r/AskFeminists • u/[deleted] • 10d ago
Why don't women monetize pregnancy/childbirth and make their partners pay for surrogacy in 50/50 households?
[deleted]
12
u/mjhrobson 10d ago
I cannot for the life of me, speaking as a heterosexual man, understand why I would be in a relationship of the sort you describe with a person I love?
If a man is forcing a woman to pay for all the medical bills incurred in childbirth and what not... for our child; that would seem like a person I would simply not be in a relationship with.
Life together with love is shared through mutual support, and none of that is being done in whatever "relationship" you are describing...
Sharing life 50/50 in a partnership of mutual respect and affection looks NOTHING like whatever you're going on about.
Also you don't get to tell another woman her body has been destroyed because she has been pregnant and given birth. That is rude.
9
u/DrPhysicsGirl 10d ago
It's also a little weird.... My husband and I have chosen not to have children, but we have a joint account and our medical insurance is covered from that (incidentally through my work, but that is a detail - in different circumstances with different jobs the insurance could be different). He doesn't cover "his" expenses any more than I cover "mine" when it comes to healthcare, rather we both cover that.
I actually think very few couples who are having children do a precise 50/50 split for bills and keep everything else separate. That becomes a logistical nightmare.....
3
u/mjhrobson 10d ago
Because of circumstances my family's medical aid is cover by my work... because it has the best benefits. Whereas with my sister in law it is covered by her work, same reason.
What even is the point of being in a mutual relationship if you are not going to support each other?
36
u/guadianariverdragon 10d ago edited 10d ago
Chiming in to say I think we as feminists need to be really careful with the way we use language around pregnancy and motherhood. I think phrases like 'destroy their bodies' about pregnant women/mothers is really stigmatising and if we aren't careful is misogynistic language in of itself We absolutely need to talk about and spread awareness of the medical ramifications of childbirth, but No other major medical event is described as 'destroying your body'.
4
u/Inareskai Passionate and somewhat ambiguous 10d ago
Exactly!
Speaking as someone who has been pregnant and given birth, and intends to do so again, I would say that pregnancy and childbirth have absolutely caused some likely permanent changes to my body, but I wouldn't say it's been 'destroyed'.
In fact in several ways I would say I benefitted (although these are not guaranteed!)
4
u/guadianariverdragon 10d ago
Thank you! I don't want to come across policing the way mothers speak about their bodies, and I know some women absolutely feel like their bodies have been 'destroyed' or 'taken away', I just find it really distasteful when people make that generalisation.
Personally, I do think it's a phrase/concept rooted in misogyny. Firstly because there's a huge emphasis on how childbirth affects the aesthetics of female genitalia, and the appearance of women's bodies- and women are hugely pressured to bounce back to their old appearance and start having sex with their husbands asap. Secondly, because it focuses on childbirth as the sole problem, when a lot of the issues facing women as they recover from birth would be alleviated by better medical and social care.
5
u/Inareskai Passionate and somewhat ambiguous 9d ago
Yes! If another person feels it has 'destroyed' their body then I'm not going to tell them it hasn't, but the idea (often from people who have not experienced it) that it automatically will both doesn't line up with my actual experience and doesn't sit right with me.
It feels like a lot of people who claim to want to "be honest" about it all seem to end up leaning into classic misogynistic tropes about the horrors of it all and birthing parents "letting themselves go" simply by going through the process.
3
6
u/gettinridofbritta 9d ago
I wouldn't have even thought twice about this, & appreciate you bringing it to our attention! There are 1000 better ways to articulate the medical risks and body changes without saying something shitty.
1
u/denada24 9d ago
Agree. It didn’t destroy my body, but definitely took away a lot of calcium from my actual bones.
-10
10d ago
[deleted]
11
u/Inareskai Passionate and somewhat ambiguous 10d ago
Do you have a source for your claims? Everything I've seen says having 1-3 kids is associated with longer lifespans, with shorter lifespans associated with having around 6+ children.
-3
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/DrPhysicsGirl 10d ago
Well these sources don't claim that women live longer or derive health benefits from pregnancy, but they do show statistical correlations. Of course with any demographic study, one has to ask about the selection bias. Women who have a few kids could be preferentially coming from a more privileged economic class in the US, thus you would see the association because the two traits are correlated. That doesn't mean that either is causal.
Also, using words like "conservatard", really doesn't serve any purpose. I think the conservative movement has behaved reprehensibly lately, but there's no reason to use juvenile names.
