![\"\"](\"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/genderconstruction\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/504\/2024\/03\/pregnancy-466129_1920-1-700x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nIntroduction<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n This article analyses the discourse surrounding surrogacy in a thread on the online discussion forum Mumsnet Talk, originally posted in December 2022 in reaction to a celebrity news article posted on the online women\u2019s magazine Her<\/em>, reporting a miscarriage suffered by the surrogate of a gay celebrity couple. Our analysis seeks to answer the question of how dominant, gendered discourses of parenthood affect public opinion on surrogate mothers and the gay couples that employ them, a topic that is increasingly relevant in the context of feminist movements that promote bodily autonomy and the popular debate of what makes a legitimate parent. We first consider how gay couples who utilise surrogacy negotiate the issue of legitimising themselves as societally acceptable parents, before then exploring the place of masculinity in the gendered experience of these same-sex partners. Following this, we consider the policing of the bodies of women in surrogacy, and finally the notion of commodifying motherhood. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Theoretical Framework<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n The theoretical framework through which we analyse our data draws on Foucault\u2019s (1978) twofold proposal on discourses of sexuality, aiming to uncover the \u201creciprocal effects of power and the knowledge they ensure\u201d, as well as the socio-political structures that makes them \u201cnecessary in a given episode\u201d (p. 102). Through this lens, we consider how the queer-oriented, neoliberal discourses of gender and parenthood are nonetheless shaped by deeply embedded, traditional societal norms. In addition, we also apply some of the observations on homosexuality made by Foucault, particularly that homosexuality can speak on its own behalf \u201cto demand that its legitimacy or \u2018naturality\u2019 be acknowledged\u201d (p. 101). In relation to surrogacy, we analyse how these discourses work to police and regulate reproductive practices, in this case the autonomy of the bodies of mothers and the importance of biogenetic connection in legitimising who can be considered a parent. Moreover, we also draw upon the work of Mackenzie (2018) and her development of Foucault\u2019s framework to outline three dominant discourses: \u00abgendered parenthood\u00bb, where parenthood is considered as a subjectivity along a gendered binary, \u00abchild-centric motherhood\u00bb, which \u201c[defines] women\u2019s subjectivity exclusively in relation to children\u201d, and \u00abmother as main parent\u00bb, where the mother is seen as the \u201cdefault parent\u201d over the father (Mackenzie, 2018, p. 123). We apply these discourses to the provocative context of surrogacy, exploring how they impact public opinion on surrogate mothers and of the gay couples who must legitimise themselves as parents in the eyes of a heteronormative society. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Data and Methods<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mumsnet was chosen as the data source, as it is a very large corpus of data surrounding online discourses on parenting and motherhood, with thousands of posts added to the Talk forum daily (Pedersen 2013 in Mackenzie, 2018), which makes for a very comprehensive proxy for dominant parenting and motherhood discourses especially in the United Kingdom. Its structure as a forum was also of great importance to us, as it allows for townhall-like discussions in which users have the freedom to express their own views and opinions, which we believe is key in analysing the discourse surrounding controversial topics like surrogacy. The specific 6-page thread that we chose was called \u201cRich man using a surrogate \u2013 miscarriage\u201d, posted in response to an externally linked article on Her<\/em>, an online gossip magazine for women, that featured a gay couple talking about their experience with surrogacy. The original poster invited Mumsnet members to share their opinions, who, from our analysis, and, as put forth by Mackenzie (2018), seem to be female, heterosexual and largely conservative. We felt that the sympathetic article and the anti-surrogacy comments on the forum were a good reflection of sharply contrasting ideologies about surrogacy, and hence could provide valuable insight into how sexuality and sexual practice are policed in everyday practice by dominant discourses. In order to ethically execute our research, we have anonymised the names of all interlocutors in our data. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In our analysis of the thread and the article, we applied key concepts of Critical Discourse Analysis, to uncover the ways power structures involving parenthood, gender, and sexuality are sustained and reproduced in daily language use. We focused on analysing the representation of the social actors involved in surrogacy, through word choice, in the form of collective language, determiners, lexicon and metaphors, along with semantic role allocation that might foreground or background the agency of an actor, or obfuscate certain actors involved in the process of surrogacy. The cumulative results of our analyses were then considered through the theoretical framework mentioned above, and subsequently, we derived insights about parenthood, sexuality and gender. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We started the project assuming that, since a big part of surrogacy involves the surrogate mothers themselves, more agency would be accorded to the surrogate mothers. However, we found that the agency and voice of surrogate mothers were continually obfuscated in order for other parties involved in discussions of surrogacy to achieve their personal discursive goals, especially in their efforts to perform or promote a certain form of gendered parenthood. