Meet the sweetest treats @DylansCandyBar! Dylan Lauren introduces twins Cooper and Kingsley: http://t.co/9i5vA2NL59 pic.twitter.com/sPYDcPm77M
— PEOPLE Babies (@PEOPLEbabies) July 6, 2015
Dylan Lauren is Ralph Lauren’s 41 year old daughter. She’s always held out as an example of a second-generation success story – she’s never been considered a “socialite” or a barely-functional “personality.” Dylan created her own candy-store business, Dylan’s Candy Bar, and she’s opened her candy stores around the world. Is she as successful as her dad? No, but she is still very successful and work-oriented. Dylan married Paul Arrouet and they happily raised dogs for a while. But then back in April, they welcomed twins! The boy is named Cooper Blue and the daughter is Kingsley Rainbow.
At first, Dylan told People Magazine that she and Paul decided to use a surrogate to become parents because “it was the way we wanted to start a family. I think it’s a wonderful option.” While Dylan – or any woman – does not owe anyone an explanation for how, where and if they want to become a parent, it did feel like there was some stuff left unsaid about Dylan’s choice to use a surrogate. Now in a new interview with Cricket’s Circle, Dylan explains her choice. It boils down to… she was traveling too much to get pregnant?
Deciding to have children: “I was one of those people who was apprehensive about having kids. If my husband didn’t want a family, I probably would have just had a lot of rescue dogs! But then I saw Paul demonstrate, with [our dog] Jersey, that he would take on a big part of the responsibility. Seeing how he would get up really early to walk or feed her made me realize that we could do this together, and I wouldn’t have to give up my career. It also taught us how we were with discipline – he’s the alpha parent, I’m the one with the candy store! I think it’s a little bit of a role reversal – he’s definitely more of the “mom” in some ways.”
Why they chose surrogacy: “We chose to use a surrogate as the way we wanted to start our family, particularly as I was traveling across the globe on a stressful schedule to get stores open. I realized this was a wonderful option. I have many friends who had kids solo, who adopted, who used surrogates – no one was judging them – it’s a new world!
I included the first part just to emphasize how ambivalent Dylan sounded about parenthood to begin with. It feels like her husband probably wanted kids and she was like “Okay, but I still want to work full time, travel whenever I need to and I’m not really interested in getting pregnant.” I don’t judge her for not wanting to get pregnant (I relate to that), but it does feel like they used surrogacy as a mere convenience for their work schedules, not out of necessity. Hm.
Her husband is really attractive.
Photos courtesy of WENN, People Magazine, Dylan’s Candy Bar Instagram.
Wow, you figured your husband would be a good dad because he walks the dog? Bizarre, I hope she is invested in raising these children.
Right? That comment is a bit weird.
I’m 35 and strongly in the childfree camp, so I can’t even imagine having a twins after 40 all because the dude I married walked a dog.
I’m 36 and my boyfriend and I always tell people that we’ll probably get a dog before we ever have kids, the implication being we’re not having kids.
I’m 38 and in the childfree camp as well. My husband and I have several dogs and cats and eventually want to have more land for an animal rescue but just a couple of days of having our young niece and nephew during the holidays reminds us that we do NOT want children.
I am so glad that there ARE women out there who are in the same boat as me! Everyone here looks at me like I have an extra head when I say my husband and I are not going to have children. I love my life and my dogs and I don’t need a baby to be fulfilled as a woman. I love my nieces and nephew and I work all day in a daycare center. I love the way my friends love their babies and are raising them to be great little humans, but its not for me.
I’m 36 and happily child-free with a dog (and another dog and 2 cats). My guy of 8 years can barely remember to take care of the pets, but that’s not the reason I don’t want kids. 🙂 It’s just something I’ve never really seen happening for me, and it hasn’t.
I actually kind of feel a little bad for my parents and his parents. Neither my only sibling, a younger brother (35), and his lady nor his only sibling, a younger sister (35), and her husband have or seem to want kids either. We all just have dogs!
Eh, I get this. If you want a career, you need a husband who takes parenting seriously, and who doesn’t consider childcare “helping out” or “babysitting.” Getting a puppy is much like having a baby. You have to wake up every two hours when they’re very young, they destroy everything when they’re toddlers, and you can’t really trust them alone until they’re older.
That’s how I read it as well, Tanya. Good on her for being honest about it.
I get it too. She wasn’t around to procreate a lot, she isn’t changing her lifestyle, and he is eager to be the hands on parent.
It highlights the sacrifices (not negatively, just the give and take) women need to make when they become pregnant or stay at home parent. A man wouldn’t have to think about the changes to their travel and career, but a woman does. I think she could have explained it a bit better, but she doesn’t really owe anyone an explanation.
That’s absolutely how I interpreted Dylans comments. It accepted when men are busy. Why can’t she be busy, as well.
How convenient. It is great that, with medical science, we can conveniently have babies without that have children without, you know, actually having the baby or disrupting our lives, or dealing with an annoying pregnancy. With all she has sacrificed so far, it sounds like she will be a GREAT mom. She sounds like a self absorbed twit. Also, as a parent that was a doggy mommy for many years, raising a baby and owning a pet animal is in no way the same. It isn’t about the responsibility of taking care of them. It is far deeper than that. You are raising a person, with a personality, that will develop into a full grown adult one day. There are so many layers of emotional development that comes with child raising that in no way relates to owning a dog.
It is very possible she might have a medical condition that would prevent her from getting pregnant, which she didn’t want to share with the world. “My doctor said my womb is inhospitable to a fetus” might not be something a woman feels obligated to tell complete strangers simply for their entertainment.
Why people would dig into the “Why?” of someone using a surrogate is beyond me. That is suuuuuch personal, private information.
I wonder what she will say when the child asked about where they came from. I don’t know how many times I told my daughter and son, about the tummy time. How pleased I was when I saw their little foot pushing out. With mom and daughter time we talked a lot about when I had her and what it was like and so on. So definitely I agree with you Tiffany, I was so taken aback by the way she wrote about the womb for rent.
I think it’s totally her business-no judgement from me. What if the roles were reversed and her husband was the one on the fence about kids, traveling for work all the time, etc? Sounds like the kids have a very involved hands-on Dad (cute guy, too!).
Also, she may need to take medication that is contraindicated or is potentially risky during pregnancy (one of the reasons why I didn’t have kids). She doesn’t owe anyone an explanation. She’s lucky that she’s wealthy enough that this choice is available to her-it isn’t for most women. As long as the surrogate was adequately compensated and cared for I don’t have a problem with it.
Me Too, you sound awful.
Agree. She sounds like she’s about as interested in being a mom as you’d expect her to be about her husband getting say, a motor cycle, “Well, it’s not really MY thing. But if you want too…” Hubby looks thrilled to be a dad, so yay for that.
i don’t know.. I can see her logic, though having a dog is NOTHING compared to the real day to day of a child. It’s more the impetus of her partner taking on responsibility of someone they were both caring for. That’s so important. My own husband, though he does the major financial support of our lifestyle , would not be a good father. How the care of the cats he got 10 years ago were dropped primarily on me while he takes off for shoots — it’s a very telling window of where the work/time balance will be with kids. I am always the one who sacrifices the time and effort in the end, i am always the one that sees the problems and watches the details about them, even when I am on deadline myself. I clean the messes, I take care of the hands on stuff bc they still need to be cared for properly. And I never wanted cats! I had wanted kids some time ago, but I realized I would be walking into a world of resentment against him for not taking initiative or being nurturing enough to them, and against the kids for needing so much — which isn’t fair, as well as against myself because I am not a patient person. Pets can be a very good way of seeing how your partner will be and how your lives will shape around a family.
This is how I feel about my husband too and one of the reasons why we are strongly childfree. We have two cats and he refuses to clean the liter boxes… Are diapers going to be any different? I think not.
@littlestar
Diapers are WORSE. When we had my eight month niece with us, for only a month, I swear to you she overflowed her diaper (up her back) at least three times. And then she doesn’t want to lay still—she’s very busy and likes to grab onto EVERYTHING, so if you don’t give her something that she usually doesn’t get (because God forbid you give her a toy that’s actually hers)….like a wipe or a phone…..then she’ll kick her legs. And it doesn’t matter to her if her diaper is open or not. She doesn’t care.
And lol, your hubby reminds me of my brother. He refuses to clean his cat’s litter box….and it’s in his room! So gross.
i find surrogates to be totally wrong. first of all its obviously taking advantage of disadvantaged women. a discussion thats rarely held, how rich and powerful women exploit poorer women. the emancipation of mostly white women is mainly based on them oppressing other women. Like the succesful CEO paying her female maids and nanniess below minimum wage.
also there are enough babies in the world that would love to have a family.
when it comes to animals people are waking up that things will have to change and a rescue dog is the way to go but with humans it seems its potrayed more like an empowering move which it isnt.
Are you actually comparing adopting a rescue dog to adopting a child? You don’ t have a blood connection with your dog in any case. People who don’ t get rescue dogs because they are impure or already “used” are snobbish jerks. But there are people, men and women, who are unable to form a bond with children if they aren’ t their own. I know you probably think it’ s terrible, but it’ s the way it is. If they want kids but can’ t have them, what exactly are they supposed to do? Adopting children towards whom they will be, at best, indifferent?
No-one has an inherent right to be a parent. I’ll admit, I’m a bit uncomfortable with the current prevalence of surrogacy worldwide. Imo some people covet a child the way they covet the latest Birkin bag or Bugatti. They want it so they should be able to have it. Well nature doesn’t work that way, we don’t always get what we want and we should be a bit more accepting of that fact. Not a popular opinion I’m sure, but it’s how I feel.
“Imo some people covet a child the way they covet the latest Birkin bag or Bugatti. They want it so they should be able to have it.”
I agree with this. If you are not fine with those 9 months of sacrifice, then you shouldn’ t have children to begin with. I find this absolutely despicable, but there are women who can’ t go through a pregnancy for serious reasons, and disregarding completely surrogacy just because this specific idiot allegedly decided to skip the trauma of pregnancy is ridicoulous.
I am just really tired of the “there are enough babies in this World” debate. We should find ways to stop this overflowing of unwanted children who are in need of help and love, not victimizing people who dare to want to be blood-related to their kids.
Everybody isn’t meant to be a parent. I would submit that if if you are too busy to get pregnant you are also probably too busy to parent. Just a thought. Regarding adoption, my family was formed through adoption. If you can’t love a kid because it doesn’t have your blood, then don’t adopt. But also, maybe consider what you really want. At some point, you have to decide if you want to be a parent or if you want to give birth. If it is to parent, then adopt. And if it is to parent but you can’t love a child that doesn’t have your blood…then you will probably be a rotten parent.
I wish everyone who held out adoption as an option for infertile couples would go through the process once. It is not easy, it’s expensive, and it takes quite a long time. Lauren is 41, so natural conception isn’t a given at her age. Nor is adoption — many countries will not adopt to older parents. Domestic adoption is fraught with legal complications, and international adoption has many troubling coercive elements. There’s no simple answer.
Or maybe she didn’t feel like getting into any of the medical reasons why surrogacy was the best option. Maybe she didn’t feel like telling People magazine that she’d had miscarriages and was unable to carry to term. Or that because of her age and underlying medical conditions she was at a higher risk with pregnancy. We don’t know. It’s her body, her business.
Just because she’s not spouting off about being “over the moon” and that “motherhood is the single most important experience for me. It made me feel like a woman” doesn’t mean she’ll be less of a parent. A lot of people are on the fence about children and have them because it’s deeply important to their partner. This doesn’t mean they lock them in the attic.
Let’s give this woman a break before we jump to conclusions based on ten sentences released by People magazine.
I have rescue animals and I bore and raised a kid as a single person. First off, I’m pretty sure one doesn’t crate their children or put them on a leash outside the grocery store, so let’s stop the inane comparisons. Secondly, mother child bonding takes work and an immeasurable sacrifice for an unknown reason. I’m not altogether certain the surrogate method should be abused for convenience. We won’t know now just how it affects deeper bonding. If a couple can’t abide pregnancy, then how can they abide myriad parental sacrifices?
I take it, you didn’t adopt yourself, did you? Because I don’t think anyone who adopted or is adopted would ever post something like this. Because, actually, no, there are not enough babies out there that are adoptable. Many people invest years of their lifes and thousands of dollars trying to adopt and not all succeed. there are many children that need loving families but a lot are older and a lot are not up for adoption, just fostering (which means that they could go back to the birth parents or relatives at any time).
Thank you.
‘Obviously wrong’? You seem to be projecting here. And you omit the fact that countless women happily make the decision to bring the joy of parenthood to couples and are proud of the pivotal role they play. You insult these women if you insinuate that they are poor, desperate victims. You should familiarize yourself with the stringent surrogacy requirements before you make such loaded statements. In some states a woman can not be a candidate to be a surrogate without having a supportive life partner, children of her own already, a positive, emotionally stable lifestyle and clearly dileanated reasons for wanting to be a surrogate. In other states paid surrogacy is illegal and yet women there freely choose to carry for family/close friends with no financial compensation.bnot all surrogates are preyed upon. You seem to be conflating surrogacy with stories of seriously desperate women who have been pressured to give up their infants for adoption. Even those stories are rare.
It’s funny when that happens right? Someone trying to argue in favor of women, yet their whole argument is based on women being simple or having no agency.
Yeah I don’t get those. Women choose to be surrogates for a variety of reasons. This is no handmaid’s tale where people are strapped down and forced to get pregnant.
That said, it’s her business what she chose to do and why and I loathe the fact anyone is questioning it. Heck my work schedule is not conducive to having a child right now. I want to get promoted within the next two years, I want to travel, go on vacations, and just go home and do whatever I want. Not all women are prepared to put their careers on back burner to have a baby.
@Ronda: “i find surrogates to be totally wrong.”… so do I!!!
If she is too busy to gt pregnant for 9 months won’t she be too busy to raise them for at least 18 years?! SMH!!
Exactly. This is just a rich spoiled privileged woman who couldn’t be bothered carrying her own babies. Is she busier than Angelina Jolie who carried Shiloh and then twins? She managed.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to use a surrogate. Most involve the inability of the would-be mom to carry a child to term. A friend had multiple miscarriages because her body kept attacking the fetus and the only way she and her husband (who are middle class, not rich people) were able to have a child was to use a surrogate.
She’s 41. Getting pregnant could well entail years of fertility treatments. I read that it was the process of getting pregnant that she didn’t have time for.
This. over and over again.
I am not going to judge a woman based on her decision to have a family and use a surrogate. It’s none of my business. No one’s reproductive choices are my business except my own.
@ELLE I’m not all that comfortable with surrogacy either. From what Dylan said, I got the impression she waited a bit too long to have kids, it got rather difficult to do so naturally, so she did so scientifically.
There’s just some under current of questionable morality there when we start down this slippery slope of “can’t have a baby naturally(for non-medical reasons) then just doctor up 1 in a petri dish, or go out & buy 1!” She made a choice to put career 1st in her life & let her time slip by. It sucks, but as we women are the only sex of our species who can carry children, it’s a very tough choice we fought for & ultimately put on ourselves. You can’t have it all(naturally.) You just can’t, despite what feminism tells you. She wanted it all & left the biological part of the equation on the backburner too long. That’s on her.
It’s no one’s business why she chose not to carry a child.
I can’t agree with this statement. There are different reasons besides not wanting to get pregnant that people use surrogates. One of my dearest friends was unable to get pregnant because of a past medical condition and she used a surrogate. She would never have her beautiful boys if not for the special woman who carried them for her. After 10 years she still keeps in touch with her surrogate and sends pictures.
Same here. Didn’t Kelsey Grammer’s ex-wife Camilla use a surrogate because she had physical problems that prevented her from carrying a baby? Nothing wrong with that. Not everything is so cut and dry.
Has anyone seen the Vice episode about surrogates in India? Now that is a real eye-opener on the horrors of surrogacy. I’m guessing Dylan Lauren used someone in the United States and didn’t use an Indian surrogate through unethical means.
@littlestar: Camille Grammer had IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome)–hardly a condition that requires a surrogate. She just didn’t want to deal with pregnancy.
@Scarlet not true and can and does make getting and staying pregnant problematic because of the constant issues with your stomach and medications you are on. Most people with IBS have a problem even being able to gain weight because food passes right through you. That would be a concern if you were pregnant and the baby wasn’t getting enough of what it needed to develop and the mom too.
Scarlet – browse through the forums at http://www.helpforibs.com to get an idea about the problems IBS can involve. It’s not a benign disorder.
Life’s not fair, some are rich, some are poor. Nobody held a gun to the surrogates head and told her to have the rich lady’s baby. Surrogate agreed to it.