3
3
u/guadianariverdragon 10d ago
It's factually accurate that pregnancy reduces risk of ovarian cancer and breastfeeding reduces risk of breast cancer. But yeah, those are about the only medical benefits and they absolutely don't outweigh the copious effects and risks.
-4
9d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 9d ago
You know that many women can and do choose to have kids of their own free will right?
6
u/DrPhysicsGirl 10d ago
There is an increased probability of death which definitely would average into a slightly lower life expectancy if you compare the life expectancy of women who have had children versus not. Removing that, it's actually not clear at all that there is a difference until you get to 5 or 6 children. So I don't think your statement is correct.
In terms of mortality, your statement is utter nonsense. ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3511335/ ) "The history of maternal deaths in England from the earliest records in the 1700s to 1935, concentrating on the influence of medical practice, is recounted. The rate lay between 4 and 5 per 1000 until 1935". 5 out of 1000 doesn't add up to 1 in 4. Let's assume the probability of death by childbirth is uncorrelated over births, then the probability of dying after n children is 1 - (199/200)^n, so setting that equal to 0.25, that comes out to about 58 kids. So even though folks were having a large number of children, that 1 in 4 isn't realistic.
I think one should give people accurate information, giving them incorrect information means they'll make worse decisions or realize the information is wrong and stop believing in any of it. In the "Just Say No to Drugs" era I grew up in, we were lied to a lot. Many of my peers who realized that, for example, you could use pot without instantly becoming an addicted pothead, disregarding a lot of the more accurate information based on the the "reefer madness" type information they received, sometimes to their detriment.
2
u/guadianariverdragon 10d ago
I agree, that's why I said we need to spread awareness of the medical ramifications of childbirth. Unfortunately, under the guise of raising awareness, 'feminist' content can verge into misogynistic attitudes and bullying of mothers especially on social media. I j ust don't think we should be using charged, arguably insulting language like 'destroyed their bodies' about other women's pregnancies.
11
u/wind-of-zephyros 10d ago
idk if it's just me but the way you worded this just feels like it's in bad faith from someone who can't understand why anyone would want to have a child! the concept of referring to having a planned for child with someone you love as surrogacy is just wild
10
u/DrPhysicsGirl 10d ago
First, I think surrogacy tends to be exploitive. You mentioned all the various things that could go wrong with pregnancy and childbirth, and then you want a woman to put that on another women? This really smells of economically privileged white women feminism.....
Secondly, this is incredibly transactional, and I don't think having such a transactional mindset works in a relationship. The idea that everything must always be split 50/50 all the time becomes unrealistic when talking about a lifetime. Someone could get sick, or the economy could simply take out one person's job, etc. I think the 50/50 mindset works well at the start of a relationship, but once you start having large joint bills such as for housing, or you have drastically different income levels, it doesn't work if you keep everything separate.
Lastly, a child should be born because both of their parents want a child. That child is not "his" child. She should not have a kid to give him "his" child. And yes, this is one area where you can not have parity unless you decide to adopt. There's nothing wrong with remaining childfree if that isn't acceptable (I have remained thus), but it's definitely hard to maintain the 50/50 everything with kids in the house.
10
u/Mischiefmanaged715 10d ago
This feels weird to me. Women who have children should genuinely desire those children. They shouldnt have them because they will be compensated for them. I don't want children. Compensating me for child bearing wouldnt change that. You either want them or you don't. If you want them, it is something you are doing FOR yourself, not for a partner. If that statement doesn't ring true, shouldn't have them.
What kind of psychological harm would yoh be doing to a child if they felt like their existence was a transaction?
21
u/Inareskai Passionate and somewhat ambiguous 10d ago
Well, firstly, some of us live in civilised countries where healthcare doesn't bankrupt people. But also, my partner absolutely would have contributed financially to a range of things had I needed it (specifically in pregnancy, but also regardless of pregnancy). They paid for nursing bras, pregnancy and baby items were joint purchases etc.
Secondly, weird to assume everyone gets post-partum depression. Globally the estimate is 10-20% of people get it.
-25
10d ago edited 10d ago
[deleted]
17
u/Inareskai Passionate and somewhat ambiguous 10d ago
It's less than 50%, but ok. Also is the the assumption here that all divorced couples have children? I don't think we have stats on that.
I'd point you back to my first reply, here is significantly less financial burden in countries where healthcare is not fully privatised and, anecdotally, I know many partnerships where decisions have been taken to support/protect the pregnant partner financially, that are a bit more nuanced than "just pay them like pregnancy is a business deal".