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Results<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Seeking to overcome the mother-centric discourse\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The dominant discourse surrounding gay surrogate parenthood is one of seeking social recognition or affirmation, with this being achieved or resisted primarily via the different discursive techniques of anti-surrogate contributors and the gay parents themselves. As is discussed in the work of Murphy (2015), gay men that attempt to achieve parenthood through surrogacy recognise that \u201cWestern kinship prioritises biogenetic connections, especially those between parents and children\u201d (Murphy, 2015, p. 45), with this discourse that would consider parenthood a mother-centric field functioning as an obstacle that gay couples involved in surrogacy must seek to challenge. In the article, Bruce and Bill (anonymised) are observed to continually attempt to include themselves in the process of pregnancy, or in this case miscarriage, by using collective language. For example, the couple utilise the collective determiner \u201cour\u201d to include themselves in what they describe as \u201cour journey\u201d (Fitzpatrick, 2022) with surrogacy, before adding that \u201cwe were pregnant\u201d (Fitzpatrick, 2022) later in the article. These linguistic choices highlight the importance placed on having a direct connection to pregnancy in order to be recognised as a parent\u2013despite having a genetic connection to embryo, the couple nonetheless feel that they must present themselves as a part of the process of pregnancy as well to be considered real parents over the surrogate mother. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This idea is reinforced through the semantic roles that the couple choose to select for themselves and the surrogate in the article, and it is here that the discourse of gay parenthood starts conflicting with the dominant heteronormative, gendered discourse. Bruce and Bill attempt to foreground themselves in the process of surrogacy through the use of agentive language, stating that \u201cwe can go again\u201d (Fitzpatrick, 2022), and therefore presenting themselves as active participants integral to the surrogate pregnancy. Moreover, the couple reinforce their foregrounding in the process of gestation by utilising objectifying linguistic techniques that background the involvement of the surrogate. By describing this person as \u00abour surrogate\u00bb (Fitzpatrick, 2022), the concept of the pregnant person being a mere vessel in which the baby grows is presented. The surrogate is characterised as an instrument, a tool used by the couple to carry out a pregnancy without any agency or power in the process. However, it is at this point that the conflict between discourses of parenthood begins to be observed. In the Mumsnet thread, contributors repeatedly object to the couple presenting themselves as agents of pregnancy, arguing: that it is \u201cimpossible\u201d (post 10, ClearCat) for them to be pregnant and that \u201cmen cannot understand this\u201d (post 32, WoolHat32). On the one hand, gay couples must present themselves as having a form of direct involvement in pregnancy to be considered real parents by a cynical society, but on the other, achieving this portrayal requires them to challenge the heteronormative \u201cmother as main parent\u201d (Mackenzie, 2018, p. 123) discourse and construct gestation in a way that makes the child \u201cconceptually separable from the mother\u201d (Murphy, 2015, p. 25) and therefore theirs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Masculinity and gendered parenthood in surrogacy<\/em>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, another important component of the discourse of gay male parenting is the place of masculinity within surrogacy, and how this process differs from traditionally gendered parental experiences. King (2015) describes how historical discourses of masculinity in Britain emphasised a \u201cclear connection between virility and paternity, and demonstrating manliness\u201d (King, 2015, p. 170). In terms of surrogacy, it appears that Bruce is ensnared in this patriarchal ideology, as he describes feeling \u201cemasculated\u201d (Fitzpatrick, 2022) and \u201cembarrassed\u201d (Fitzpatrick, 2022) that the surrogate pregnancy has failed multiple times. Despite the couple challenging the dominant mother-centric discourse in surrogacy, it appears that the gendered parenthood discourse that links successful impregnation with masculine pride persists in their parental experience. Additionally, he explicitly relates this emasculation to his father, saying that he has not \u201ceven called [his] dad yet\u201d (Fitzpatrick, 2022), without mentioning other family members such as his mother. This foregrounding of his father as the arbiter of virility and masculinity continues to demonstrate that gay men pursuing parenthood via surrogacy are still policed by some parts of the gender-based parenthood discourse, in this case the stereotypical conceptualisation of fatherhood as intrinsically connected to sexual potency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Surrogate mothers as exploited, objectified subjects\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The most prominent narrative surrounding surrogate mothers in the forum post paints them as objectified and commodified beings being exploited by the rich. Many forum responses critique discourses present in the article for constructing women merely as a means of production in the creation of a life in the form of a baby. Double-voicing is employed by members, \u201cwhereby they draw on the words or presumed thoughts of others, both directly and indirectly\u201d (Baxter 2003 in Mackenzie, 2018, p. 122), to critically engage with dominant discourse narratives. They use labels and more significantly, employ many instances of metaphors: <\/p>\n\n\n\n rich men being able to <\/em>rent <\/em>out <\/em>women <\/em><\/strong>as reproductive aids (post 5, WhaleEye)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n the <\/em>women <\/em><\/strong>whose <\/em>body <\/em><\/strong>they\u2019ve <\/em>rented <\/em>(post 16, LionAnswer)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n the <\/em>woman <\/em><\/strong>who\u2019s <\/em>womb <\/em><\/strong>they are <\/em>renting <\/em>(post 25, ShampooRose)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n They are not interested in a full, human picture of <\/em>pregnancy and childbirth<\/em><\/strong>. They’re interested in <\/em>buying an end product.