Ronda..although I support women’s right to make life choices, I sorta know what you mean..my first thought was ‘you hire some woman to clean, to cook, to watch your kids..add another step and hire one to give birth. I’m not sure why this image sticks in my head and bothers me, but it does.
I still side-eye this. Paying someone for the “inconvenience” of being pregnant. Who will take care of the babies? Does she not get that 18 years of raising children is a lot harder than 9 months of pregnancy?? I have 3 children, and kids NEVER stop being inconvenient! 😉
Eighteen years is a minimum. My daughters are in their 30’s and while the day to day is not the same, I am still needed many times and gladly go and help. It doesn’t really end at 18. So she really had more years than that.
And in some families mothers are not needed for a minimum of 18 years – just because it’s like that in your family, it doesn’t mean it’s the rule of thumb. Personally, I moved out of home at 17 years old and haven’t needed my mother for anything since.
I don’t know what your personal situation is, but I’d like to believe that having children is a lifetime commitment and not just kicking them out at 18. Even if you don’t support your child financially you should still be there for emotional support throughout your kids lives. I despise the idea that parenting has some kind of time limit. It should be an ongoing relationship and maybe when our parents are old we will be able to take better care of them.
@swack I am in my 30’s and have my own family, but still live close to my parents. When I am sick, the first call I make is to my mom because there is nobody that can take care of me better. My husband tries to make me feel better, but I’ve just explained to him, “you’ll never be my mom!” 😉
@Tilly, I don’t know your entire situation as to why you moved out at 17 and no longer feel you need your mother for anything since. And it may not be a rule of thumb for all families but when you have children I hope that you believe the commitment is for life and not just 18 years.
@MrsB – all my daughters live close also and the first thing they want when they aren’t feeling well is “mom’s cream of wheat”!
I am 51. Know where I am now? At my mom’s house with my 3 kids. My kitchen is being renovated, so we’ve been hanging at Grandma’s for a month. She is making us dinner (yay!), and we’ll be back tomorrow. Mothering never ends for some.
I live a half mile from my mother and she’s now at the stage where she needs me more and more. I don’t feel like it’s an imposition; it’s the least I can do, although I confess I do get tired of listening to why don’t the grandkids visit more. 🙂
When my sister had her first baby, my parents were at the hospital at 1 am because she wanted them right there. At one point my brother-in-law said to them, “Well, I guess my life is about to change for the next 18 years.” My dad said, “How old is your wife and do you see where we are at 1 am? No, your whole life is about to change.”
Nannies are definitely going to be a big part of those kids lives.
@Toot – I was going to say the exact same thing. If it was considered an inconvenience for her to carry them, it will inconvenience her to raise them. I predict at least 4 nannies for those twins until they are old enough to head to boarding school.
This is a weird argument. Pointing out that she used a surrogate means she’ll use nannies and therefore she won’t be in her kid’s life?
A lot of people use child care, day care, home help. Are they all shitty moms too? Or is it just bad if a priveleged woman uses a nanny?
No. It was her statement that basically she didn’t want children and only had them because her husband wanted them. If she never wanted children and only had them to appease her husband to the extent she didn’t even want to try and get pregnant because it would mess up her business life, how involved do you really think she’ll be with them?
That is far different from someone who really wanted children, but needs to put their kids in daycare or use a nanny, because they work.
Maybe the husband will be the prime caregiver? I am sure they are not the first couple in which one partner wanted to be parents more than the other and one partner does the majority of care- it’s just usually the woman. How many fathers basically do little more than something like read a story in the evening during the week and something fun on the weekend with their kids?
But men have kids all the time because women want them. I mean, once the child is born of course they are prepared to be a father and they love their kids, but it doesn’t negate the fact that they weren’t exactly enthusiastic about it from the get-go.
My brother never wanted kids but his girlfriend does. He will end up having kids because he loves her and will do anything for her. That doesn’t automatically mean that he will be a bad or unwilling father. In fact, I think he’ll make a great dad.
Anyway, why should it be any different for women? Sometimes couples have kids because they love each other and are willing to compromise. It’s not always this ideal scenario where both parents are gung-ho about parenthood.
EDIT: Sorry Lena I just saw your comment.
It could be. It could also be just a different lifestyle than most of us are used to. I remember a few years ago when Wife Swap first started they had a New York socialite mom of 3 (I think) swap with a “regular” Stay-At-Home mom who was very involved with her kids’ lives.
The NYC mom had a housekeeper/nanny who took care of everything in the mornings for the kids, got them up, made their lunch, got them dressed and took them to school while the mom slept in until around 10. The mom got up, worked out with her personal trainer, showered and met her friends for a long lunch. The nanny picked the kids up from school, took them to their lessons, activities ,friends, park, etc., then brought them home where they had dinner. The mom spent about an hour with her kids before showering and getting dressed so she and her husband could go out for the evening with friends and business associates. This was her daily schedule and I remember how appalled I was. But it seemed that is what everyone in that social circle did, so it was their “normal.”
This just may be Dylan Lauren and her husband’s “normal” even if it seems odd to the rest of us.
If he wants to be a stay-at-home dad and shoulder a majority of the care-giving while she builds her empire, more power to them!
Yep, just like like old man Baldwin and his young bride. Do you really think he wanted babies when she first brought it up? No! But because its a woman having kids for her husband, people got a problem with it
Some people are scared of the pregnancy process, like me. If I had a supportive spouse and I could use a surrogate, I might consider having a kid. Sometimes, its about fears, that doesn’t mean she won’t be a good mom. Sounds to me like she’s open to having kids, a long as she can still have her career. Why is thatok for Alec BaldwinBaldwin but not the female?
Good lord…too busy to carry your own children. Sounds like one of the socialites from Odd Mom Out.
She owns a half dozen candy shops, I believe all in the continental U.S. I’m not buying this poor little rich girl’s story. Learn to delegate. I wonder how many weeks vacation she takes?
I don’t understand how paid surrogacy is any better than prostitution or selling organs.
So she didn’t want to be pregnant or really a mother is what she’s saying. Yeesh.
it really sounds like it, it seems like any kind of sacrifice seems to much for her and she even said she wouldnt want any children if her husband didnt want them.
My daughter has a friend (she was adopted) whose father wanted children but mom didn’t. And it was evident to this girl that she was not wanted by mom. She is really messed up right now and has children of her own that she doesn’t really know how to take care of and how to be a mother to them. It’s a sad situation. So if Dylan didn’t want children then she should never have had any – by any means.
I agree and shouldn’t this have been something they discussed before getting married? I can’t imagine wanting children and marrying someone who really didn’t want that in their life.
@swack, I don’t think she said she didn’t want children. She said she wanted to know that her husband would be present and engaged in their children’s lives when she was working. Her work is commuting and travelling. It doesn’t maker her a bad parent. My dad was gone for a month or more at a time, and came back for a month. He was a great parent. I think she was being responsible in making sure that one of them was able to be around to parent, while the other continue in their travelling profession. It just looks badly to some because she is the female.
Yeah. I can relate to her re: the ambivalence of being pregnant & eventually becoming a parent but how she expresses it really puts pay to the phrase rent a womb. Although honest, I would not have said it like that. I would have said something about traveling a lot and being stressed, anxious, fearful and all around scared of something going wrong given those factors plus age.
I’m not even going to touch the husband & dog comment.
That’s what it sounds like to me.
Yeah…I read that People interview at the OB’s office (ironically). Not sure how I feel about using surrogates for the convenience. I try to not be judgy (though it bubbles up on occasion) – it seems a little too dystopian. There are the “birthers” and the “workers” …
The Hand Maid’s Tale.
Bless their hearts.
If you mean that the way I think you mean that, +1.
And those names…
Oy.
Hello to you, too!
This sounds like a dystopian novel in which rich people just order up babies when they feel like it. I think there’s a big difference between women who desperately want to have children but cannot, versus someone who has the resources and apparently the ability to bear children but decided to skip that part because she’s too busy. I hope she isn’t “traveling too much” to be a presence in their lives. Cute pictures though. (Of course – she learned from the best!)
Totally agree- my first thought was The Giver when the birthers purpose in society was just to carry children to later be placed with other families… and it was very looked down on. I can’t help but shake my head at the idea of being a mother as long as it’s not too inconvenient to one’s own agenda. Parenthood is FREQUENTLY inconvenient. Those kids just don’t always care what your schedule is or how many stores you want to go open this month. I wonder how long it will be before the novelty wears off.
This. There is a huge differnece (to me), between using surrogate when you CAN’T carry your child and when you WON’T carry your child. Having children means realizing that you’re not the most important person in your world anymore: your needs come after theirs (of course, I don’t mean to extreme!): that is, or should be the truth for both parents. I’m afraid people will attack me after this comment, but the way I feel is this*: if you can’t take 9 months of being sick, or tired, or unable to do your job/live your life the way you’re used to, or how your body changes, why even have a baby? What will you do for the next 18 years? 20? 30?
I’m pregnant with my first right now, and pregnancy is not a walk in the park: Complete change of lifestyle: no weed, no cigarettes, not a glass of wine; horrible migraines, nausea, vomiting, the moment you realize your project you invested so much of your time, blood and tears in will carry on without you? Being alone while your husband works hundred of miles away so you can afford all the things the baby will need? Hard, but a child is worth it. Or I wouldn’t be having it. Pregnancy is not an inconvenience.
Yes it is…. And that’s from a mom of 2. Pregnancy is the worst thing I’ve ever gone through. Sick as a dog, back problems all while needing to work. I wanted my 2 precious children but if I didn’t have to put my body through the torture and had the resources…. My 2nd would have been through a surrogate. My physical health has still not totally recovered, years later. It is a complete Inconvenience but one that we undergo for the sheer love and joy that kids will bring us. Also maybe she’s too private to admit that she didn’t really have a choice in the matter. Just cause she puts a “it wAs a choice” spin on it, doesn’t mean it is true
I didn’t love being pregnant, but I did love the fact that I could carry my son and feel him kick.
I was adopted, and as crazy as my mom was it was not because we did not have a blood connection. She was even crazier with my brother, and he was her biological child.
I faced fertility issues of my own after my son was born. We contemplated surrogacy, but the whole feel was a little creepy – a cross between an old Testament story and Jerry Springer. What made it even more bizarre, is that the surrogacy websites are set up with search engines like Zappos or something. Blondes, brunettes, Scandinavians, British, tall, short, etc. Bizarre. I NEVER once felt that these were poor victims of a power society with shaking hands held out for money. In some cases, these young women with vital eggs hold the power. Many of them were financing college educations.
That said, if this Lauren chick is too busy to be pregnant I don’t hold much hope for Mommy of the Year. The tough stuff happens when they get out. I never was geeked up about having kids, but now that I have my own stinker I can’t imagine my life without him. Side note: that is one handsome man.
Gawd, I hated being pregnant. Did it twice, but was not a fan of the whole process. I LOVE being a mom, though. Sean and Siobhan are the lights of my life. But I don’t think my having carried them in the cause of my deep love for them. I would love them this much even if I found them behind 7-11.
Yes, it is. I hated HATED being pregnant (twice, UGH). The only bearable parts were when the kids were finally out. And I love and adore my children. They are my life. The pregnancy was the part that made it hard for me to bond with them – all the awful discomfort, throwing up, hormones that gave me PPD after, not being able to sleep or walk for a month before giving birth. I told my husband that if he wanted any more, we would have to either use a surrogate or adopt because I’m never doing that shit again. If we could afford it, I would have totally used a surrogate for #2. Paranormalgirl, exactly my feelings. Children come into your life in their own ways and the love I have for mine has everything to do with our developing relationship and nothing to do with the 9 months when they were a fetus and I didn’t know them.
I’m against surrogacy for a variety of reasons but what I don’t get is how convenience is different from necessity in this case. The process and outcome are exactly the same, as are the risks. I wouldn’t demand that surrogacy is made illegal (it still is here in Germany) just because I don’t like it. But if you think it’s a good thing for women who can’t have kids, why do you think that women should absolutely get pregnant if the can?
Recently a few women in my circle of friends/acquaintances have admitted that they hated being pregnant. Absolutely hated it and won’t have a second kid. Doesn’t mean they don’t love the first one but it put them off no. 2. The thought of pregnancy, to me, is horrifying. Giving birth? Ugh. If I meet a guy who wants kids, I’m definitely suggesting adoption. Wanting kids does not equal wanting to be pregnant.
Oooh. I think you have hit on a job possibility for the Michelle Duggars of the world😜.
Yes, agreed 100%.
Yuck. The yuck is for the Duggar comment.
Pregnancy is no walk in the park, but it’s not that bad. Labor, now hmmmm. I have only the one child, but that’s more due to infertility. He was also an emergency C-section, thank God, so I can’t speak to labor and delivery, but too say it looks uncomfortable and barbaric is putting it mildly.
What?! Men don’t carry their own babies, but people assume they’ll be a good dad!
^THIS a billion fucking times.
Yep!
+eleventy billion, as my 5 year old would say.
I have no issue with a role reversal, the dad being the stay at home parent and primary care giver. But man, it sounds like she only did this to appease him and isn’t all that interested. I hope it’s just coming off badly in print, and she’s a happy and engaged parent.
Her husband is good looking.
There are women who really, really want kids and the husband/father is just, well, if she wants them and is willing to do most of the child-rearing, then okay. I think some men would be okay (alright, more than okay) with not having children, but if their wives really want children and are willing to go the extra mile in having them, then the husband goes along with it.
I think the role reversal is interesting – I’d go along with it if I had a husband who really wanted kids.
That’s what I see here, too: a role reversal. She wasn’t opposed to children but didn’t have the drive he did. Since he cannot biologically take on the burden of pregnancy they found someone else to do so. I imagine she will be as involved as many a corporate dad.
Exactly, Boston. I said the same above.
On another note, this thread is terrifying. So judgy.
Agree completely about the role reversal. And I think some men would be even more hesitant about having kids if it involved several months of hormones, nausea, weight gain and a grand finale of taking a bat to the groin for several hours.
@Kitten – agree, so judgy. I think people are tying pregnancy a little too closely to parenthood. She didn’t want to be pregnant, doesn’t mean she will be a bad parent. It’s her body, her reasons.
@Kitten, next level judgy.
@kitten and mimif – yes, I have a HUGE problem with the judgy tone of the vast majority of this thread. It’s horrifying.
Where did all the loons come from Kitten lol? I was like um super judgey on another woman’s choice.
@kitten, mimif, and starrywonder – oh good, so it’s not just me. I was really starting to get worried reading all the comments upthread.
I realized a long time ago that it is none of my business how people choose to create their families. And as long as people are not abusing and neglecting their children or otherwise breaking the law, it really is none of my business how they choose to raise them.
I’m so glad people I like here aren’t being Judgy McJudgersons!
I think there’s a difference between actively not wanting to have kids and having them just to appease your partner versus being apprehensive or ambivalent but being willing to do it because it’s what your partner wants. It sounds (to me) like she falls into the latter category.
I’m going to be that woman so I’ll probably have to hide in some bushes after writing this but if I had the money I would have choosen a surrogate as well. Pregnancy was horrible for me (both times) I was sick, had complications and even all that aside I really didn’t enjoy being pregnant at all. Doesn’t mean I don’t love my daughters or being a mother I just didn’t enjoy being a “baby oven”. There is nothing wrong with wanting kids but wanting to use other options. I mean who am I to judge? If work was her reason so be it , does it seem selfish to some? Sure! But that’s life. Its her life and she did what she thought was best for her. I think we push this message that all women should love pregnancy and by carrying your baby it makes you more of a woman and mother but none of that is true. All that does is cause shame and hard feelings for those who can’t carry their children (fertility reasons) or make other choices by election.
I think your situation is different. You tried it, and it was painful and you were sick the whole time and developed complications, which could put your and/or the baby’s health at risk. She just didn’t really want to be bothered. It’s her money and her choice, but it sounds like she really didn’t even want children very much. I think you really need to want them, because from everything I’ve seen, they require everything you’ve got and then some.
I wholeheartedly agree with what you said about how we push a motherhood is perfect womanhood message. I read about a group of women once who started a blog telling how hard it is and how it’s ok if you don’t love every second of having a newborn baby or being pregnant. But I think you need the desire to have children. Maybe she will fall in love with them and be a great mother, who knows?
You’re not really the type this article is looking at, though (I don’t think). You did pregnancy, you hated it, had complications. I wouldn’t judge a woman for not wanting to experience that. But Dylan isn’t like you. She has never experienced it for herself, nor did she want to. She wanted to give her husband kids, but didn’t want to be pregnant herself because she did not want to put a crimp in her jet-set lifestyle. That’s what people find weird. Presumably, that lifestyle isn’t going to change now that the babies are here. So if she’s still not a consistent presence in their lives, what makes her a mother in any meaningful sense of the word?