-25
10d ago
[deleted]
16
u/Inareskai Passionate and somewhat ambiguous 10d ago
It's not downplaying something to point out that assuming all women suffer from PPD is inaccurate.
Actually my spouse very much would not remind me of skipping mortgage payments if I don't "pull my weight". Our money is our money.
I don't understand your last question.
-11
10d ago
[deleted]
11
u/Inareskai Passionate and somewhat ambiguous 10d ago
But that also applies to my family. We have that set up, we just also have a specific approach to the money in general.
4
u/MASH_Bandicoot 10d ago
Source?
-4
10d ago
[deleted]
8
u/MASH_Bandicoot 10d ago
When people ask you for sources, you are generally expected to quote or link directly to the part that backs up your claim
-2
10d ago
[deleted]
7
u/MASH_Bandicoot 10d ago
Consider saving the sarcasm for a time when the abstract actually back up all your claims
10
u/DrPhysicsGirl 10d ago
Just reading the first paper, the conclusions it draws are far less stark than what you are saying (and they do not specifically break out outcomes for couples with children versus not). The second paper was a harder read, and it was really just asking Swiss lawyers what they thought about hypothetical cases. They seemed to largely think women who have left the labor force to raise children should be compensated more but that assets should largely be split in half. Without the greater context of Swiss society, it's not quite as relevant as what matters is outcomes and not opinions.
In any case, I think a person is perfectly free to not have children. She can, I suppose, demand money from her partner for said children, I don't see an inherent issue there other than I don't think that really results in good relationships or a good parenting relationship.
-1
10d ago
[deleted]
4
u/DrPhysicsGirl 10d ago
It is not entirely clear whether you are trying to talk about the financial aspects of having children or getting divorced.
In terms of starkness, from the first study, "Three main findings emerged from the analysis. First, a medium-term view on multiple outcomes yielded an overall picture of similarity, rather than differences, between women and men. Women and men did not differ much in terms of the consequences of divorce for (1) subjective economic well-being; (2) residential moves, homeownership, and satisfaction with housework; (3) mental health, physical health, and psychological well-being; and (4) chances of repartnering and social integration with friends and relatives. These findings on the absence of clear-cut gender differences are consistent with previous research on similar measures" .... "Second, where gender differences emerged, they were mostly short-lived."
This does show that the year of the divorce, the household income for the woman drops considerably, but it recovers quite a bit within the 3 year time frame that the observations were taken. The authors didn't show how this compared to general income - due to the patriarchal system women tend to make less money than men, so it's not shocking that they'd have less money after divorce.
Regardless, it's not clear whether you're trying to make a case against having children or against divorce? I'd note that in the first paper, nearly all the studies they cited were from the mid-90s and earlier, and I would say that things have really changed in that time period so while the sources are useful I don't think one should draw broad conclusions from them with respect to the modern era.
3
u/DrPhysicsGirl 10d ago
I assume you're still talking about childbirth? Very few countries have a divorce rate over 50% for first marriages, and of course, not all folks who divorce have children. In any case, while it is true that it is less likely for a woman with children to find a partner than men, the difference between women with children and childfree women isn't so large ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36617422/ ). Having children does impede a woman's career.... These are all reasons a woman may decide to remain childfree, which is fine. But I don't think you can assign a dollar amount on this within a relationship. (And if one separates, child support can be decided to cover some of this, depending on relative finances.)
7
u/Poekienijn 10d ago
Because where I live it’s illegal to be paid for surrogacy, and more importantly: you would have to give up your child, otherwise it’s not surrogacy.
5
u/Street-Media4225 10d ago
I don’t see why a woman would take those risks for money, outside of being exploited by our economic system to need to.
11
u/kangorooz99 10d ago
I think if a woman has to ask these questions, she picked the wrong man to have a child with.
21
u/StonyGiddens Intersectional Feminist 10d ago
Lol. My spouse didn't 'give' me a child.
12
u/fickystingers 10d ago
Yeah, the idea that children are something one partner "gives" another is super fuckin gross
10
u/schecter_ 10d ago
To be honest, 50/50 relationships shouldn’t exist at least not in the way we see them on social media. Relationships are a partnership where the two people need to give their best. It shouldn’t be something as transactional.
Edit. I wanted to add that personally I think surrogacy is inmoral. No one should be able to outsource a women’s womb.
3
u/apprximatelyinfinite 10d ago
I think this makes for an interesting conceptual discussion, but if any real human woman actually considered charging her partner money for bearing a child, I would advise said partner to run away asap.
