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.