Medically indicated surrogacy is one thing – this isn’t it.
Why is giving her husband the gift of children a bad thing? To subordinate her enjoyment of a child-free home to the desires of her husband to have offspring is part of what real, sacrificial love is. This is what every successful marriage requires — on both parts. Two people with their own hopes and dreams give and take and voluntarily yield to the other because they want their partner’s happiness. I presume that she understands that she will need to adjust her lifestyle and she has been willing to do that.
The routine of taking care of kids isn’t fun, but the rewards of having children have outweighed it and I find I’m more adjusted to it each year. I think that’s what maturity looks like.
If you want to make your husband happy, get a dog.
Children are more than “well, my husband wants kids.” Children come primed to build meaningful relationships with both parents. If she didn’t want to be a mother, in my mind, she owed it to her husband to be honest – and yes, that might have had serious implications for the relationship, but that’s a risk that one would have to take. They are her children as well as his. What if one of the children is inclined more towards her and wants to build a meaningful relationship with her, but she’s just too busy or doesn’t really want to? That will severely impact that child.
Personally, I don’t believe children are something you should be ambivalent about. If you’re not sure, hold off. The massive responsibility is not something that should be entered into half-heartedly. Frankly, I’ve seen enough people who were really not cut out for parenting to know this to be true. I don’t think children are a “gift” you give a spouse. They’re a calling that not everyone has, and that’s fine. But that rubbed me the wrong way.
She should subordinate her lack of a desire for children to her husband’s desire for offspring? Thank you, Michelle Duggar. Your husband wanting children when you don’t isn’t like your husband wanting a plaid BarcaLounger when you want a linen sofa. It’s not “mature” or “love” to have a child you don’t want to please your husband. It’s not fair to the child, or to you. Keep “subordinating” your hopes and dreams and desires that way and you will wake up one day and have absolutely no idea who you are or how you ended up in someone else’s life.
Ouch GNAT, that hurt. To equate me with the Duggers for suggesting that love asks us to not always have our way?? I’ve been pretty outspoken on those posts and not at all in camp with that kind of thinking. I clearly said upthread that it goes both ways — each partner giving and taking. If you saw my marriage, you’d see that I am not a doormat in any sense of the word and my husband sacrifices for me and I for him. But if I demand what I want all the time then someone else has to yield or we come to blows. Hence it’s a delicate dance.
I think assuming that she didn’t want a child or doesn’t want them now is VERY PRESUMPTUOUS. I don’t read that in her statements at all.
I’m sorry I hurt your feelings – truly.
I wasn’t responding to her statement, or assuming anything about her desire to have children. I was responding to your statement. Having children when you don’t really want them is not something you “give” to another person. If you don’t understand that, I’m at a loss for words. I’m concerned that you are telling me that a woman who doesn’t want children should subordinate her desires if her husband wants them. I find that harmful and dangerous. And I assume you’re kidding about coming to blows if you don’t get your way. I know you are a nice person, so maybe I’m just taking everything the wrong way. But too many people in this world have children for the wrong reasons. You should have a child because you want one – to nurture and love and guide throughout their life and it’s so much work. It changes everything about your life. It’s not something that you should compromise on because there is too much at stake.
Thanks, GNAT. I’m not suggesting that a woman have kids only to please her husband. What I’m saying is that I’m not convinced that Dylan didn’t want them. It sounded more like she was on the fence, having a successful business and unsure if she could manage both that and motherhood. I think that if she didn’t want kids and he did, that it would have created a tremendous amount of resentment for one of them, depending on who ultimately got their way. She sounded to me like she enjoys being a mom, so I don’t see this as being a bad situation.
I realize that we all interpret these things in light of our own experience and since I’ve never felt like I was the martyr in my marriage — if anything, my husband lets me have my way without any issues — I’m well aware of my responsibility to think of him and make sure that he’s not giving in to me just to keep the peace. It’s sort of the reversal of what’s often the case in that my huz would be more likely to yield to me than I to him. He’s not a controlling person and hates conflict. I realize the power that I have to run rickshaw over him and therefore check myself to make sure his need and wishes are being acknowledged and I’m being considerate of him.
I agree with you, Nutballs. It doesn’t hurt that you worded your opinion so beautifully either 😉
@Nutballs
Thank you for explaining it to me. You’re right – we do see these things through our own experiences. In my first marriage, I did everything to please my husband and I lost myself completely, so I was concerned about your statement. But I understand now. Sorry to put you through all of that explaining because I misunderstood. I really am just too emotional sometimes and I get all in a dither over certain issues. I’m trying to learn to be more patient and not jump to conclusions, but as you can see, I have a long way to go. I feel especially bad because I should have given you the benefit of the doubt since you are always very reasonable.
GNAT, I assumed that you had a different experience than me as you described and understand how my words could be interpreted that way. Thanks for letting me expand further and seeking to understand.
As I said on the Dugger post, I do love your heart and know that it’s in the right place. I enjoy your comments and appreciate that we can express ourselves freely and be respectful of any differences that may arise.
*blows kisses*
Why does it make a difference? If I don’t want to carry a child I can choose surrogacy or adoption? Some women don’t want to get pregnant. Heck I like other people’s kids fine. If my partner really wanted them we would have some discussions of who was staying home because my job is important to me. Why do men get to do this but women are supposed to just be hardwired for it?
Give her husband kids?? This isn’t the 19th century. Having a family is something both parties agree on, preferably before marriage. It’s not a sacrifice either partner makes for the other. Children aren’t bargaining chips or gifts to make people happy. They’re human beings who deserve two parents that want them and want to be involved.
You don’t have to experience pregnancy to know that it sucks. Mine sucked twice and I told my sister all about it, so I’m sure she knows. I didn’t have any complications, I just really hated being pregnant, and if we could have afforded it, I would have used a surrogate for #2 in the blink of an eye. Being pregnant and being a parent are two completely different things, so not wanting to do the first, doesn’t mean that she won’t be a great mom and love her children.
Tifygodess, I’m with you. I hated being pregnant but love being a mom. If I’d had the kind of money she had, I could see myself going the same route. We make so many sacrifices as parents, that finding a way to avoid an inconvenience here and there, without doing harm to others, is fine with me.
Same here. If hindsight were 20/20 and I could have used a surrogate, I would have. I also had a nanny. I must be an awful person to many on this thread. But you know what? I am a damned good mom and have two beautiful wonderful children (AKA “the spawn”) that i love more than life itself.
I would have to use a surrogate, if I could afford, since I have health issues and the meds I take could harm the baby. But if you’re a healthy person, why using a surrogate?
Because it’s your body and you should be able to decide what’s best for it? Especially for women over 40, pregnancy can be risky for both mom and baby, no matter how healthy the woman is.
So you’re willing to risk someone’s else body to carry your child? Obviously the surrogate has to agree, but let’s be honest: most surrogates who aren’t related to the birth parents aren’t doing this out of love. They’re likely doing it for money. Why is your health so much more important that someone else’s?
Oh please. Surrogacy is an informed choice.
“Surrogacy is an informed choice”. So that’s it? No context? And the socioeconomic underpinnings and consequences of such ‘choices’? And everyone is so informed? Yeesh. Tell that to third world women.
Because it’s your body. Sorry I can’t with people acting like if you are healthy you need to push a baby out of your vagina. If I chose to adopt does that make me awful too?
@hmmm
My hubby and I are using a surrogate and have started talking to a medical practice that specializes in this. I have actually met a few of the women that have been surrogates for this agency and they are not “third world women”. Most are married and already have children and do this for their own varying reasons, all were very happy to choose this as a career or employment option. They get paid pretty well too.
Fact of the matter is, I LOOK FORWARD to checking people who would have the gall to question my reproductive choices. They are mine to make and if my hubby and I can afford it, we most definitely will. That will not make me a “bad mom”, I have successfully taken over raising my stepson the MAJORITY of the time. His mom has her own life and barely sees him and I stay at home and do the lion’s share of caring for him while his Dad runs several businesses (i.e. busy). He is a happy well-adjusted kid and behaves WAAAAAY better while in my care than in that of his birth mother, who actually carried him via pregnancy. So WHO carries the baby, doesn’t matter so long as the parent has decided to prioritize their life to caring for them.
@Tifygodess: Agreed 100%.
Also nothing wrong with saying that you, as a woman/mother, do not want to be the primary caregiver. It does not equate to her not wanting children. She probably just knows that she does not want her career taking a back seat, and minding children all/most of the time. This does not make you a bad mother. Why should we all be craft moms, shuttling around a bus load of kids to soccer/ballet come 3 o’clock in order to subscribe to some backward idea of motherhood. You are a great mother too if you are the breadwinner and do not get to spend all/most of your time with the children.
After all, as far as society is concerned today, it does not make a whole bunch of men bad fathers when they go off to work and do not come back until 7 o’clock at night. If the husband assuming the primary caregiver role was discussed and agreed upon with her partner and he wants to assume most/all the responsibilities (that gender stereotyping usually reserves for mothers) then this is fine too. Stay at home dads are a thing and you cannot claim to be a feminist and deny a man the equal right of deciding to be househusband and primary caregiver to the children. Equality works both ways.
TY!
first of all the woman in the article is an extreme case, she made it clear that any little inconvience would be too much as she never wanted to have children.
the problem is that other women are forced to be a surrogate due to financial reasons. there are some who do it in very special circumstances like a sister or for a friendly gay couple but thats pretty rare.
if you dont want to get pregnant and want to have children why not adopt? in the end another woman will have to be the “baby oven” for you. And i dont think women should love pregnancy or must have children, just that i personally am against surrogates because it seems to be only great for the people who pay them.
@ronda you are being very black and white about this when reality is usually in the grey. While yes there are surrogates who are taken advantage of, pouched and are doing it because they have no other options there are also many that aren’t in that situation. Being a surrogate is a job and just like any job there will be people who do it because they want to help others have a baby and those who feel they have no other choice. To paint it with such a broad brush doesn’t seem quite right to me. I get you are against it and that’s fine but there many options in this life.
“she made it clear that any little inconvience would be too much as she never wanted to have children.”
I think you’re being way too judgy with someone who hasn’t shared all of what she feels about motherhood in this article. For a successful businesswoman to say she was apprehensive about motherhood (understanding the sacrifices needed) tells me she’s self-aware and thoughtful about her decision to become a mom. She knows she doesn’t want to give up her fulfilling work but knew she had a husband willing to take more of the responsibility of raising the kids, so that makes this a doable situation to me. Besides, you don’t know how much she is involved now that she is a mom. Really, you need to get off your soapbox and realize that not all moms want to be primary caregivers, but that doesn’t diminish their love of their kids.
@Nutballs, THIS!!! I tried to say something similar, but your post makes more sense. I totally agree with this arrangement. I myself, would never have wanted to have my own children – I am so glad that I am not passing down my awful genes (and they are awful in so many ways!) but if I had a husband who really wanted kids then the surro route would be the way to go.
I am also not the kind of women who could not stay home with kids but if the man whom I loved wanted to do this, I’d be all for it.
Tifygoddess- You’re brave as f*ck to be so honest.
@Nutballs +1,000,000 to everything you said. Every. Single. Thing.
You’re like the anti-Mommy Brigade and I love it 😉
Kitten, you’re sweet. Thanks for the support.
Older moms who have seen how much children will upend one’s life are more likely to be circumspect and realistic in what they feel they can manage, especially if they have a fabulous child-free life. I appreciate Dylan’s self-awareness and courage to become a mom and don’t fault her choice of surrogacy one bit. Unless proven otherwise, I assume she loves those babies and is happy with her choice to be a mom. Sounds like she got a great husband to partner with in parenting too. #teamdylan
If I was supposed to get the message that I was supposed to love pregnancy at all costs, message fail. : ) I regard it as a very special, very miserable time.
And pregnancy can be miserable. I’m trying to gear up for it again, but holy god, is it vile. It’s really more her attitude that reads to me, “I didn’t really want babies, and I’m too busy to be pregnant, but whatever, here they are,” that is offensive.
Agree. I love being a mom more than anything in the world. My son is everything to me. I didn’t have a “bad pregnancy”, medically speaking. Normal nausea and discomfort. But I just hated it. I didn’t feel like myself at all. I feel like I may have experienced some level of anxiety/depression that was hormonally induced. I cried all the time and found it terrifying. It’s to the point that I’m not sure if I want to stop at one kid only to not be pregnant again. My son is turning 2. People (my mom) are asking. The pressure is on…
Don’t let the pressure from others get to you. Two of my daughters have children 2 or 3 years apart, the third daughter had 5 years between her children. It is your decision when to or whether to have more children. So glad that I wasn’t pressured that way and I didn’t pressure my children in that way. Also my brother didn’t want children and doesn’t have any. I admire them just as much as I admire those having children. Good luck!
Don’t let people pressure you! I had a great pregnancy, but the birth and breastfeeding and the hormonal changes that I’m still dealing with have been awful. I’ve had one and that’s all I’m having. Husband agrees, and we don’t give 2 hoots what anyone else thinks. After awhile people just stop asking. It needs to be your decision.
You had difficult pregnancies. Your situation is completely different from hers. There is no reason to be uncomfortable with your feelings. I had 3 relatively easy pregnancies, except for the 9 months of constant heartburn. I did not enjoy pregnancy at all. On top of that, I will admit that the pregnancies were a day at the beach compared to raising these kids. Ha
Amen sister.
I would like Kingsley Rainbow so much better if she had added “Sprinkles.” Kingsley Rainbow Sprinkles.
Wow. You didn’t really want kids, but your husband did, so you hired someone to have them for you. Now what?
In some ways, I am her but without the money. If I were married, and he wanted kids (I’ve never really wanted kids), surrogacy would have entered my mind. The thing that would have pulled me back from the brink is the thought that I would feel that the babies aren’t truly mine. While that may be legit for women who have trouble conceiving or carrying babies to full term I would have felt like an imposter on top of that–despite their DNA profile.
I don’t have a problem with surrogacy, and I do think the children would be really yours if you used a surrogate. She just seems like she wasn’t that into having kids at all. She wants him to be the parent while she has the candy store, she only agreed after she saw that he walked the dog…I don’t know. Maybe she just used unfortunate language but it just seems so unenthusiastic.
You’re mixing up surrogacy with being an egg donor as well. A surrogate just *carries* the embryo to term. Dylan could’ve very well used her own harvested egg(s) and her husband’s sperm, and then the resulting embryos were implanted in the surrogate. We don’t know that from the article.
I didn’t really want kids, but my husband did. If I’d had the money, I would have hired someone to have the kids for me. I hated being pregnant, both times. Hated it so much, that I’m not going to ever do it again, no matter what. And yet, I love my children and I am the primary parent – my husband is away from the home from 9am-7pm. Being pregnant has nothing to do with being a mother. Those babies were mine the moment I saw their faces and I would feel that way about any baby that we would have been privileged to call our own, no matter how that baby came into our family. Oh, and I also have a bunch of degrees and a career, though I work part time, and my kids are with nannies/preschool while I work! I must be an awful parent, according to 90% of commenters here. Thank goodness my girls think I’m amazing and know that I give my everything to them every day!
Oh gosh! She’s ANOTHER one who looks like Nanny O! Everyone is starting to look like Nanny O – what is happening?????
Seriously though, what a gorgeous family. She is stunning; he’s not too shabby either. I’ve read a lot of business-type articles about her success with her stores – she’s a huge inspiration. Good on her!
I have no opinion on how they conceived their children – obviously it worked out well for all of them so cool.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I think that it really is not anyone’s business how people start a family. On the other hand, when you choose to discuss your choices in a magazine, you open yourself up to questions.
I don’t really agree with using surrogacy simply because it’s inconvenient for you to get pregnant or you don’t want to give up your body. I feel like that implies some lack of commitment to motherhood.
But then she can do whatever she wants! Perhaps it wouldn’t have seemed so odd if she had had sense enough to sugar coat her reasoning a tad?
Maybe she wanted to give her babies the best chance at being born healthy, considering she’s in her 40s and has a high-stress, travel-intensive job.
I was thinking the same thing – she might not want to get into it, but there could be other reasons besides the one she’s giving about convenience.
After you turn 40 your body starts changing, and not for the better! You start aging for real; muscles weaken, tendons tighten up, and there is a general overall loss of elasticity in your skin. I can see not wanting to go through the upheaval of pregnancy at that point, especially for the first time.
