Sometimes I feel like such a stickler. I am not nitpicking when I say there was mistake in the pages of The New York Times Fashion and Style section, piece, “And Baby Makes Three.”
We must fall on the side of intellectual honesty. That title should have read, "four," or "five," if one were to consider the actual human females involved in the production line of surrogacy these days.
The Times' telling omission reflects something ominous, the deep misogyny of a gay male community, which in turn has been accepted and championed by many people who consider themselves progressive.
More to the point, it demonstrates the total erasure of the female human that supplied the egg and the second female human in whose uterus the baby grew. It mirrors the blind eyes that society has toward marginalized women. Here both are factored out of the male equation and that concerns me. No less concerning is the reason—to obscure “motherhood” and deny the child a clear concept of mother. (more...)
No comments:
Post a Comment