt I was bought by my parents and sold by this woman. It is not a pleasant feeling. And if I, who was so intimately involved in the procedure, felt such a distaste for it, what did she feel? And yet over the years I’ve learned to not be so damn condescending as to impose my emotions on her.
Roses said: “As for adoption – I do see adoption as problematic in cases where the parents would prefer to keep the baby but feel forced to give it up for adoption because they don’t feel they can afford to keep it.”
This is most women placing a child for adoption. Very few women are placing a child for adoption because they are in a secure situation and they just don’t want a child. Most are women in a bad situation financially or otherwise and they would keep the child if they could find a way to do it. Women in a secure situation are likely to keep the child or have an abortion. There aren’t a lot of Junos out there. Most babies have some type of fetal drug or alcohol exposure , not the hallmark of women that have economic freedom.
Adoption IS problematic. It’s portrayed as so noble and wonderful but most people that adopt (myself included) do it for selfish reasons – they can’t have kids biologically. And while it doesn’t rely on women as an underclass, it does rely on underclass women to supply the babies. Which might be the same thing. I don’t feel all that great about it, but this is the only way to satisfy my “sentimental fantasy of the bourgeois” to have a family at all.
I’m sorry, I’m getting a little off topic…
I am pretty taken aback by the tone of this entry. I am concerned about the conditions under which third-world women work, in all work, especially sexual and reproductive work; at the same time, I am not comfortable with taking the step of labeling all such women “exploited”, at least where that term is a moral judgment instead of a simple economic descriptor. These women are taking an immense and dangerous step to procure better lives for themselves and for their own children; while I certainly agree that the women who benefit from their services shouldn’t consider themselves entitled to reap those benefits for low low prices, I am really picking up a poor-dears-who-need-saving note from this.
I will acknowledge that is ironic that you can now put your sweatshop-made baby clothes on a sweatshop-made baby. But I will also note that there is not a one of us who is not guilty of benefiting from the exploitation of foreign workers – most of us thousands and thousands of times over throughout our lives. It’s interesting to me that we’re targeting an interchange between sufferers of a disease only women get, and women who have found a way to gamble their health to escape the conditions that surround the people who make everything else around you as you type this. Unless you have found a fair-trade source of paperclips and computer parts, in which case, link please.
I am really picking up a poor-dears-who-need-saving note from this.
Actually what you should be picking up is how neo-colonialism impacts women and that capitalism necessarily privileges some and exploits others. This is more about the system of exchange than anything else.
DS:
I think the important thing here is the children. If they wind up in the orphanage because they are wanted but cannot be kept, that is tragic. But the adoptive parents didn’t cause that situation. The unadopted child will not somehow be reclaimed by the parents, in the grand majority of cases. Your guilt about adopting will not solve the underlying problem, and if you did not adopt, it would not mean that those children’s lives would be better and would most likely mean the opposite.
My sisters were adopted from Korea. We will never know what the situation was and of course it is likely that poverty had a lot to do with it. We do know that at least one of them dealt with substantial abuse and malnourishment prior to the adoption and the other was abandoned at one year old. I am not sure what declining to adopt would have done for them, or for their birth parents.
Renee, not sure what I think about all of this yet, since my opinions have shifted just since reading this thread. (PS: this means you are doing a GREAT JOB!)
I used to be categorically against surrogacy, yet I have known one intelligent young woman who chose this willingly and after much thought.
Thanks for bringing up a difficult, hairy-ass subject.
Renee, I think all of your posts so far have been AWESOME. Your writing is so fierce; I feel like pumping my fists as I read.
I wonder why so may folks who pick up on the moral judgement assume that it’s the surrogate mothers who are being judged, as it’s pretty much the exact opposite. We feminists (most of us) who have problems with prostitution don’t have an issue with the prostitutes, but with those who exploit them/use them. The same dynamic is at work here.
What about a gay couple and a surrogate? Is there an acceptable way for a gay couple to work this out?
But as a general rule, those of us who support making prostitution safe and legal (raises hand) don’t act supportive of Johns. It’s an important distinction, even if not an easy one. I support the right of women to sell sex and to do so in the safest possible circumstances — even if I don’t particularly like it. I don’t support the right of men to buy sex and in fact think that those who do are assholes. As a practical matter, you can’t support prostitutes without also supporting the Johns, but I think that it’s a legitimate area of conflict.
Now I’m not saying that men who buy sex and people who pay surrogate mothers are a perfect comparison by any means, but I’m working with the example given here. My point is simply that you can support the rights and best possible conditions for an oppressed person while still having very negative feeling towards the oppressor. In fact, unlike in this case, this statement would generally be considered obvious.
I am one of those “exploitive” Western women going to India this year to have a surrogate carry my child for me.
It would augur the writer to research the feelings and attitudes of surrogate mothers in both the West, and developing countries before lamblasting what is a well-researched and considered decision – by the surrogates and the intended parents – entering into a surrogacy arrangement.
The person writing the “feminist” viewpoint expressed here is the oppressor, not me. We all want to do this. The writer has made an incredibly condescending judgement about surrogates and their motives for being surrogate mothers. don’t assume for one moment that surrogates are forced into making their decision to be surrogates.
I can’t think of a more beautiful gift of empowerment one woman can give to another – the girt of life. if she happens to be motivated by money, then all power to her. she is choosing to give life and choosing to better the lives of herself and her family.
Now, go shave shave your armpits.
BTW – the majority of us are unable to adopt due to the laws in our countries. Why should we foster children? The writer has two children of her own – why didn’t she foster needy children? Why didn’t she spend a chunk of her money on foster care services. These children are not our responsibility and because we can’t have our own children, nor adopt, does not mean we are responsible for caring for foster children.
ill-conceived judgements flying around this board, that you actually have to payout of pocket for foster children. That’s fine for those than can afford it – like me – I have no problem. BUT the real tragedy is this: once the foster child’s biological parents have sorted out whatever issues they had and are deemed suitable parents, the foster child that you have bonded with and that has bonded with you and your family, goes back to bio-parents and is NOT ALLOWED FURTHER CONTACT WITH HIS OR HER FOSTER FAMILY.
That is just cruel.
I have one child and after a series of tests was told that a second pregnancy would endanger my life (the first nearly took mine). A dear friend of my family offered to be a surrogate for my family (free of charge). Of course it’s a confusing issue, but if both parties understand the agreement, what’s so bad about bringing a loved child into the world? I felt sick, and judged, after reading this post. Interesting points, but the most judgmental thing I’ve encountered in a long, long time. Particularly if you can’t personally understand the pain of not being able to give birth for medical reasons.
Comments on this entry are closed.