That makes total sense. The way she communicated makes it look selfish.
Well said!
PennyLane:
Who are these extremely unhealthy people you know in their 40s and beyond? You speak as though once someone hits 40 they are good as dead. My sister got pregnant very easily in her 40s and she is very fit. The amount of people in their 40s, 50s etc that are fit, blows my mind. The amount of obese teen and 20 something, blows my mind as well. I have had more patients in their early 20s with 60 year old bodies. It is a shame that people have his warped idea of aging,
So what? I’m glad she gets to be selfish, because after you have kids, you won’t get to be selfish for a long, long, long time (maybe forever). It’s her body and her choice and doesn’t mean that she will love the children any less. Not wanting to get pregnant only implies not wanting to get pregnant. If someone doesn’t want to commit to parenthood, they just don’t have kids – easy.
Because selfishness is a good thing?
Wow. We really are wearing our judgy pants this morning. I hated absolutely every moment of pregnancy and that is why I have one. I do not have the financial means to pay for a surrogacy, but I find it a bit awful people immediately go to the subdigation of women? Maybe it was a friend or family member. Or maybe someone who wanted to earn $60-80k (a number I’ve heard in the past) and they earned a years salary in 9 months. We don’t know the personal situation and it really isn’t our business.
These twins were clearly wanted by both parents. So maybe celevrate their life and tell Lauren how cute her kids are.
The reality is – you can’t have it all, and she found a way to make it work.
Bravo Lauren, and many blessings.
*applause*
Thank you! I don’t get why because she’s a woman everyone is leaping at her. Men don’t carry babies and also don’t get crapped on for going right back to work after birth.
YES. So many judgy people today. Everyone thinks they know best when it comes to babies and motherhood.
Meh, lots of people sound iffy before they have kids but then, when the children come, they are wonderful parents.
Exactly. I’ve seen this over and over with men in particular. Not all women find their identity in being a mother (I don’t). but can still love and enjoy our kids when we have them. I’d probably be judged for taking time for myself to do what I enjoy each week, but I know (and my huz knows) that I’m a better mom because of it.
why would you be judged? my mom and dad did the same thing, and my dad was the primary caregiver and we all turned better because of it. I’m the first one to vouch for the fact that gender has no connection with parenting abilities and affinities, judging by my mom and dad. And I don’t love my mom any less, I appreciate them both bc of their decision and because they taught us that parents deserve their time away from time to time. But I still side-eye those who think pregnancy is an inconvenience not worth having. My opinion doesn’t instantly make me some conservative housewife stuck in 50ies.
Yes, it must be time now for us to get on the page of our story where the woman is not meant to feel guilty, less womanly/feminine just because she does not want to spend ever waking hour with her child. My glass must be full so others can drink and all that…A happy/content/emotionally satisfied woman makes a better mother and wife. No point subverting your goals and dreams held for your daily life and career if in the end you show heaps of resentment to your husband and kids.
@ geekychick: I totally agree, re: “I still side-eye those who think pregnancy is an inconvenience not worth having”. I think what bothers me about that is the sense of entitlement there: being completely able to have a kid, but not wanting to do the hard work of carrying a child to term, so let’s just bypass it, pay someone less financially well-off to carry the baby (rent-a-womb), and then I’ll take the baby as my own.
There’s something in all that that is deeply distasteful to me, for some reason. I say that as a mom who didn’t love pregnancy/childbirth, either.
@saywhatwhen I don’t want to sound like I’m picking on you or trying to invalidate what you are saying, but this and a few of your other comments are coming very close to judging a stay at home mother and basically throwing them under the bus to defend your choices. I have seen that a lot on this particular website, and it’s disheartening (I still remember the condescending “think of your pensions stay at home moms” thread). Unfortunately because our society loves to pigeon hole people into different categories a working mom can often be labeled an non-nurturing, unconventional, selfish, and non-maternal and a stay at home mom gets labeled as unintelligent, throwing away her career, non feminist, and lazy. I happen to like taking my kids to ballet and soccer, doing crafts and play dates and spending the day with them. That does not make me unfulfilled and not stimulated. I also know that a working mom can have quality time with her children while showing great work ethic and being a super role model. My point is that in order to defend ourselves and our choices, we have to be careful about throwing others under the bus. I am not going to judge Dylan Lauren because I have no idea what goes on in her life that led her to this particular decision. The debate that surrogacy involves another woman’s body and complicates the matter is an interesting one that has me thinking, though.
Pregnancy sucked for me and, looking back, it was totally an inconvenience not worth having. The kids, though, are an inconvenience *completely* worth having, so if you can get the second without the first, then it doesn’t matter why she chose to do so.
@Lillipad
There is a lot in life that is an “inconvenience”. Mature people suck it up as paer of life and deal.
Correction: “part” of life.
sure but why do you have children if you dont really want them? it sounds like a gamble. “oh im sure i will like the sprog when its there.”
I don’t like to spend all my time with my child. It would be extremely boring. But the little sprog is very much wanted and loved.
im not talking about spending every little second with a kid but that woman makes it sound like spending any amount of time that could get in the way of her career is too much. then why get children if you dont want them and dont really want to restructure your life?
i have no problem with not having children but if you have children but your career is actually more important to you, then why have children? and i also think you are not a decent human being if your children arent a priority. if your career means the world to you then dont have children and stop having kids with men who care more about their jobs. a couple of decades back women didnt have the choice but i still see women having children with men who obviously couldnt care less.
The two friends I had who were very iffy, one even had her tubes tied, but both ended up having children with their second spouses who wanted children and being in love with those men changed their feelings about it and are truly amazing mothers and adore their kids.
@Minx-Yup. My mom was one of those “iffy” people and my big bro was an *accident* after 8 years of being married. My mother is the best person I’ve ever known.
Eh, if that’s what she wanted to do, who am I to judge. I think the bigger issue is that she gave one of the kids the middle name “Rainbow.” I may very well be wrong, but I suspect one of these days that kid is really going to resent that.
“rainbow” is a name often used to describe babies in fertility circles after pregnancy loss. so perhaps that connotes that?
Although I don’t care for names like that either.
I had a friend in high school named Rainbough and her brother’ name was Alienne, which was of the French pronunciation “eye-yen” according to him. But everyone called him alien.
If she finally decided to have a baby because she realized she would truly have a partner in the childrearing and caretaking of the children, she must have been floored to find out they were having twins. I think she understands having a baby requires a lot selflessness. she has a career. Often it does fall squarely on the woman carrying a much higher percentage of parenting. She was thoughtful about it and only did it when she knew she would have an invested hands-on partner.
Jayna, I thought the same thing. She doesn’t sound like she’s leaving them with nannies all the time, but knows that dad will be more involved than she may be able to be. She’s old enough to understand what she needs to give up to be a good mom, so just because she doesn’t lay out her weekly schedule for us, doesn’t mean she isn’t involved.
It is a gift to have a dad who’s excited about his kids and wants to spend time with them. The older I get, the more I realized what a huge difference that makes in a kid’s life.
That is how I see it too. She made a very conscious, responsible and intelligent decision. She doesn’t want to be the stereotypical mamma and she appears to be saying she made sure her husband would be o.k. doing the daily child-rearing routine that the woman would normally do. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Yay for a good man who recognizes and is supportive of his partner’s needs.
That’s what I thought too. It sounded like she wasn’t the type of woman who really yearned to have a child, but she saw that her husband really wanted to have children and would likely be willing to put in a lot of the work to take care of them. She didn’t want to be the (only) one to give up everything to take care of the children and he fine with putting in the work as well, so she was on board with doing it.
I’m sure other things factored into her decision to go the surrogate route. Maybe they wanted to have children soon but she had a lot of other things going on and with her age, she didn’t want to do those things while pregnant, but she can still do them with babies. I don’t think she has to tell the public every single thing that factored into her decision to go that route. She started out vague and has slowly been explaining more (not that she has to). As long as her babies are loved and well taken care of, nothing else matters.
“It sounded like she wasn’t the type of woman who really yearned to have a child, but she saw that her husband really wanted to have children…”
So she went out and bought him a couple. I wonder if they designed the kids as well in terms of choice of sex and the number.
@hmmm for a surrogacy, they did most likely have input on the sex and number. OH, NO, THE HORROR! You seem to have a lot of vitriol towards someone else’s reproductive choices. She didn’t go out and buy him a couple, she made a commitment for the rest of her life. Those first 9 months mean nothing compared to actually being a mother.
Yeah I always thought it was a package deal, pregnancy and babies (although there are obviously medical reasons to use a surrogate). Not everyone will enjoy pregnancy, but not everyone enjoys newborns, sleepless nights, toddler tantrums, moody teenagers ect. I don’t think you should just opt out of the stages that don’t tickle your fancy.
This!
Why should it be a package deal? How is surrogacy any different than paying someone to give up their baby through an adoption process? (Both are a-ok with me… and it doesn’t matter what the reason is).
She’s also in her 40s now, which can complicate pregnancies. It’s more difficult to get pregnant, and you have a greater risk of birth defects. Combine that with the need for travel and working a high-stress job…
I’m surprised to see so much judginess about this here at Celebitchy. You all tend to be more supportive of women and the choices they make for their bodies.
ETA: it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t for women sometimes, isn’t it? Beyonce gets tons of scorn for supposedly using a surrogate and not admitting it, and this woman gets criticism for being honest about it.
Part of what complicates AMA pregnancies is the eggs themselves.
I can’t quite articulate what it is that bugs me about this as I don’t care if someone births, adopts, surrogates, or fosters. She just sounds so flip, like the hard part is done. Good for her having a husband who is an interested and invested father – so many women I know don’t have that – and staff, but there’s a disconnect here somewhere in the message.
You have a much higher chance of gestational diabetes and heart problems after 40. There’s also a higher rate of miscarriages and stillbirths.
But if she’s doing IVF, they can screen for anomalies before the embryos are implanted.
The difference is that surrogacy involves TWO bodies, you seem to forget. Giving surrogacy as a gift is a wonderful thing. But that’s the minority now. Paid surrogacy today is largely an exploitive industry. It’s mostly upper-class white women paying women of color and economically disadvantaged white women to carry their children. Those are the women who bear the physical strife, the labor pains and the physical risks of pregnancy for compensation. A lot of surrogates have no real job prospects or skills, so they monetize the only thing they know they can do, which is get pregnant.
So no, it’s not about what this woman did with her body. It’s judging what she did with another’s body.
So you’re against surrogacy in general or just for women who are “lazy” as opposed to unable? Because I think that’s the discussion on this thread right now. Convenience vs. necessity. I’m not going to repeat what I wrote further up but if that’s the only problem most of you guys have, I’m surprised.
I tend to support surrogacy as a medical necessity. However, and let’s point this out – those with actual medical necessity are far, far more likely to receive “gift surrogacy” – that is when a friend, relative or somebody else carries the baby for free or at minimal cost. That’s usually because others are familiar with their situation and they are more inclined to want to help them because their need is legit.
convenience surrogates are almost uniformly the paid type – and that means they are the most exploited type. I don’t get why this is such a tough concept. Using another person’s body for your will is a loaded thing as far as feminism goes. And while you can argue that the surrogates are free to choose and compensated, anyone can also recognize that when you are dealing with a largely poor economic underclass, “free choice” is an illusion and.
So I really don’t get why this is a difficult thing for so many people. Commercial surrogacy is a really touchy thing. I’m not wholly anti-surrogacy (I know some people are) but I get that it’s extremely problematic, and for that reason, I support it in contexts where it is the only viable option for medical needs. I don’t support it when it’s done to enable the obscenely rich to continue their wealthy lives without inconvenience.
Agreeing with sam here. The fact that you’re arguing that this could be harmful to her body but completely disregarding the other body involveD? Pregnancy is a risk for ANYONE! There are so many things that can go wrong, and speaking as a mother whose entire health was turned upside down beginning with giving birth, it pains me to hear this. Every single pregnancy changes your body.
But surrogacy is NEVER a medical necessity: you won’t die/your body will not suffer damage due to not having a child.
Yes, you can suffer psychologically if you are unable to deal with it but there are always other options.
But, there is nothing in this interview to indicate she did it for the babies health or because she feared complications because of her age.
I think the problem is, as many other posters have said, is her entire attitude about it. I get the impression that she thinks having twins will be similar to getting some new rescue dogs. She may be over the moon about her kids, and might be a great mom! We can only judge her by what she says though, and what she said, didn’t sound great IMO.
She’s 41, and presumably not stupid. She doesn’t have to say that she’s afraid of complications.
I think it’s not so much what she said but how she said it. I get what she said why she & her husband made that decision but it really sounds as if she out-sourced the pregnancy. As in, this isn’t personal: it’s business.😄
+1
If you can afford to do it, I don’t really care. I’ve known women who have done it because they didn’t want to mess up their bodies — shallow, yes, but it’s their cash.
I side eye this, not caring your own kids because your are busy travelling but raising kids for 18 year is gonna ask more comitment than 9 months of pregnancy. Plus the excuse for work ? There is a lot of women who are able to work while they are pregnant, anyway good Luck to those kids
Dylan was a year ahead of me at Duke. I didn’t know her, but one of my friends was her freshman roommate. She said Dylan had an entire closet of Ralph Lauren clothes, but basically wore t-shirts and shorts every day. So my friend spent the entire year coveting her wardrobe and wishing she could wear all the clothes Dylan didn’t bother to wear. That’s all I can think about every time I see an article about her. [/randomness]
Interesting–that’s what I love about this site. Someone always has a nugget of info about people that you wouldn’t find anywhere else. If my Dad was Ralph Lauren, I’d wear all his clothes 24/7 — Purple label couture line, of course. Dylan, her husband, and their babies all look like they just stepped out of a Ralph Lauren ad.
“Dylan, her husband, and their babies all look like they just stepped out of a Ralph Lauren ad.”
Yes. The thought occurred to me whilst reading her comments that this woman grew up learning from watching a father who changed his very own name and identity to fabricate and market a certain WASP ideal, persona and design for living. I don’t find it terribly shocking that she might find it acceptable to sort of ‘design’ and re-arrange her own life & lifestyle – and even her identity as ‘mother’ – in a similar fashion.
Here’s my issue with it – she basically says she used a surrogate because she was extremely busy at the time and could not do pregnancy because it would impair that. Okay, I don’t doubt she’s being honest. But if she’s that busy, how is that going to stop when they’re here? Presumably she will still be an in-demand CEO who still needs to work like crazy. I would presume that her husband will be the primary parent who will be at home more, and that’s perfectly fine. But what kind of presence will she be in their lives? What makes her a mother any sense if she is a sporadic presence in their lives, as she seems to suggest?
Surrogacy is something different if it’s just surrogacy and after the child is born, the intended mother steps into the parenting role and embraces it and the child grows with her in that role. I don’t judge that. But in this, clearly, she’s not planning on slowing down, it doesn’t seem. So I’m not getting how she really plans, in any appreciable way, to actually parent or mother these kids. It just seems really…off to me in that sense.
Do you ask the same thing of powerful men? Do you expect them to stop “working like crazy” when their wives have children?
Yeah, I do. So…what’s the issue?
Sorry, I just don’t buy it. This issue never comes up with men. Point me in the direction of any discussion on Celebitchy where someone responded to news about a famous man becoming a father with, “But he works so much; how will he parent his child?”
Um, I’ve seen plenty of online discussions about how male CEOs have no time with their families and how working that much isn’t healthy for a family, regardless of the sex or gender. Sorry that stumped you but it’s the truth.
samtha: there was something about Barack Obama being a terrible dad because he basically only uses his kids as photo ops and they will live a life in a golden cage thanks to him. but there were also lots of Obama supporters saying he is a great man all around and so what if he only see his kids every second Thanks giving.
its obviously the same for men. i dont know why people are still defending people putting children in the world and then being away most of the time.
if you think people think differently about it when its a man then start calling out famous men publicly, on social media and posts like this, write emails to journalists to ask those questions. just saying Sam does not care does not help and is guessing anyway as you can not know that.
also just because male CEOs can be so terrible does not mean female CEOs should too, thats a weird form of equality.
the discussions here dont come up often because its mostly female mags who ask questions about partenting and mostly female celebs about motherhood. so there is no real starting point here. male celebs talk more to the dudebro mags who want one or two quotes about fatherhood being great not details. i also dont think there is any male celeb who has an image like that, compare to for example Jennifer Garner.
so yes men need to be asked more and more. thats the only why we can chance this system of people working themselves to death. quiet a few jobs are simply impossible to combine with a family. corporate culture is not family friendly as of right now.