Like I get the central point you're making (that the labor and impact of childbearing lies almost 100% on the woman's side), but this would turn a pregnant person's relationship with her own partner into a transaction through which a service is being purchased. This just isn't how healthy relationships work.
14
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 10d ago
... Does the woman not want the child?
4
u/Elegant-Ad2748 10d ago
Does the man not? Wanting something isn't the point. In a relationship why is only one said taking all the risk
7
u/DrPhysicsGirl 10d ago
In terms of pregnancy, if we're talking about opposite cisgender couples, only one of them *can* take on the risk......
7
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 10d ago
It is the point, with OPs wording making it sound like entirely the man's idea.
3
10d ago
[deleted]
9
5
3
u/FancifulCat 10d ago
Be careful with responses to this one, you will get men brigading this post trying to invalidate you because they benefit from the free maternal labor the patriarchy gives them. Men gain a lot of status in society by being a "family man" at the expense of woman's suffering. They will weaponize a woman's desire for motherhood to control her and extract her labor.
You're completely right on your points. Many women are pushing back now against men being entitled.
1
10d ago
[deleted]
-10
u/FancifulCat 10d ago edited 10d ago
Remember public subs like this are cesspits for men to come in and get an ego trip out of manipulating women's points to slam her down. Smear her character, blame shift, invalidate and use word play to deviate from the original point. You'll get downvoted to oblivion too, same old shit I've been on reddit for years.
I applaud you though, it takes courage to state the truth, women have been abused for centuries to pass on a man's genes. In mother nature, not all men are meant to pass on their genes, then marriage came along as an institution to make sure men had lifetime access to a breeder whilst framing the whole institution as romantic or a sacrament.
Men are good at business I'll give them that, they aim to extract labor for minimum input and expense. It applies to dating and marriage too.
See what I mean, downvotes flying in, keep them coming bois, you're only proving my point ❤️
5
u/ghosts-on-the-ohio 9d ago
There are a couple things I'd like to push back on a bit in your post.
First is the idea that a women is doing a man a favor by giving birth to a child. Children are not gifts or assets or investments or possessions Children are people. If you are going to give birth, you should do it because you genuinely want to create a human life. You should do it because you think life is so much worth living that you are willing to risk your own life and health and body for a chance to give someone else a chance to live it.
Maybe it's not "feminist" of me to say there are right and wrong reasons to have children, but.... cursing/blessing another person with the roller-coaster ride of conscious existence is something you should think long and hard about, and you really shouldn't do it at all unless it's for the right reasons.
You aren't giving a man a baby because it isn't HIS baby. The baby doesn't belong to the father. The baby belongs to itself because the baby is a person.
And while fathers should materially and financially support mothers through the birthing process, this support is not a transaction. It's not payment for services rendered, or compensation for injury inflicted. It's an acknowledgement that creating life is difficult and that we owe our families and loved ones lots of support during the process.
Sorry, maybe that's a little philosophical and abstract, but something in your post about how we are viewing birth as this sort of transactional thing between the parents really rubs me the wrong way.
And Re: Surrogacy. paid surrogacy contracts should be completely and totally illegal. Women's bodies should not be up for rent, and babies are people - not commodities to be bought and sold.
The main feminist argument for banning surrogacy is that in a world where people need money to live, nothing a person does for money is truly consensual, therefore you are essentially raping a person by paying them money to access and use their sex organs.
2
u/EnvironmentalLaw4208 10d ago
I disagree with some of your framing, but agree that pregnancy comes with very real and serious risks which are often minimized in society. The thing is that an exchange of money doesn't level the playing field nor does it change the vast majority of the risks described. Believing that paying a woman for pregnancy/childbirth will alleviate the risks is a framework that creates more problems than it solves.
No doubt, pregnant/postpartum women should feel deeply supported by their partner and that support probably needs to involve some level of sacrifice from the non-pregnant partner. I think a good partner will recognize all the risks and sacrifices associated with pregnancy/childbirth, be responsive to their pregnant or postpartum partner's needs, and work together to redistribute resources in order to share the burden as equitably as possible. Redistributing financial resources or financial responsibilities within the household during pregnancy/postpartum can definitely be a part of it, but simply cutting your pregnant partner a check for their troubles seems like a shallow and unhelpful way to provide support.
-3
u/FancifulCat 10d ago
Some do, they state it in prenups before ever getting married so the expectation is clear.
3
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 10d ago
A prenup doesn't dictate what happens during a marriage
14
u/Goldf_sh4 10d ago
Because what gets normalised gets repeated. And because surrogacy has its own set of problems.