<\/em>(post 31, QueenDinner)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n she\u2019s just a <\/em>vessel <\/em>(post 3, BeachApple)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n offshoring <\/em>to a Ukrainian woman (post 22, TomatoGhost)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n No one should be <\/em>buying <\/em>babies <\/em><\/strong>(post 20, CrowdForest)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n My <\/em>uterus <\/em><\/strong>is not <\/em>a car for hire…renting <\/em>a person\u2019s <\/em>body <\/em><\/strong>and taking a piece of them away for your own use, is never ok (post 41, MorningBranch)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n [emphasis added] <\/p>\n\n\n\n By employing the lexis of the market and economy in \u201crenting\u201d and \u201cfor hire\u201d, the forum members employ concepts from Fairclough\u2019s (1993) marketisation of discourse, artificially introducing a market logics to reproduction and its accompanying discourse, and contrast this discourse with words associated with human biology, family and nature, such as in \u201cbody\u201d, \u201cwoman\u201d, \u201cbabies\u201d, \u201cpregnancy and childbirth\u201d. This stark contrast between discourses of the natural world and the artificiality of the economy illustrates a seemingly gross, inappropriate intrusion of the market into the spheres of the traditionally natural and human. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In line with their strategies to construct the act of surrogacy as a gross conversion of the woman\u2019s body to an instrument of capitalism, the forum posts about the surrogate mother usually allocate the surrogate mother to the role of the instrument, subject to the actions of her employer(s), who are the agents, especially in the multiple instances of the verb \u201cuse\u201d to refer to the surrogate\u2019s participation in the birth of the baby in the following instances: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cthat doesn\u2019t give you the right to <\/em>use <\/em>a woman\u2019s <\/em>body<\/em><\/strong>\u201d (post 41, MorningBranch)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c<\/em>using <\/em>a <\/em>surrogate<\/em><\/strong>\u201d (Original post, GoldGrass)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Paying for the <\/em>use<\/em> of a woman\u2019s <\/em>body <\/em><\/strong>(post 27, SandwichFarm)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n [emphasis added] <\/p>\n\n\n\n Even when the surrogate is mentioned, her involvement in the act of surrogacy merely extends to a passive bodily, physical participation, rather than as an agentive, holistic participation. This is executed through repeatedly labelling the surrogate as simply a \u201cbody\u201d or a \u201csurrogate\u201d, highlighting her role as merely an instrument in surrogacy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n By constructing the surrogates as exploited women, objectified solely because of their reproductive capacities, forum members vilify surrogacy as a form of sexist exploitation and oppression that should be discouraged and outright banned. This characterisation reframes surrogacy as a violation of the traditional \u201cchild-centric motherhood\u201d discourse outlined by Mackenzie (2018), wherein women are defined solely by their relation to raising children. Instead, surrogacy is reconceptualised as a \u201ccapital-centric motherhood\u201d, where women are defined exclusively by their reproductive contributions to economic activity\u2013a gross intrusion of an \u201cout-of-control industrializing process\u201d (Markens, 2007, p. 83) into sacred spheres of motherhood and family. This discursive strategy further promotes anti-surrogacy ideology, and a disdain for surrogacy as a wrongful commodification of reproduction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Surrogate mothers as passive participants in surrogacy<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, to promote this discursive framework of exploitation and \u201ccapital-centric motherhood\u201d, forum members need to construct surrogate mothers as passive subjects. This is revealed in discussions between a certain user and other members of the forum. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The user expresses anger and frustration at the criticism of surrogacy, citing her fertility issues. She subsequently receives criticism from forum members for her choice. When she mentions that she has found a surrogate willing to carry her baby without payment, other forum members cast doubt on the surrogate\u2019s agency, by questioning, then negating its validity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So someone would be doing this for free out of the goodness of their hearts would they? I doubt it highly (post 34, SandwichFarm)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n So you have found a surrogate who doesnt want any payment for having a baby for you? That is very unusual. (post 26, GoldGrass)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n So your surrogate is going to soak all the pregnancy costs…? Bullshit. At least tell the truth (post 39, GlassVan)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar to the tactics used by