Yes, samtha! Old men have babies by their trophy wives and everyone’ s OK with it when we know damb well they’re not hands on parents. But god forbid some woman be hesitant about having kids because they are more involved in their career. To me, it sounds like she’s not that nurturing but hubby is, so he can be the primary caregiver. This story is a prime example of why women lie about using a surrogate. Everyone on here is pro choice, for the most part, and says a woman should be able to choose. So why can’t she choose to use a surrogate?
+1 Samtha and Snowflake.
@Samtha why does it have to be an either/or? It sounds to me like you’re not too happy society it’s still naturally expecting mothers to be the primary caregivers of children & that’s fine. But, jumping all over someone who may or may not hold those traditional views isn’t going to change that. That’s something that is going to take decades to change, if it ever does. Women carry the children, we give birth to them…there in lies the inevitable rub: we’re the primary caregiver most of the time. So are most species’ female sex.
I love you.
She also says her husband is the “alpha parent” while she’s the one with the candy store. I just didn’t think her attitude was very promising. She sounds very distant.
That has nothing to do with anything. Alpha means he is going to be the parent at home with the kids most of the time. She has a business that she needs to travel for and apparently that she loves. Why are women always expected to give that up when they have children? I love my job. If I get married and my husband wants to have kids I would still bring up adoption of an older child as an option because shit I don’t need to take the time off that I will have to if I get pregnant. The business world is freaking hard for women and when you start having to take off for doctor’s appointments, birth, recovery, etc. you are getting forced behind others and having to wait a lot longer for a promotion.
Would you like to borrow a wet fish to slap me with? Lol I didn’t mean she should give up her job, or you should give up your job, or anybody should do anything. I just believe that having children is a huge commitment and you should do it for one reason – because you really want to be a parent. You can be a parent who works, a parent with a high powered job and/or not the primary caretaker parent. As long as you really, really want it. But her remark sounded to me like she was saying – as an extra added bonus, I don’t even have to do any parenting! He will be the disciplinarian, and I’ll be the fun one – she just doesn’t sound that into the whole thing to me, or that realistic about what her role would be. i wasn’t suggesting that she needs to be a stay at home mother. She started her own business and loves it and takes great pride in it, as she should. I just wonder if she really wanted kids. There’s nothing wrong with not having children if you don’t want them, and so many people just crank out kids because “you’re supposed to.” I have no way of knowing how she feels, of course. I hope she’s happy and they work everything out. I just thought her remarks were sort of off.
An issue that never arises with men. Society would come to a standstill if both parents were super-parents. Not possible at all. The reality is in a society with mostly nuclear families one partner gives a little more than the other when it comes to childrearing. We are now at the stage where some of us feminists are saying I want to be a mom and I want to have my career. Luckily for us, some men are right alongside us supporting our choices and it would be nice if other women got on board instead of judging the woman in the scenario to be callous and unnatural.
Sure it arises with men. There are plenty of men who have bemoaned not getting to participate as much with their kids. A basic Google search will turn that up.
And the Laurens situation is not average, keep in mind. Most parents are not mega CEOs who constantly travel around the world. This woman is. And let’s remember, she’s the child of an insanely wealthy man as well. If she wanted to work less, she could. She could delegate authority to the officers of the company, she could designate proxies, she could work remotely, etc. She has options that could free her up more for the children. She does not hurt for any money (and likely never, ever will). This is not a woman who must work constantly to maintain her family. To me, that raises the question of how invested she really is in these kids. And yes, I’d ask exactly the same of a male CEO – the difference is that they don’t seem to broadcast as much. Am I slightly curious about what Mark Zuckerberg will do when his wife has the baby? Yeah – I hope he takes as much time as he wants, since he has the means to do so.
I guess you have a problem with Mother Nature because women are the ones who give birth and that’s just the way it is. You can’t change that. You can be pregnant AND have a career. I have no problem with stay at home dads but refusing to carry your own fetuses because you are too busy is just plain wrong.
@Sam She may not have to work but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t want to work. Not everyone wants to live off family money. And CEOs don’t really clock out. Even if she can delegate she’s still expected to be available. So it’s not as simple as delegating to others.
As for men not broadcasting as much, it’s because they’re rarely asked about it. It’s not often that men are asked how they’ll manage. It’s just expected they’ll return to work ASAP.
renee: which is also not good for men. as if they all just want to stay away. sometimes the media really portrays such a bad picture of men in general.
All this “women cant have it all” completly left out that men also never had it all. no man has a great career AND a great family life so why would women?
Max Schireson for example even stepped down because he realized being a dad is not possible when you are a CEO. Or Indra K. Nooyi said “If you ask our daughters, I’m not sure they will say that I’ve been a good mom.”
in the end only a very few people are CEOs and most of the know that being a CEO means never seeing your family. thats not the problem of 99,9% of the people in the world though.
What I’m seeing is women denying their own fundamental sexuality by rejecting the notion that they were born with the parts that work for birth and the potential. People go on and on about sexuality but forget that it’s intimately tied with children. It’s like wanting to be like a man- have the fun but let ‘her’ have and take care of the baby. Now it’s surrogates and nannies.
On another note, does that also mean she didn’t have time for sex?
@hmmm I guess I should just stop wanting/having sex with my husband, since we aren’t having any more kids. And I’m only 35! Sex is a means to an end when you are trying to have a child, but it’s so much more than that otherwise. The “babymaking” part of sex is like .0000000000000000000000000001% of your sex life, so it’s not really so intimately tied with someone’s sexuality, it’s just one tiny small facet of it.
I second everything you just said. And yes, I think responsible parenting – being present and involved should apply equally to men, which is why I applaud countries whose social policies allow paternal leaves. (Mind you, the US is so hugely behind when it comes to parental leave that I still can’t fathom why this is not a huge election topic every year, particularly in a nation whose politicians like to spout off about family values every. time.)
Sadly, the convo about how parenting affects careers (currently primarily for women) is a much bigger topic that should be present on political and corporate agendas and sadly, it rarely is. Historically (so for the last fifty years) the burden has been entirely on women due to biological reasons. Before that, since women didn’t generally have a career, there wasn’t any discussion about mothers being primary caregivers, they just were – in the case of the rich maybe less, since they employed staff.
But whether we talk about men or women, once the baby is born, let’s all agree that the way we view success in one’s career in the western world right is not compatible with good /present parenting. If you need to spend 10 hours a day at work, at least another hour checking emails while home, plus commuting time, and add in sleep, errands, chores…. How much is left for your kids? I don’t claim to have a solution. I can only observe that the way our society is set up right now, you end up with one parent assuming most of the parenting work while the others is primarily in charge of finances, or you have kids being mostly with a variety of caregivers and spending what time is left in the parents’ day with them. I know this works great for some so no shade from me. I personally like to raise my own child with minimal help, and we are fortunate that my spouse works from home as well. My kid has always known the reality of having both parents present when he is not at school, but doesn’t yet realize how absolutely rare that is. For us the material sacrifice involved was worth it, but we are lucky, most people cannot make this choice.
So, based on how Dylan expressed herself, I side eye. I may be wrong and her choice of words was unfortunate, but to me it sounded like she got the children mostly to keep hubby happy and only once he had proven himself capable of providing care because he was willing to wake up and walk the dog. (Can’t even dignify that with a comment- no oven se to pet parents but having had both, there is no bloody comparison.)
I wish these beautiful babies the best, and hope that whatever the reason and however they were born, they will be well cared for and loved.
Im Laughing really really hard ( probably cause i’m high too but..) Cause i’m thinking GOD don’t let me have Money cause I’d so pull this Vanity Glam Baby ass move if my Bf actually wanted children ( I have persuaded every dude i’ve ever gotten with that ” Oh Come on You Don’t want babies, those are hard and expensive and we won’t have sex or sleep or disposable Income or two pets apiece if we do Babies!!?)
Thank you! Me too! But judging by the posts on here, you’d think she committed a heinous crime!
LOL! I heart you, QQ.
Meh! I know several women who did this and i’m going to do this. Giving birth doesn’t make one a mother. It’s the post birth life time. We have options now.
@ lak
What are the average costs associated with surrogacy? Not that I could ever afford it, just curious
Serious question here: if a woman is given the right to end an inconvenient pregnancy via abortion is she not right in choosing not to be pregnant in order to be mom? Why would the right to end her pregnancy be championed over her choice of surrogacy?
edited
Because of one major distinction: an abortion involves one body – the pregnant woman’s. That’s it. A surrogacy situation involves TWO: the intended mother and the surrogate. I’m honestly shocked that more people don’t get this.
Most surrogacy today is not a gift situation where a friend or relative carries the baby for free. Most of it is paid and the intended parents and surrogate don’t have a personal relationship. The problem is that most surrogates working for pay are women of color and/or in the lower economic classes. They generally lack education and any major skills training, so they basically monetize the only real skill they have – getting pregnant. They are the party who bears the pain of pregnancy, birth and labor and all the physical risks of pregnancy. However, compensation for them can be minimal. They also are often subject to intense behavioral controls, as some intended parents will try to dictate their diets, what they can do, travel to, etc. It’s an intense, sometimes nasty process.
That’s what a lot of people take issue with – the really unequal dynamics of the situation in most cases. This woman hasn’t disclosed her surrogate’s situation, but it’s fairly safe to say she is nowhere near as rich as this woman. It’s not wrong to point out that a wealthy woman selecting a much lower-income woman to birth her children is problematic from an economic standpoint – especially when you get into the international versions and “birth tourism” and stuff like that. One can think that surrogacy in principal is acceptable (which I do) and think that the current model is deeply exploitive and has serious issues.
An abortion involves 2 bodies. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is usually charged with 2 counts because the fetus is considered a living being. I’m not trying to get into an abortion debate, but I suggest checking out photos of 3-4 month fetuses and tell me that’s not a living breathing human being.
Meme: Legally, the fetus has no legal standing. I am talking about two adult, legally recognized humans. That is the distinction. Most abortions take place so early that the fetus has no legal protection and thus, only one human is involved.
@sam … Scott Peterson was charged with 2 counts of murder…one for his wife and one for his unborn child. Where do you draw the distinction? 6 months, 9 months, 5 months?
Another example: Mark Anthony Cox, who was recently released from prison where he served time for robbery and breaking and entering, allegedly killed 22-year-old Danielle Watson, who was pregnant at the time of her murder, during an armed robbery.
Meme: the Scott Peterson case involved a woman who was almost at the end of the pregnancy, a time when everyone agreed that the baby was certainly viable and could have lived independently of the mother. Almost NO abortions take place at the point in time when Laci Peterson died. So again, you’re arguing a false equivalence.
@sam … I am not arguing a false equivalence. It’s just an inconvenient fact. I suggest you google some more cases because numerous murderers have been charged with 2 counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman and not all of them were 9 months pregnant.
@meme
I am pro-choice, but I believe that a person who kills a pregnant woman should be charged with two murders. Not because the fetus is or isn’t at that point viable, and not because a fetus has “personhood” but because the parents intended to have the baby and that chance was taken away from them by the murderer. I think you are trying to use the law to show that a fetus is a person, and you have a right to your opinion, but legally, you are not correct. The feticide laws specifically state that nothing therein grants the fetus personhood and/or can be applied to abortion.
Meme: not 9 months, but you forget that an essential element of any feticide law is that the fetus must be viable – meaning it must be able to live outside of the mother. Very, very few abortions take place after viability, so in almost all cases, there is no second person to speak of because the life is not viable. Today, viability occurs somewhere between months 5-6, generally speaking. 3-4 months is not.
Sam, the same right to do what a woman wants with her body extends to the surrogate as well as Dylan. Not all surrogates are being taken advantage of — plenty enjoy pregnancy and the money that comes from carrying another person’s child.
In my country, someone who murders a pregnant woman would be accused of murder plus forced abortion, but not for murder in two cases. An the reason given for it is that from a legal point of view, life starts at birth.
Nutballs: Most surrogates today are not doing it because they enjoy it. They do it for the money. Pregnancy can be wonderful (believe me, I know!) but it’s also uncomfortable and RISKY. You can suffer serious effects. As a surrogate, you also have to submit to the policing of the intended parents, who often want to restrict how you eat, go about your life, etc.
And your assertion doesn’t match up. While data is incomplete, research indicates that a majority of surrogates worldview live below their nation’s poverty lines and even when they don’t, they almost never come from a similar economic background as the intended parents. Which again, leads to the power differential we’ve been mentioning. Are there a few well-off women who simply do it because they love it or because they want to help? Certainly – but they are the exception. The overall worldwide picture of surrogacy is of a bunch of low-income women serving as incubators for wealthy people. That’s the bottom line.
Low income women also clean houses, which wealthier women will pay them to do. Does that mean that all wealthy women should clean their own houses too?
Low income women also will be found working at restaurants. Should wealthier women stop eating out because they’re “taking advantage” of lower income women?
While it may be true that there are women used as baby factories, that doesn’t mean the surrogacy should be eliminated, but rather needs to be regulated to ensure the freedoms and safety of those who choose to enter into it are protected. Surrogacy is necessary for some couples who cannot have children. To assert that someone who may be able to have children and chooses surrogacy has made a morally corrupt choice is what I’m arguing against.
You spoke of the legality of abortion upthread. We’re not talking about legality since surrogacy is also legal. We’re talking about morality. If you say it’s morally right for a woman to choose not to carry her child to term (which as masy points out, affects the unborn child), but then say it’s morally wrong for a woman to choose to hire a surrogate who has agreed to carry her child, your logic is inconsistent. I’m not arguing for or against abortion, but you’re applying a double standard, which I’m trying to point out to you.
If a woman has the moral right to end her pregnancy for the sake of convenience (the reason most abortions occur), then she also has the right to hire a surrogate for the sake of convenience. That’s my point.
In reply to meme, I understand the law to say “unless the mother has agreed to an abortion to end her pregnancy, any action taken against a mother that results in the loss of her unborn child is considered murder”. The law effectively gives only mothers the right to terminate a pregnancy; anyone else whose actions cause her unborn child to die stands guilty of murder.
Whether or not a person believes the law to be morally right is another matter of course, but that’s how I interpret laws governing abortions chosen by the mother or a result of someone else’s action.
So a surrogate is making badly needed money, how horrible!
Nutballs: They’re not analogous, to me. Pregnancy is sort of different than cleaning, see, in that each pregnancy has permanent, risky impacts on your physical health and well-being. When you ask a woman to carry a pregnancy for you, you are, in reality, asking her to risk her LIFE for you. Yeah. How quickly we forget that women DIE to have babies. You don’t think that such a request should be made heavily, only when medically necessary and accompanied by the appropriate high levels of compensation?
If you genuinely can’t tell the difference, then I’m not sure if you can advance any further in the discussion.
@NUTBALLS
It’s a completely logical fallacy (false equivalence) to compare cleaning houses with carrying a child to term and giving birth. But it’s all about the Benjamins, isn’t it? The great equaliser in this brave new world. The heck with humanity, the heck with women. It makes me weep.
And BTW, men can clean houses but can’t bear children. So how is yours remotely a fair comparison? Oh….I guess the Benjamins?
Sam, when I’m talking about surrogacy, I’m referring to it in America, not in developing countries. Women here in the States aren’t being exploited and from what I’ve seen, they are middle class women who enjoy helping other families and like the money that comes from that line of “work”. They are providing a normal, biological function for others that is fully supported by great medical care. I don’t see a problem with this arrangement as long as the contract between parents and surrogate clearly outline what the responsibilities and boundaries for each party.
I think everyone here would agree that in cases where women are being exploited for their surrogacy and not being given proper medical care, it should not be happening at all. Just as I fight against the exploitation whole families are enslaved in rice mills in India or in Ghana where young boys are enslaved on fishing boats or in Philippines where young girls are tricked and forced into prostitution, I would not want to see any woman being taken advantage of and her health being put at risk so someone else could have a baby. Not right at all.
Here come all the judgey moms. Her body. Her money. Not everyone wants to be pregnant. Not everyone thinks it’s the greatest thing in the world. Just because someone doesn’t want to experience pregnancy doesn’t mean they won’t be a great mom or won’t love their kids. It sounds like her husband is going to be the primary caregiver while she continues to work. She has a career and she found a solution that works for them.
True. I was a little judgey below. I would be less judgey if this was an option for all women. But the rest of us regular moms need to carry the baby ourselves since we don’t have the money to have someone do it for us. In all but very rare cases the people having someone carry for them are paying thousands of dollars for this privilege.
@qtpi: I bet you don’t think Americans shouldn’t have dessert just because some Ethiopians are starving. No sarcasm intended. Just showing another perspective.
