Via Trooloo @ Flickr.
Last week, Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick announced they were expecting twins with a surrogate mother. Mazel tov to them. But of course, women’s reproductive choices always make them targets, particularly celebrity women. So Viv Groskop of the Guardian sharpened her claws and banged out a snark-tacular piece of gratuitous woman-on-woman hateration entitled “What is the Truth Behind Sarah Jessica Parker’s Use of a Surrogate.”
Imagine this. You are Sarah Jessica Parker. You would like to expand your family. Do you a) attempt to conceive naturally and resort to IVF if this doesn’t work or b) draft in a “civilian” with no filming commitments to bear twins on your behalf. It’s a no-brainer.
First of all, how does Viv Groskof know that SJP didn’t try to conceive naturally? How does she know that she didn’t try IVF? More to the point: HOW IS IT ANY OF HER FUCKING BUSINESS?*
But catty Viv seems to feel she’s entitled to the truth, and not just about how Sarah Jessica’s babies are conceived, but about how lots of celebrities conceive:
What’s fascinating here is the public announcement. The world of Hollywood post-40 conception is riddled with questionable fertility miracles. In recent years several well-known older actors have extolled the joys of having a baby. The same women have then been accused on the blogosphere of concealing their IVF treatment and/or their use of surrogates and, in particular, for being hazy on the subject of genetic material.
Maybe they’re hazy because it’s NOBODY’S FUCKING BUSINESS?
Newsflash, Viv: if a woman has a child conceived through IVF or by a paid surrogate or if she chooses instead to fill her uterus with topsoil and use it as a pot for geraniums, it’s still NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.
But then our catty columnist goes from crassly inappropriate to five-alarm bitchery:
The truth is, her work commitments may have heavily influenced this move: she is currently filming the sequel to the Sex and the City film, due for release in May 2010, and has another three films in pre-production. Not a great time to get pregnant.
If I were Sarah Jessica Parker, I would take off my earrings, smear some Vaseline on my face and commence yanking a bitch’s weave out for that. This isn’t “the truth”, as she so boldly puts it. Viv Groskop doesn’t know what the truth is. None of us do. But Viv’s just determined to hate anyway, so she whips out a tried-and-true misogynist stereotype: Sarah Jessica’s a cold, uncaring career woman who can’t be bothered to have babies. The fact that Viv’s pulled that explanation right out of her ass is apparently of no concern to her, or her editor at the Guardian.
Despite the overt nastiness of this piece, I was cheered by some of the comments:
Rebecca CD: What the hell? You don’t know what went on – maybe they cannot conceive again and this is her only option. Anyway, what business is it of anyone elses? And stating she’s using a surrogate because of work commitments is cold, once again, you don’t know why they’re doing this. Agree with other posters – Daily Mail worthy. (ed: “Daily Mail worthy” is Brit-speak for “take this shit to a trashy tabloid where it belongs.”)
And from the awesomely named Jamtart:
Can we report this article for woman abuse?
Not sure if we can, but we most definitely should.
* I only wish I could get a download of Salt n Pepa’s jam “None of Your Business” to run with this post. I kept hearing the chorus in my head as I was writing this.
*I would also like to point out that “Groskop” is Yiddish for “fathead.” Which is not inappropriate in this case.
On the same level of idiocy: a promotional email that showed up at work saying “Twins are the new trend! Sarah Jessica Parker just announced hers, so we have products to celebrate this trend!”
A trend? OY.
I confess that surrogacy squicks me out personally (I don’t believe bodies or body parts ought to be able to be bought or sold, including rent by carrying a child for someone else, mostly because I fear economic coercion in such situations. I will also admit that if my sister or my very best friend asked me to carry a child for her or his family because she or he couldn’t for whatever reason I would have to question this principle pretty hard. I still imagine I’d encourage them to consider adoption, though, which I know has its own set of problems).
However, I have the sense to know that what Sarah Jessica Parker and her family do is none of my fucking business. And I certainly wouldn’t try to make it a fucking culture war thing in the Guardian. What the hell is Groskop trying to do, here, stoke the fires of proletariat rage? “Civilian?” What the hell.
I had totally forgotten about that Salt ‘n Pepa song. Thank you so much for reminding me. Love it!
FWIW, I read that SJP had trouble conceiving.
We were all annoyed with BeckyS’s jogging-friend’s guy for assuming fertility treatments are easy–but don’t stories about “older” celebrities having kids contribute to that attitude? I mean, I’m not joining any infertility witch hunts, but maybe there’s some truth underneath the cattiness.
@Spark: I heard that too. And she’s 44 years old and her husband’s 47, so it’s not surprising that they might not be able to conceive naturally anymore.
I do agree with you that all the over-40 celebrities having babies does contribute to the notion that fertility treatments are are easy and women can conceive with no problem right up into their 40s. Neither is true, but the perception is definitely out there.
That said, I don’t think those women should be the target of cattiness or condemnation. None of them is going around saying “OMG, it was a breeze getting pregnant at 42!”–at least, none that I’ve heard of. But regardless, it’s their right to do whatever they want with their uteri–no woman ever owes anyone an explanation about how or why she decides to bear children (or not).
Also: I have never heard anyone bitch at an over 40 male celebrity who chooses to have children, for whatever reason. Just sayin’.
@Becky: Yes, agreed that the media/public’s interest in the inner-workings of famous women’s reproductive systems is ultra-creepy and oppressive. But I wonder how to strike the balance when discussing fertility. I hate hate hate the fearmongering that surrounds women “waiting” to have kids, that if we don’t get pregnant young, we’ll end up barren and filled with regret at 27. Whenever I read about declining fertility, I’m instantly suspicious–but at the same time, fertility does change as we age. Fertility treatment is available and can do wonderful things–but it’s not easy (or cheap) and it doesn’t always work. It seems impossible to get objective information. Every scientific study and celebrity baby article is bound up in patriarchal anxiety.
Yes, yanking a bitches weave out sounds like a very appropriate reaction. May I remind you to not forget your tennis shoes when you issue said beatdown?
Fwiw, I know several women (friends and family) who have conceived naturally after 40, so it’s not impossible. My mother had me at the ripe old age of 39. With her tubes tied. So miracles happen.
I’m personally sick of the speculation that your ovaries shrivel up and die after 40. My doctors told me that women who have great difficulty conceiving after 40 quite possibly would have had some difficulty at a younger age as well. Sure, fertility decreases as you age, but if you first start trying to get pregnant at 40, how do you know you could have conceived at 30 or 20?