the same-sex intended parents in the article, the use of questioning and negating the surrogate\u2019s agency backgrounds the informed, active and willing involvement of the surrogate in the process of surrogacy. This strategy is subsequently critiqued by more pro-surrogacy members of the forum, who foreground the agency of women who choose to be surrogates, and actively participate in their role: <\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s a woman\u2019s choice to be a surrogate, she will be more than aware of the possibilities of miscarriage…The woman knows the risks (post 73, KangarooHouse)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n it is hard for outsiders to know when a vulnerable woman is being forced into surrogacy and when a woman is doing it willingly (either financial gain or the good of their heart, who knows) (post 42, NapkinElephant)<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to invalidate capital-centric motherhood, anti-surrogacy discourse has to play into the discursive framework of \u201cmother as main parent\u201d\u2013that there is no conceivable way that a mother would actively, willingly and consciously choose to leave her baby. In order to do so, anti-surrogacy discourse must negate the agency of surrogate mothers who do concede their status of motherhood, regardless of whether they are doing so willingly or not. In this way, they can continue to successfully push their agenda and police the bodily autonomy of women involved in surrogacy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Conclusion<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n In light of our analysis, it is clear that the dominant discourses proposed by Mackenzie (2018) and their associated discursive techniques continue to be relevant to the policing of reproductive practice and parenthood in the context of surrogacy. The \u201cgendered parenthood\u201d discourse controls how gay men participating in surrogacy view and are viewed in their performance of masculinity, the \u201cchild-centric motherhood\u201d discourse and our proposed \u201ccapital-centric discourse\u201d are utilised to question the decision-making and bodily autonomy of the women who choose to be surrogates, and the \u201cmother as main parent\u00bb discourse is challenged by same-sex couples who seek to legitimise their experience of parenthood while simultaneously being weaponised to undermine this affirmation by those against surrogacy. Finally, we suggest to readers that they should consider issues such as surrogacy from the perspectives of all interlocutors involved, to reach a more nuanced understanding. <\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketisation of discourse : the Universities. Discourse and Society<\/em>, 4(2), 133-168. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Fitzpatrick, E. (2022, December 22). Made in Chelsea stars Ollie and Gareth Locke-Locke reveal their surrogate has had a miscarriage. <\/em>Her. https:\/\/her.ie\/celeb\/made-chelsea-stars-ollie-gareth-locke-reveal-surrogate-miscarriage-569977<\/a><\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Foucault, Michel (1978). History of sexuality<\/em>. Pantheon Books <\/p>\n\n\n\n King, Laura. (2015). Family men : Fatherhood and masculinity in Britain, 1914-1960<\/em>. Oxford University Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mackenzie, Jai. (2018). Good mums don\u2019t, apparently, wear make-up’: negotiating discourses of gendered parenthood in mumsnet talk. Gender and Language<\/em>, 12(1), 114-135. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Markens, S. (2007). Surrogate Motherhood and the Politics of Reproduction<\/em>. University of California Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mumsnet. (2022, December 22). Rich men using a surrogate \u2013 miscarriage. <\/em>Mumsnet. <\/em>https:\/\/www.mumsnet.com\/talk\/feminism\/4703686-rich-men-using-a-surrogate-miscarriage?page=1 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Murphy, D. A. (2015). Gay Men Pursuing Parenthood via Surrogacy : Reconfiguring Kinship<\/em>. UNSW Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Schwartz-DuPre, R. L., & Sowards, S. K. (2023). Donors and disclosures : Rhetorical explanations of assisted reproductive technology and parenthood in children\u2019s literature. In Refiguring Motherhood Beyond Biology <\/em>(pp. 81\u201393). Routledge. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/9781003311799-9<\/a> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Alex Ewers and Hannah Lee In this article we investigate the criticism of surrogate mothers and their intended same-sex parents through a critical discourse analysis of discussions of gender and parenthood.\u00a0 Introduction This article analyses the discourse surrounding surrogacy in a thread on the online discussion forum Mumsnet Talk, originally posted in December 2022 in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2784,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-191","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/genderconstruction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/191","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/genderconstruction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/genderconstruction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/genderconstruction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2784"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/genderconstruction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=191"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/genderconstruction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/191\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":201,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/genderconstruction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/191\/revisions\/201"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/genderconstruction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}