So? Because you can’t afford something, other women shouldn’t have that option? One’s choices should be tied to how they emotionally impact those with fewer opportunities? What a strange way to view the world. There are women with infertility problems who will never have children because they will never have the tens of thousands of dollars necessary for IVF, and their insurance won’t cover it, so does that mean other women with the financial means should not have that option because “WAH! It’s NOT FAIR!”??? Or is that okay because getting pregnant is the highest pursuit of the fairer sex, and you had to go through it, so so should everyone else?
Women should carry their babies themselves. There is no need to exploit another women’s body for such things.
+1 Even if you don’t support her decision, at least respect that she made the right choice for herself and her family.
“Here come all the judgey moms.”
That’s very ‘judgey’ and biased to aim this remark just at mothers. The comment also makes it sound like having standards and therefore standing in judgment and critically thinking is a bad thing. I guess it’s better to conform to the prevailing zeitgeist, the groupthink.
Yes!!! This thread is scaring me. So many awful people here.
I recognize that she didn’t have her children the “traditional” way, but I can’t help but wonder if she had other medical issues that she doesn’t want to disclose, so she went with the “too much travel” explanation. As someone who had several miscarriages, I know that I progressively distanced myself from every pregnancy as the number of miscarriages went up- it was just too painful to contemplate. In fact, there were times when I just thought that I didn’t want kids at all. Maybe, because of my own experience, I hear something very different.
I didn’t have the resources to go surrogate – but, I would have done it in a heartbeat if I could have. And, the old-fashioned way was ruled out. Now, with 1 son- born healthy and perennially happy- I’m grateful that I have the opportunity to be a parent. I suspect, she is more thrilled than she expected. (Her husband is really handsome.)
I read it a different way- she was pushing 40, was trying to grow her business. With her travel schedule, she and hubs prob weren’t together enough to conceive the old fashioned way- hence the surrogate route.
That’s what I believe. Conceiving the old fashioned way is for the poors.
Not exactly what I meant- there’s only a few days in each woman’s cycle when she can conceive- and a lot of women start having irregular periods around 40. So if she and hubs can’t have sex bec they aren’t together at the right time-that’s the travel aspect- then pregnancy by surrogate eliminates that issue. My take away is they went this route to address the time/distance issue. Agreed, tho, surrogacy is an expensive proposition.
The comments suggest that we might be heading that way.
Yep it’s a little too easy when you have $$$$$…. oh you want someone to carry the baby? Oh, how many do you want? And do you want boys, girls, or one of each? Here is the menu!!
I’m fairly confident that some of the surrogacy stuff is related to not wanting to ruin their bodies too.
Gah!!! From a woman who is still working on her post-pregnancy body 3 years down the line: I wish I had Dylan’s money!!! No exercise in the world seems to be helping my inner thighs. And never felt a single emotional stirring while pregnant. Just gas and heartburn. Bonded with the “sprog” only when she started recognizing me. Ghastly, isn’t it?
I bet you’re a lovely mother who hung in there and that your babe doesn’t care about your inner thighs. 🙂
Saywhatwhen – yep, me too. The baby doesn’t care if you have great inner thighs or “post-baby” inner thighs (my tummy and hips for me…), but I care. Our kids will never care if they spent nine months in my womb of someone else’s – they have no memory of it, no feelings associated with it (other than what we as a society try to push on them) and they ascribe no importance to it. But I would have been a much happier person if I didn’t have to go through those 18 months.
What a brave new world, a world that’s becoming increasingly dystopian, and people are buying into it. Who’s leading the charge? Why, the 1%ers, of course! And it looks like money excuses everything.
Right? I’m getting horrible flashbacks to The Handmaid’s Tale.
That’s the first thing I thought of too!
lol i always think of the handsmaid’s tale whenever there is a story about surrogacy.
last i checked, the planet is overcrowded and filthy and our resources are dwindling. i think it is both scary and hilarious that it is still not enough people so we have resorted to brewing more in labs.
I don’t support her name choices, but I’m fine with the rest. No one demands that men sacrifice their bodies and their careers for parenthood, and now women have choices as well. Also, at her age fertility treatments probably would have been necessary (just going on the statistical odds here and what is realistic), and having been through that hell I would never call another woman selfish for not wanting to do it. Also, as happy as I am to be pregnant, I’m not going to lie and call it pleasant. It’s not, especially for a woman with a stressful career and travel schedule (the idea of getting on a commercial flight for a trip to Italy next month is already filling me with dread; I can’t imagine traveling regularly given the nausea and debilitating fatigue. I can barely stay awake at my desk at work everyday as it is, so if I added regular travel it would probably bring me to my breaking point). Some women love being pregnant, but a lot of us, realistically, have a much different experience. It sounds like their children have a loving, nurturing full-time parent at home and one who is the breadwinner and therefore more absent (though not necessarily less loving); this is a typical paradigm in many households, except that in this case the breadwinner is the female. My husband has a high-powered career, and his job requires 100% travel. After being on his client’s site all day, he typically returns to his hotel room after a workout and toils on proposals for his firm until 10 or 11 at night. He’s typically only home on the weekends. This requires a lot of sacrifice from our family, but it allows him to earn a high six-figure income, so we never ever worry about money and don’t have those stresses or money-centered arguments. We’ll be able to give our child a beautiful home in a safe community and a great education without sending him into the world strapped with college debt. It will allow me to stop working if I want and devote myself to parenthood, and his example should teach our son the importance of a strong work ethic. He’ll be home more once he makes partner and has more control over his own schedule, and throughout our fertility treatments he prioritized being home when I needed him to be, so I’m confident he’ll do the same once our son is born. He will still be gone a lot, though, but I doubt anyone will accuse him of not being a loving parent because of it. If the tables were turned, however, and I were the one away all the time at work instead of my husband, as a woman it’s an accusation I would undoubtedly endure on a regular basis. As a society, we (including judgy women, sadly) still perpetuate old notions about what is properly a “woman’s place.” I like that she’s challenging that and challenging the notion that her reason for existing is tied to her biological capacity to reproduce, and it’s refreshing that she’s candid about it.
@Kate!!! All the yeses and agrees to what you’ve said!! I have commented so much on this story because it is something that is personal to me!!! More and more I think the feminist movement is held back by women more than men.
Instead of having this woman’s back –a working, providing, entrepreneurial woman in a stable relationship with a supportive husband– a lot of us are judging her as less than and not fit for mammahood. So disappointing.
Preach!!!
Thank you. Sometimes women really are their own worst enemy.
Nicely stated.
If feminism does mean that women become like men then it is not feminism.
Feminism in my books includes the possibility of raising your children under decent circumstances and that includes giving birth to them yourself.
Women who use surrogates out of convenience will not fight for maternity leave nor will they fight to help pregnant women in the workplace. And yes, this is treason to feminism.
ITA. I strongly strongly dislike scenarios in which women/minorities are only accepted to the extent that they act like men/white people.
Feminism is the belief that women are entitled to the same legal, political, economic and social status and opportunities as men. It’s about equality. That’s all. Your personal understanding of the term is something else entirely. Your comment about women “becoming like men” pretty much makes my point about how many people, including women, still have traditional ideas about where women “belong” and how their “proper role” is entwined with their biological capacity to reproduce. We belong barefoot and pregnant, and being and wanting something else is being “like a man” and rejecting our rightful, God-appointed role. I just view the world and my place as a woman in that world very differently. We can agree to disagree.
No, so wrong. Feminism is about having
equal rights–AS FEMALES. We have different needs than men do, and our needs deserve EQUAL consideration to those of men. The workplace needs to accommodate women without punishing them for having to have children before they turn 40, should they want them at all.
This misconception is so annoying. Equality isn’t about everyone being the same. Equality is about ALL DIFFERENCES getting equal respect. We ARE different from men, and I’ll be damned if I’m punished for that by people who don’t understand what feminism or acceptance or equality really means.
You want to know how society makes women like men? We are punished when we deviate from the standard linear career trajectory that men have. Men don’t need to take a step back for a few years to have children. Men aren’t told they’d better not have kids until after they get tenure. Ever wonder why a gap on your resume looks bad? why? How is that fair to women? Why is a non-linear career trajectory a bad thing? Men tend to peak professionally at 40, while women tend to peak later–50, 55–and lower, because we re-entered the workforce demoted after taking time off to have kids. What kind of compensation/positions are available for women at 55 compared to men at 40? I’m sorry, but I don’t think you’ve thought carefully about this. Try being a 35 year old woman with no children (who wants them), staring down her career and having to make tough choices while all the childless men around her don’t even have to give it a thought. They won’t have to make the same choices, and they’ve got decades before they even need to think about it.
I agree with Greenieweenie. I think the idea that everything about women should be treated the exact same way as it is with men has given rise to these, to me, frivolous “causes” like free the nipples and I should be able to grow a mustache and still be on tv. I don’t care if nipples show or a woman wants to grow a mustache, but I think it’s heading down a path that draws attention away from very real problems that need to be addressed.
“Feminism is about having equal rights – AS FEMALES.”
Love that.
Preach it weenie! (Err…that sounded weird. Lol)
Men can’t have children. They are physically unable. I don’t know why people want to pretend we’re the same. We are not. But we should have equal consideration for our needs. I like how you put that.
@Kate,
Paying for the rental of another woman’s womb out of convenience is not my idea of feminism. My idea of feminism includes choosing not to have children (which is what I did), not using the bodies of women less fortunate than I because it’s easier than taking on the task myself. Women’s ‘proper role’ is not determined by biology, but it seems more determined these days by money. It seems that the new ‘proper role’ for less fortunate women has devolved to breeder, a rent-a-womb, determined now by the very rich as biologically useful and convenient.
If anyone betrays women it’s those who think it’s okay to reduce the womb to a depository and incubator. Not much difference between that and owning a cow or a sow, IMO.
And just to cap off my rant–society does a piss poor job of accommodating women in the workplace. If you can act like a man (have kids when it’s convenient! Outsource everything to your spouse! Work long hours even when your kids are small! Don’t breastfeed! Don’t take a long maternity leave!), great! They’ll keep you around. But act like a woman? Nope…and that’s why when women have children, they exit the workforce in droves. That’s why you don’t have women representing themselves proportionately at the highest levels of
the corporate world, or government, or
anywhere else. Because oftentimes, the women who are there acted like they were men and a lot of other women don’t feel like they should have to pretend to be a man in order to succeed.
I have zero interest in having children so maternity leave will never be relevant for me, but I strongly, strongly support better/increased family time for *both* parents, as well as workplaces that better support not only pregnant women, but nursing mothers, and fathers who have to bring their kid to work because their spouse isn’t available and the babysitter called in sick etc. Don’t assume just because a woman isn’t directly having the experience of pregnancy, that we’re all thus divorced from the considerations of pregnant women.
My idea of feminism is letting people do whatever the eff they want without judgment or fear of repercussion.
it is not about women belonging into the home. do men belong in the work place? more and more people are questioning the corporate culture and i dont know why we would encourage people to have children and barely see them. decades ago it was a necessity, this whole corporate culture is sick for humans, a burn out being one of the less evils of it.
so the posters have a point. instead of thinking like 1950s men where money mattered more than family maybe feminism could create a BETTER world. like Germaine Greer said: i dont want women to live the unfree lives of men.
because freeing women from the home to make them slaves to the corporate culture is good how exactly?
its so silly because we have already seen what that culture does to men in terms of happiness and social contacts but we still push women through that.
in europe there is more of a socialist feminism where there are more questions if the sole goal of a womans life should be to make money for a big corporation, in america most of feminism seems to be about turning women into Wolf of Wallstreet men.
I love your comment, Ronda. Amen!
Spot on, Greenie. + a gazillion on everything you said. Women’s issues and needs *are* different from men’s.
Exactly what I meant, Ronda. ITA–we need to stop thinking that this 1950s industrial model is the one for all time. I fully support any workplace policies that allow men to be more involved in their families too. I just know that it HAS to start with women, because the impact in women is disproportionate. But I am definitely a fan of any effort to acknowledge the value of family time and put it equal to productive work time (screw an 8 hour work day. Have a list of tasks, and when they’re accomplished, go home. Quality not quantity; productivity, not attendance),
Thank you for this perspective, Kate. Some people here are hellbent on judging without even considering the facts (Dylan’s age, her openness about the surrogacy) or possibilities that might have led to this.
From what I can see, this was all above board and the babies are coming into a home with no lack of resources and at least one hands-on primary caregiver……. but some people seem to believe you don’t deserve children if you don’t want to/can’t get pregnant. And then say that surrogacy is for rich people because it costs a lot of money…… well, it should, if the surrogate is going to be properly compensated. And who’s to say it wasn’t someone close to them, like a friend?
And I hope your pregnancy is a safe and happy one!
@Kate-Thank you for sharing your perspective. It’s always refreshing when women keep it real about pregnancy. This Joy of Motherhood stuff gets nauseatingly old and starts to feel like an impossible trap that women create for ourselves. Of course pregnancy can be wonderful and of raising children is rewarding and at times magical. But this notion that every women must subscribe to this idealized perception of pregnancy—one that glosses over the difficulty and struggles that come along with it—really does a disservice to women in the end.
If men had to go through pregnancy, odds are that 95% of them would be using surrogates.
@Kate
“No one demands that men sacrifice their bodies and their careers for parenthood, and now women have choices as well. ”
But someone has to sacrifice their bodies to bear the children and sacrifice part of their lives. It isn’t men, and it isn’t well off, higher status women. So now women can choose to let other women sacrifice their living for the “brave new world feminists”. So some women can be free to do whatever they want, while other women become enslaved to their wombs because they have few choices left to them.
By raising the almighty ‘choice’ to godhood of choice we forget that it’s about *freedom* to choose. What freedom do many women have if they’re mired in poverty? What “equality” do they share with the better off? A caste system for women is being created with such ‘choices’.
Sorry, if you’re too busy to be pregnant with your own babies, then you’re too busy to care for them also. Yeah, it’s a brave “new world.” For rich people who can afford it.
+ 1
Using a surrogate out of convenience does hit a sour note with me. People like Dylan Lauren rule the world by donating to political parties and Think tanks and the like. And if they have no more concept of how living works for ordinary people who can’t afford surrogates and who need things like good affordable childcare and maternity leave and regular working hours then ……….. where are we heading for? Ordinary people need these things but as soon as the upper classes don’t have any understanding for that these things will vanish because it is cheaper for businesses to not have to offer such things.
Perhaps there were some fertility issues which they didn’t want to discuss. That is alright in my books. But surrogate out of convenience?
Oh, and I would like to know how much the surrogate received for her services. Did she get paid adequately?
If that British nanny show, Jo, taught me anything, is that so many families on the outside look so normal and happy and loving, and a hellhole was going on within the home.
So judging her for a surrogate or wanting a fulling committed partner in childraising as she builds her business, who cares, as long as they are loving and involved parents. There’s parents all across the country who screw up their children, rich or poor.
I think she is not going to let the public know she may have infertility issues or her husband has low sperm count. But it did make it sound like her husband needed to try out to be father and it took many years for the audition. If she is worried about getting up early and traveling, that is what these high paid nannies are for. I am sure she grew up with a lot of help.in the Lauren house. So it all sounds like cover up talk.
Maybe she really just wasn’t sure until recently and then it was too late for her biologically. That’s not a crime. And if it’s dad who is the hands on parent, so what? He looks thrilled in the pix lol.
That’s how I took it. That she may not have wanted kids until recently. That’s how I am. I thought I’d go through life not having kids and now that I’m in my late 30s, that is all I think about. So I don’t side-eye her at all. Moms come in all shapes and sizes and just because you stay at home or “have-time” doesn’t necessarily make you a good or even a “present” mother. BTW – where can I get a husband like hers? Man, is that guy good-looking!!!
Stop being reasonable, Pandy.
I think if you want a baby badly enough and can’t conceive yourself and need other options, that speaks to your commitment. The thing about pregnancy is that it forces you to recognize your limits and childbirth can just be….insane. If you weren’t all that committed in the first place AND you don’t even bother with the pregnancy/birth part, yeah, you don’t really sound ready for the demands of kids. I’ve always said I never really realized I was a woman (and not a man) until I had to start planning my career around my fertility. I really dislike the idea of wealthy women now being able to side-step biology at their convenient while working women have to make enormous sacrifices.
She’s 41 years old, surrogacy may well have been a faster way than either trying to conceive naturally or adopting.
Having children isn’t the same as a marathon, where you get to have a medal only if you ran the full race. Either way, she has the kids and she’s a parent now, with a husband who appears to be happy with being a primary caregiver (what my mum wouldn’t have done for one of those in the 80s…..).
I didn’t realize she was so old…but if she used a surrogate, I guess I’m presuming she used her own eggs so wasn’t concerned about birth defects? Anyway, I’m not side-eying her as a mother. I’m side-eying her commitment to her kids, based on her flippant attitude toward it all so far, and I don’t think this is a good trend for women as a minority group in the workplace. Kids demand a lot and I really do think that if you can’t be bothered to commit to pregnancy (if that’s an option for you), that says a lot about your readiness for kids. And I don’t mean commit to IVF, etc. That’s a personal choice and if I were struggling with fertility, I might pass all that and go straight to surrogacy. But she acts like she just couldn’t be bothered to deal with carrying a child. Yeah, if only the rest of us had that option–our needs in the workplace would be no different from those of men.
Her age is right there in the first line of the article.
I don’t see why she was obligated to love the idea of pregnancy just because she was ok with having kids, the real “commitment” she’s made is having them and now raising them. That’s not going to change, whether she was pregnant or not.
Sue me. I’m reading on my phone without my glasses. I remember when she opened her first candy store and thought she was closer to my age (younger).
You seem to be confusing my skepticism about her making time for her kids with her not loving her kids. Like someone said below, if you don’t have time for pregnancy, idk how you will have time for kids. I am the breadwinner in my family but I still have to make time for my kid. That’s how I commit to having had one. Pregnancy was the least demanding part by far, so if that’s too much for her because she works, like women everywhere…eye roll.
no reading glasses? Sure.
And eyeroll away, but all this noise about her using a surrogate meaning not enough “commitment” to the idea of being a parent, sounds like so much projection to me.
I’m a bit sick of people being judgy about women’s pregnancies/lack thereof on this site, to be absolutely honest. Whether it’s this surrogacy, or people clutching their pearls over Benedict Cumberbatch having a shotgun wedding, or judging some other girl who split with her fiancee because the already and a kid and she didn’t want more children while he did (forgot who exactly it was).
“I’m side-eying her commitment to her kids, based on her flippant attitude toward it all so far”
How can you side-eye her commitment to her kids when they’re still infants? Maybe you should give her a chance to be a mother first before you judge.
I agree, Teacakes. I’m constantly shocked at how people take it upon themselves to judge how other people choose to conceive. Frankly, I find it appalling.
I see a lot of pearl-clutching also, but only from those who are shocked at the thought of not having a free for all complete license to do what they want when they want where they want without considering consequences for women and society.
I completely agree with you Greenieweenie. That was my first thought as well- she didn’t have time to get preggers, so how will she make time for the kid? It’s a fair question.
She’s 41 years old, that’s not exactly peak fertility years for most women – I’m not going to judge her for not going through several rounds of IVF etc. for it, and just going straight to the surrogate. We also don’t know if she had a pre-existing condition (PCOS, enometriosis) that might have made carrying a foetus to term difficult. The whole ‘how dare you want to be a mother but go surrogate, if you don’t want to be pregnant you don’t deserve kids!’ attitude is tiring.
And given that she is speaking so openly about her choice, I assume the surrogacy was not some hush-hush affair and that the person who birthed these children was adequately compensated. No judgement from me, and I hope she’ll be a good parent.
I comend her for coming clean and not using a pillow bump.
It sounds lame but maybe as a non celeb we should cut her slack. She could be on anticonvulsants, or anti psychotics or have a pregnancy phobia.
Eh. The woman is 41. I feel like she knew trying and trying this late in the game may not work out and prove stressful and potentially damage her career and her marriage….maybe I’m crazy and would make a horrible mother, but I totally get why she did it. She’s just not hung up about it in a way that would illicit sympathy from anyone. Which I think is refreshing, she’s not dwelling on something that’s pointless to dwell on.
I don’t get this need to make sure every mother is heartbroken that they didn’t sacrifice their body for 9 months to have a child. If someone isn’t bursting at the seams with some tragic story about how they tried all these routes and then finding the happy ending through surrogacy then it’s not a surrogacy they should have gone through? It makes them less as parents? We have NO idea how she parents. Her carrying the child does not automatically equate with her being a good, sacrificial mother. I mean Kris Jenner freaking carried her kids and still all she saw were little monkeys for profit.
Wow! This the same group that screams for pro-choice. And what a woman’s does with her body is her choice. Are now BLASTING a woman for making a choice that’s right for her? The hypocrisy is thick here.
Agreed. All of this is nasty-sauce. Choice people. Remember that. I’ll have an alien carry my baby if I want …chill out. Our bodies our choices. You want to birth 10 babies. Feel free!! Stop judging each other.
@LittleBowBee and just who do you think should pay or care for said 10 babies?? As a collective society we have every right to question the morality & ethical logic involved with the way we bring new life into our society.
There is NO inherent right to be a parent. And, those that cling to that notion are usually the ones having too many babies yet can’t afford to care for them. Nature has a rhyme & reason…we’re playing with fire trying to harness that power for our own gains.
Yep. Why care about the world community of women and their futures? That would be tiresome.
Having the right to make a choice doesn’t mean others don’t have a right to agree or disagree with your choice.
Her choice to USE another woman’s body? And while you could technically argue that that woman had a choice to use her body in that way, assuming she’s not related and doing this out of pure love for this couple (which I highly doubt), if you’re farming out your body for money, your choices in life are probably somewhat limited.
Technically argue? Are you saying that there is a possibility that she forced someone into surrogacy? We have zero idea how this whole process happened in her life. I don’t understand all the hysteria. I’m getting back to my regularly scheduled program of not worrying about anyone else womb. Have fun ladies! Peaaaaaace
“Technically argue” because I bet you that surrogate doesn’t have loads of options for earning large amounts of money in 9 months other than using her body.
@Absolutely – it might be a girlfriend/family member who was helping out her friend. Who’s to say it’s a disadvantaged woman? It was both of their choices to do this, ultimately.
I’m sorry but did I miss something in the article? Did they talk about who her surrogate was and her economic background, etc?
The assumptions being made on this thread are just ridiculous. And all to assert some sort of moral high ground…SMH
There *is* a moral high ground. Reducing women to incubator and carrier is dehumanising. Feminism agrees with it. The fact that some women are so shortsighted as to believe that societal choices concerning women are boundless and boundary free is the shocking thing. Free market rules I guess. But *not* feminism, *not* equal rights, and *not* without long term consequences for *all* women.
I find it interesting that on another thread people came to the defence of a porn star (and sex workers) arguing that maybe she needed the money to live when agreeing to sex with Josh Duggar, yet ironically, the argument here is the no, no, no, it’s very possible the surrogate did not need the money but was doing it out of earth motherly feeling. Irony, indeed!
So this means when someone is a surrogate it’s likely because she ‘makes bank’ but a sex worker does it because she has no other option? And this is the face of the new wave of feminism? SMDH
@hmmm-I guess I didn’t get my copy of The Feminist Guide for Dummies. I’ll have to borrow Taylor Swift’s in the meantime….
I would say that assuming that every woman who is a surrogate has no agency is more dehumanizing.
So your solution is what…? Prohibit surrogacy? Then what do you think will happen to all the women for which surrogacy is one of few lucrative avenues? What do you suggest as an alternative for them? Because you know the alternative could be far more dangerous and exploitative, right? Instead of banning surrogacy, we should be working on improving the conditions for surrogates and changing the background conditions that may cause (and this is still making a huge generalization) these exploitative relationships. Unequal distribution of wealth and power for starters. Surrogacy may be exploitative under certain circumstances, it also may be the only was that a woman can send her kids to college. I don’t see surrogacy as an automatically exploitative thing, particularly when there exists a class/social construct that stacks the odds against women who are already struggling economically.
@Kitten
No need to get personal.
Give structure to surrogacy and make it more humane? Then the focus and energy continue on the needs of the elite few. That’s putting the cart before the horse. How about considering the needs of the underclass of women and women in general so they can have true *freedom* to choose and not this illusion of ‘choice’ ?
Agreed. This is the flip side of all those horrible ‘if you ever have an abortion you don’t deserve children’ wing nuts.
If she didn’t break the law and her surrogate was willing and fairly compensated (likely yes, since she is being so open about the process), I don’t see the problem.
Exactly. It’s the surrogate’s body and the surrogate’s choice. Also, people are assuming that this woman became a surrogate out of economic need and sheer desperation. Who’s to say that she isn’t thrilled to be in a position to do this for them?
Even if she’s a willing earth mother type, how many disadvantaged women in the world are not?
Kitten, do you think it is a coincidence that the nations currently with the highest number of surrogacy cases just happen to be those with extremely high poverty rates? Really? You think that’s by chance?
The places where surrogacy is currently booming are Thailand, India, parts of China, etc. Basically, places with huge numbers of women in the underclass who can be talked into this. When we see it boom in First World nations, maybe your point will have merit.
The point is that you’re fooling yourself if you think most surrogates do it because they’re loving women who just want to help others have babies. Most of them (and there are actual NGOs doing the legwork) are dismally poor and do it because they figure its their only skill.
And “choice” only has meaning when it is actually free. The desperately poor don’t have free choice – they have the illusion. A woman who can barely eat will almost never say no when offered free housing, free food and compensation – all she has to do is submit to some pretty nasty treatment. Yeah, that’s a great example of “my body, my choice.” Only in the First World could somebody think that.
Sam,
Ha! Kismet. I just commented regarding true *freedom* of choice, and the illusion of choice- the fantasy fed to everyone to silence us about the power differential.
Well said!
In the grand scheme of the path to and of parenthood: the pregnancy is the easiest part.
(Those struggling with fertility excluded from that).
But if one thinks pregnancy is “inconvenient”, I could go on and on about the greater inconveniences (developmental delays, health problems, bad teachers, bullying kids, etc) I’ve had with my 3 kids…and I haven’t even hit the teenage years with them yet!
If you have no time to be pregnant,you have no time to raise some kids also
I think pregnancy is the universe’s way of telling you your life is about to change drastically.
Haha exactly
GOOD FOR THEM!! If it is medically possible for them to choose their path to their family with more options then GOOD FOR THEM. I would also guess that the emphasis on her career as the main consideration behind surrogacy is more a matter of context being placed by the author of the people mag piece. But if not so what.
Women hating and judging other women for their choices like its some kind of contest to be perfect is just gross and subverts the advancement of equal rights.
Wow. What a perverse notion of “equal rights”.
I think the way the comment comes off is odd but I can see her point to an extent. She was at a point in life where having children could go either way, she had certain goals she wanted to accomplish. At 41, the time and treatments it can take to get pregnant are stressful and lengthy. Add that to a busy and high pressure career that involves traveling. I’m not saying she’s 100% right but instead of putting her body through a lot of hormones and stress while carrying what would probably be a high risk pregnancy, she chose a surrogate.
She’s entitled and wealthy but I don’t think what she did was unethical or anything. Also most surrogates MAKE BANK, as they should. But it’s not like your maid got pregnant for you. They make anywhere from $40,000-$100,000.
Yes! Right! Why does everyone assume her surrogate was picked up from a soup kitchen? Some women make a living doing this. They make bank. Agreed.
BUT WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHIlLDREN!! *clutches pearls and runs away* ok leaving for real now bye!
The judgment on this thread of surrogates and their motives for being surrogates is really condescending IMO. Also, the continuous use of the word “exploited” feels like a sweeping moral judgment, one that stems from Western ideals and conventions and ignores the individual experience as well as the cultural reality of each surrogate.
Not everyone takes post-Modern thought and moral relativism as gospel. I call it loose, ragged, self-centred thinking with no anchor and no commitment to standards. IMO, moral judgment has its place. Just because one thinks it has no place doesn’t make it true.
Yeah, they can be bought. Money matters more than humanity.
Think it’s telling that there are many people posting saying they would have a surrogate if they had the money, but not one person is saying, hey! Surrogacy! That seems like a great career path!
Isn’t that the rub? Are there women who breeze through pregnancies and don’t mind the idea of being s surrogate? Sure, they exist. I don’t dispute that. But when you look at global surrogacy and who is doing this, it is overwhelmingly an industry of poor, disadvantaged women – usually racial minorities – who feel as though this is the only think they can do to earn a living legally. A lot of them are subject to really nasty conditions, like living in mandated “birthing houses” for the term of the pregnancy. They also must consent to abortions if the intended parents want one, even if that would violate the surrogate’s wishes. It’s a mess. And even in the US, where stuff is better, it’s not great. Surrogacy contracts exist in a gray area, so there is little protection for them if something goes wrong.
I can believe that surrogacy can be an amazing gift under the right circumstances and a problematic issue in others. But now we have the brave new world of “whatever I want to do, screw the rest.” It’s just really unnerving. Honestly, I hope that this woman’s surrogate was treated very well with respect and well compensated for her services and that it was enough for her to not have to do it again, but who knows?
sam your comment is everything, but let them comment about being feminist here but clapping for exploitation of other women.
Aptly said! Kudos.
Being secure in my decision to live childfree, I was upfront with partners about my choice to not have children. I broke up with some really nice men over the years because they wanted kids and no, I am not changing my mind. My guy doesn’t want kids, either, so that works out well for us, though once we got engaged his female family members immediately began pressuring me about having kids. Even though I was clear about being a no-baby zone, they still to this day pester me (never him, just me) about producing children. Never mind that he has brothers and male cousins all of whom have children, so the family name is secure or whatever, and that most of his female family members have children of their own to worry about, they are super concerned about my womb. It’s godd-mn obnoxious. People just need to stay out of other people’s womb business. I hate that Dylan Lauren even had to talk about it. Why? She has children, barring some kind of illegal baby-napping ring, how she got them is no one’s business but hers, her partner’s, and maybe her doctor’s.
I just wanted to say that though the circumstances were different, I sympathize with you on the pressure to reproduce. I think it’s SO rude for people to be so intrusive. My first husband’s family was constantly questioning me and asking whose “fault” it was that we couldn’t get pregnant, and my present husband’s family just gave me sighs, sorrowful looks and murmurs about the family name dying out with my husband, which it will, thanks to my failure as a woman. It’s such a personal thing, and I think you are making the most unselfish and mature choice. It’s not for you. Why they want a woman who doesn’t want children to have one is pure selfishness on their part. So, I hope their comments don’t bother you because they should mind their own business.
They don’t bother me, it’s just annoying, and I’m sorry to hear you’ve struggled in that department.
Hugs to both of you, Algernon and GNAT. My huz would tell people “Don’t have children unless you have a burning desire to have them” because it is a lot of work and requires a massive amount of unselfishness to be a good parent. No one should be putting pressure on you Algernon to have them if you’re happy and content without them.
GNAT, I’m sorry to hear you aren’t being given the support you should have for being unable to have a child. No one should be making you feel less feminine because of it. They should be coming alongside, letting you cry it out, giving hugs and reminding you that children aren’t the end all and be all of life and they aren’t what defines a woman.
Thanks, Nutballs. I should have made it clear that it has been some time now and at my age, they have finally given up. I am fine with it now. I just know how annoying it is to have people sticking their noses into what is a very private thing.
EXACTLY. That is all.
For me, it just sounds like she’s assumed a traditional head of household role. Dudes don’t have to carry their progeny, they just get to show them off when they pop and take off for an impromptu 8 pm. I won’t call her a bad mother for doing it this way, as long as their kids get some undivided parental attention. They’ll be just like everybody else. :p
Surrogates are a great option for a lot of people, don’t know why some people think “they’re wrong”. For example, a gay couple often will use a surrogate to have children due to restrictive adoption rules for said gay couple. Additionally, anyone over 40 has a very low chance of ever adopting, as they are moved down the waiting list priority due to age. So if this couple tried naturally for a few years and didnt conceive, they’re now too old to be able to adopt within the next few years. Surrogacy is their last option. She doesn’t owe the world an explanation of why she chose a surrogate, and it’s not fair to assume she did just because she wants to travel (I know she said something along those lines, but maybe didn’t want to disclose she’s barren).
I witnessed my friend go thru this. Tried for years with in-vitro in her 30s, and eventually accepted she was not fertile by age 40. Then told she was at the bottom of every adoption list she tried due to age. She and her husband went with a surrogate, but she didn’t want to tell people “hey i’m totally barren so I went with a surrogate”. She instead used the “active lifestyle” explanation to stop inquiries. Similar to pregnant bellies, lots of people just assume they can get up in your personal space when surrogates come up.
Being gay doesn’t mean you can’t exploit or mistreat another person. I remember when there a post on a family website about two gay men who had paid for a surrogate in India to carry their twins. They flew over to meet with her during implantation and right before the birth. A lot of people in the comments really to exception to it, because India is pretty notorious for surrogacy and how badly the women generally get treated. They aren’t paid well, they are often confined to “birth houses” for the duration of the pregnancy, their food and activities are heavily controlled, etc. It’s a bad way to be (for reference, VICE did a story on Indian surrogates that is really unnerving). The couple openly admitted that an American surrogate would have cost too much for them so they went with India. Well, didn’t they ever stop to wonder WHY Indian surrogates are so much cheaper? Because they’re desperately poor women who are exploited by profit-driven agencies and parents who will look the other way. Being gay men desperate for a baby doesn’t change that they had a responsibility to not exploit a poor woman in the developing world.
Surrogacy SHOULD be expensive. It should cost an arm and a leg. Why? Because you are asking a woman to do something fundamentally dangerous and risky to help you. You do not have a right to a child. A child is not something you are due or entitled to. That sounds harsh, but the older I get and the more kids I have (God, that sounds crazy), the more I believe it. If a gay couple wants a child through surrogacy, they should be held to the same standard as anyone else – either get “gift” surrogacy (which many of them do) or pay the appropriate prices for a surrogate who is willing, well-compensated and well cared for. It’s the same for infertile couples – while the situation is unfortunate, it’s not a license to exploit or otherwise mistreat another human.
Sam,
I’ve only seen one program on overseas surrogacy. The woman was paid $10,000. There was little care, and she had difficulty contacting the agency to get all her money. She had to wait months and months to realise it all. She was dirt poor. That was enough for me right there to believe this is another form of exploitation of women. Period.
Wow. I thought she was a moron before. Sugar pushing. Like Americans really need more SUGAR? Really? Like grocery stores don’t carry everything she sells for five times the normal price of ordinary candy bars? Now she’s just a self-absorbed weirdo. She didn’t have the time and patience to be pregnant? But she DID have the money to rent a womb. Everything really is for sale.
People are being rather judgey. Not saying she doesn’t come off as vapid, but she isn’t the devil.
So having a job is acting like a man? 41 is so old??
Greenieweenie are you from 1900s?
An astonishing and very telling comments thread…
Get it Dylan! You deserve success in business, happiness and motherhood.
Right? It’s like celebitchy got hijacked by some really conservative folks overnight.
I think you are misunderstanding what Greenieweenie said. She never said that having a job is acting like a man, just that men are not asked to give up the same things job-wise as women are expected to, and that’s not fair. And I think she meant 41 is old to have a baby. And it is. Anything over 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy.
No I didn’t misunderstand anything. In that case, 41 year old men don’t need to impregnate anyone either since they have “geriatric” sperm. 😉
surrogacy is like exploitation, ok i know some women are actually willing to rent their uterus it’s ok, but majority of women (i am talking about poor women from poor countries ) are being exploited, i don’t understand how any women can clap for this..
Anyway the twins will be happy to know one day that their mother was to busy to travel to caring them.
Where is your data to back this up? Most if not all of the women involved in surrogacy, choose to do it for a paycheck. That’s not exploitation. That’s willingly providing a service. Do you go rant about sperm donation and how that’s exploiting men?
where is my data ? do some research about the exploitation of surogate mothers in third word countries.
And now you are going to compare Giving your sperm to a pregnancy ? because sperm donors risk their lives during 9 months or childbirth in poor countries right ? enlighte me, i would really like your opinion on what is more dangerous giving some of your sperm or a pregnancy ?
Geez. It’s so obvious if you do research. Just read Sam’s comments. Or is this just trolling/ignorance?
Ok, so a struggling surrogate to be should just turn down the money do she can starve? Great idea
welcome to the world where money can buy you anything…..smdh
Yeah, if I had the option of getting naturally pregnant at 41 while taking time away from my career versus paying a surrogate. I’d go with the surrogate any day of the week. I don’t need to experience the childbirth to make that decision, not in 2015, with there being more than enough examples to allow me to choose whether it is for me or not.
Wow, her hubby is one hot lookin’ guy!! Looks to be in his thirties. Lucky lady..
I love how everyone is freaking out because basically – she’s has the attitude of 85% of all dads before they have kids. He’s obviously going to be more of the at home figure – so so what? Not every mother has to want kids so bad she’d just DIE if she didn’t.
Wow, some sweeping generalizations here based on very little information. Based on my own personal sample of working mothers around me, it’s incredibly difficult to balance motherhood and a career at any stage of a child’s development.
Pregnancy is hard, but so are the months after. Nursing, lack of sleep, possible health issues with the infant. The list goes on. Just because she chose to use a surrogate, doesn’t mean she’s not going to be sleep deprived, or worried or stressed. One of my closest friends has a demanding high-level executive job, but when she gets home; it’s all about her family. Her kids are lovely and respectful, and I feel confident they would be that way even if they came from another woman’s uterus.
This may be OT, but I have become curious about something regarding motherhood. For those that say because women give birth to babies we become the primary caregivers, then why do people harp on about single mothers and such? I mean, since women are the main caregivers. And since women are the main caregivers, what do fathers do since fathers apparently are not needed in the care of children…
If/when technology progresses far enough to make extrauterine fetal incubation (i.e. artificial wombs) possible, thus eliminating the need for surrogate mothers, I’m curious if there will be as much hostility to the idea of a woman opting out of gestating her own fetus.
I’m guessing yes – I don’t think concern over the potential exploitation of surrogate mothers is at the root of most people’s unease over opting for (biological) motherhood without pregnancy.
In our society, pregnancy is associated with selflessness and sacrifice, and joyfully bonding with your unborn child. Thus many people would probably still find it unseemly, immoral, & selfish for a woman to use artificial womb technology for non-health-related reasons, even though it didn’t require the use of another woman’s uterus.
While women who made use of such technology for career reasons would probably get the most criticism, I think that even a non-career woman who planned to be a SAHM, but felt fear/discomfort/disgust at the prospect of being pregnant and/or childbirth would still be judged harshly.
“In our society, pregnancy is associated with selflessness and sacrifice, and joyfully bonding with your unborn child. ”
Seriously? This sweeping generalisation sounds like something from the 50’s. Like a fairy tale.
While Dylan Lauren is an example of extreme wealth – which all women do not have – she is also an example of the array of choices and reproductive freedoms now available (to some of us women) – and reproductive freedom is something all women need, globally.
All women should have the right to make their own reproductive choices, and they don’t. So the fact that she GOT to choose is really something – it does not happen everywhere – gosh, folks are forced to stay pregnant in some countries – even children, pregnant from rape (I’m looking at you, Paraguay).
CHOICE FOR ALL
It’s not like all women who are surrogates are taken advantage of, that’s a pretty big generalization.
A large number of US military wives actually become surrogates while their husbands are deployed. They often already have a couple kids and are stay at home moms. Husband is gone for months on end, making it very difficult for them to have any kind of outside employment even if they wanted to. They can make 35 – 50 thousand dollars on average for going thru pregnancy as a surrogate, while staying home and watching their own kids. Just from my 1 military wife friend, I’ve met 3 of her military wife buddies who have done this, and the least anyone made was $35,000. They all seemed really happy with the situation, saving up for a new house down payment or their kids college funds. Plus they felt like they were doing something good for another couple. I fail to see how this is not a win-win.
So yeah, if someone is exploiting 3rd world uterus, that’s pretty crappy. But I don’t see any proof that is the norm here in the US at all. This conversation feels like arguments about working vs stay at home moms from 10 years ago, and I’m just super surprised by this type of judgement on this site….I’ve always been pleasantly surprised by women here getting the bigger picture in regards to sensitive topics like reproductive choices.
Her body, her choice. Period.
You guys are making me tear up with all the anecdotes. I always thought I would be a mother and now I know I’ll never be one
Aww, I’m so sorry.
Constant travel can wreak havoc on one’s body and significantly affect fertility (including trying to find the time to be home exactly when you’re ovulating). Additionally, at 41, she’s at an age where fertility is already declining.
Don’t force her to tell you her entire story on why she chose to use a surrogate just because you want to know. You have no idea if they also tried IVF or suffered miscarriages or anything else that might push them to use a surrogate and she has no requirement to make it a public conversation if she does not want to.
I’m surprised and frustrated that this site that I love, claims to have a feminist lense and then judges women on their decisions about their family life and then picks/chooses quotes to back that up.
Really disappointed.
So what if she did it as “a mere convenience for their work schedules, not out of necessity.”? What business is it of yours, or anyone else’s?
If men had to be pregnant and still work full time, travel for their job, etc., there’d probably be a lot less people in this world, not to mention a lot more women in higher positions in business.
This would not make news if it was a man saying let’s have kids but you’ll have to be hands on since I have a career I love. Who cares how she went about it, she will be a great example to both her kids.
We’re currently (not literally!) in the process of at-home insemination with a friend of ours – I’ve been in menopause since I was 22, will be 35 shortly, and she stepped up and offered to carry for us. The path leading up to this point, mentally, emotionally, and financially, is nothing I hope you judgey snipes ever have to go through. To hear you lost the biological lottery regarding fertility is devastating, NO choices after that are easy or made lightly. People choosing for their own reasons to bring a healthy, wanted, and loved children into this world through surrogacy shouldn’t be shamed.
Please, go tell the thousands of abused kids in foster care how their parents had the “right” to be parents. Would you tell a cancer patient that not everybody has the right to a healthy body?
To echo others: choice.
Hugs.
While I empathize your situation and am happy for you that someone is giving you this wonderful gift out of love for you, for every surrogate that is doing this out of love there are many who are doing it (especially in poorer countries) it because they have no other choice and doing it under much different conditions than your friend. Please read about the surrogacy going on in India, China, etc.
Hugs to you and best wishes. I can’t believe the nasty comments in this thread. Maybe she is just saying “I travel a lot” because she doesn’t feel like it’s the world’s business to know her gynecological issues? She could have an incompetent cervix or any number of health issues that made pregnancy more risky. I wish some women wouldn’t try to level each other so much.
DarkSparkle, I wasn’t going to add anything more to what I already said yesterday, but your story brought tears to my eyes. What a wonderful gift your friend is giving you. I wish all the best to you in your dreams of becoming parents.
This thread is all over the place with a great deal of judgment in place. Essentially, what it should come down to is that if a procedure is legal, which this is in the US, and it is handled ethically by all involved, with no exploitation, none of us really has a say in how one woman chooses to deal with her own body, be it the surrogate or the woman who hires the surrogate. Added into that is a great deal of rhetoric and some judgment about what motherhood or parenthood is, which, as a woman who always wanted children but was deprived of that opportunity by life-saving medical treatment, I just can’t with that discussion. I never had a choice. but am constantly subjected to insensitive comments about “starting a family.” An individual’s family is what that individual chooses to consider one’s family.
Given the reaction here, in a place generally open to civilized discussion about women’s choices, it would have been interesting to see if this had been a discussion during a presidential campaign. Mitt Romney has at least three grandchildren born through surrogacy to parents who had had children previously and at least one of the parents was a “stay-at-home.”
My concern is that people here seem to have no concern for the surrogates welfare. I know that we don’t know the specifics of what happened with this particular surrogate. But please read up on what surrogates actually have to do. Just the impregnating process itself is very intense. It is still ver much a risk to your body every single time you are pregnant. And not just giving birth. What about miscarriages? Those affect your body just as much.
I have had my entire body thrown out of severe whack (you don’t even want to know, trust me) after giving birth and it’s been 7 years since and I’m still a wreck. I’m just not understanding how people are so ready to say, hey, I don’t want to be pregnant, so some else can do that! Like it’s a chore, like cleaning or cooking. It is a complete physical, emotional and hormonal transformation. I don’t think it should be treated flippantly or like it’s a function for sale to the highest bidder.
Uhm, where did I say it should be treated flippantly? I did refer to when it is being handled ethically with no exploitation. I do hope you and your body make peace with one another. You are entitled to your views on parenthood itself while others are entitled to theirs.
You are correct.everyone is entitled to their opinion. So why is it labeled being “judgy” if their opinion is different than another’s?
Someone think of the poor surrogates!! (who make 10s of thousands of dollars to improve their lives).
Because they get paid that makes it fine? People get paid to do a lot of things, it doesn’t make those things fine simply because they got paid well.
@absolutely, it judgmental to make value judgments against others because they don’t share the same opinion on how life should be lived
I’ll remember that next time I’m scrolling through a Kardashian or Duggar thread. They made choices as well, but I don’t see people rushing to call everyone judgy who judges their choices. Or is it ok because we just don’t like them? Seems like value judgements to me.
“Because she had a surrogate for reasons we don’t know, she’s obviously going to be a terrible parent/not take care of her children/not be into parenting.”
That’s a really, really sh*tty statement to make about a woman – if I heard this regarding myself, I’d spend a day in tears. And it has nothing to do with surrogates in India or the price of tea in China – it’s a woman’s choice to procreate or not as she sees fit. Not everyone has the best faculties for making that choice (looking at you, Octo-mom) but regardless, it’s their choice.
So yes, I can judge the Duggars all day long for being crappy people, because Josh is actually a verified crappy person. Kim Kardashian is famous for getting pissed on by Ray J. Judging Dylan Lauren as a bad mom because she had a surrogate is baseless and mean.
And it’s very, very easy to extrapolate when you’ve already got kids of your own, or are settled in the idea that you don’t want them. For those of us struggling, every single day we are grieving a person we never got to meet. Our entire biological purpose is null and void. And then things like the Casey Anthony trial happen, and nobody understands why it’s so upsetting to you personally. If someone says “oh you’re so lucky and you don’t even know it” one more time, I’m getting stabby. Same with “well, God has a plan.”
Rant over. She splashed some intensely personal info into the public sphere, so she put herself up for being judged. I get it. But the responses here are so demoralizing, I couldn’t help but respond.
Wow. Go through my responses. I never said one word about her as a parent. Not one word. My thoughts have all been about (generally) people who seem to have no regard for the conditions or exploitation of the surrogates. The surrogates are a complete afterthought because it was their choice and they got paid well.
People keep waffling on about how they hate pregnancy and it was terrible for them and they still don’t feel like themselves after years…but then turn around and say they’d have a surrogate in a heartbeat if they could pay for it. I don’t understand the disconnect. It was terrible for you, but you have no problem paying another lower class woman to do that for you? And people are kidding themselves if they think upper class women are doing this for $30k a pop.
And as for Dylan herself– she didn’t say where her surrogate was. For all we know it could very well have been in India or China. And I’m not going to speculate that she secretly has infertility issues because she did not say that. I can only reflect on the words that actually came out of her mouth. And even so, I did not and won’t comment on her parenting ability. That was never my beef.
I’ve written out a big reply twice and deleted it.
@Absolutely, I was not referring to your post specifically, there’s over 300 comments in this thread. I didn’t specifically call you judgy, nor was it implied in my original post. You somehow took it personally – it wasn’t meant that way. I think you have an admirable soap box that I actually wasn’t aware of before today – so thanks for that. It’s horrifying to read about.
hmmm – fair point, but tricky waters. If in my judgement someone is being overly judgmental, are we at an impasse? Because we’re both judging? If I call out a racist, and I being intolerant of his intolerance? Does that make me intolerant? I’m not trying to be disingenuous – I enjoy this community and want to be a ‘good’ commenter, especially on delicate topics.
At the end of the day – I think it’s wrong to question a woman’s desire for children based on the fact that she’s using a surrogate. That was my point.
I get you. And I realize it’s a difficult choice for any and all women, regardless of their issues and obstacles. I know we all just try to make the best choices we can given our own set of circumstances.
Calling someone “judgy” is a judgment, and a putdown.
Way to give your kids dog names.
Our society makes me want to barf sometimes.
Being a Mom isn’t for everyone. And if you don’t have “time” to be pregnant, then you probably don’t have “time” to be a Mom.
I would be less apt to criticize if she wasn’t able to get pregnant or there were health risks involved. This is horse crappery.
I agree with some others who state that the comments on this board are very telling. They tell me that the majority of people posting are sexist, ageist and downright ignorant to getting older. I swear the average age on these boards is 23. And to a 23 year old anything over 35 is geriatric and should not happen and is gross. God forbid you are female and have a baby after 35 or GEESH! 40. The horror. How dare someone have a baby after 37, 40 or even 43, 44 or 45. But, if this was a man, sure go ahead. Have those babies after 45 or 50 with that 25 year old woman. I used to be that way. Until I grew up and realized that it’s none of my business. For all those people being rude about a 41 year old having a baby, the way she wants, wait until you hit 40 and that biological clock is still ticking so loud. Then remember your remarks about that old lady that had her kid at 42.
Your urge for a baby does not end at 35 or 43. The chance for having healthy babies over 40 has dramatically increased through the years. Technology helps, but so does having a healthy lifestyle.
It is quite a shame to see the lack of knowledge and prejudice on this board. Very sad.