Glass House Commentary: Alex Kuczynski's Article in the New York Times Magazine

As a proud mother via traditional surrogacy (as opposed to the author's gestational surrogacy)... I was REALLY offended by this article, the tone and the photos.

It seemed set up like an "us vs. them" "baby selling" article.  Here is the surrogate, barefoot on her badly needing to be painted front porch, and pregnant.  Did anyone else notice this?

Then there was the well dressed intended mother, standing in front of the opulent home with maid standing at the ready.  Or nanny.

It bothers me because my twins were born in 2008.  I have been immersed in the adoption/surrogacy world for a long time.  I know many surrogates, both traditional (rare) and gestational.  Believe me, the majority of them are in the health care profession.  They have decent jobs and are educated. 

I don't look at my surrogate as a means to an end the way this woman seems to see her surrogate.  I look at her as a woman, not a body, and her family... they made great sacrifices, especially her husband, on behalf of my husband and myself, to become parents, after the loss of 3 children.  2 of my own, resulting in my total infertility down to losing EVERYTHING, and one adoptive son who died at birth.

It is articles like this that really take my breath away.  The more "us vs. them" articles that paint the intended parents as wealthy "buying a baby" from a less advantaged, less educated woman... the more of a stigma surrogacy will carry, whether by traditional or gestational means. 

I can tell you that when I was my former surrogate's age, I was in the same place and space as her, as was my DH.  Most intended parents are older and have more means and education simply because we are older and have homes and savings.  Most surrogates are youngish and just starting out in life, with education and buying homes, and the prerequisite for most is proven fertility, so they are also not only carrying mortgages, they are supporting their families and working, besides being pregnant for a couple.

All I can say about this article is UGH.  My sons know many surrogates and their families, as well as former intended parents, via egg donor, traditional surrogacy, gestational surrogacy, sperm donor... as well as families built via adoption through international, domestic, and DSS fost/adopt.  They also know "traditionally built" families.  I think we all share the same parental ideals, which is to try and raise our children to live good, productive and healthy lives, to give back to others in this world and also, to respect one another, irregardless of how someone comes into this world.

Half of a Duo, Raising a Duo

http://micrimas.blogspot.com

As I read the piece in hard copy last sunday, I could not avoid the pictures. I would love to know whether Kuczynski had any say about the photographs used. If she did she's either clueless or crazy to use those pictures. If not, I wonder whether the photographer or photo editor has it in for her. 

As someone who has gone through IVF I am sympathetic to her desire to have a child. My sympathy was undermined by the inescapable self-absorption of Kuczynski's writing style and content. It is too bad that a piece that could have helped more people understand the pain and longing associated with infertility likely turned a lot of people off instead. 

http://www.nonlineargirl.com

The reason that the author of this piece was subjected to such an outpouring of scorn was because in the course of sharing her honest feelings about her personal journey towards motherhood, she revealed herself to be a classist, elitist, appearance-obsessed snob.  As just one example, she makes some very disparaging remarks about the physical appearance of pregnant women.  Irrespective of whether these remarks reveal the "true Alex", that's all we have to go on. 

And she chose to reveal herself in this manner.  Inasmuch as she is making cultural statements, e.g., about the comparative worthiness of those who are computer literate or the importance of embedding one's own genes in the child she chose to raise irrespective of the cost, the reading public with whom she shared this material is entitled to push back and say, "we disagree with your value system and judge you accordingly."   

"If you have nothing nice to say" etc is a good maxim but it doesn't apply to public speakers, irrespective of the subject matter. 

"If you do not have anything nice to say, then do not say anything at all."

Is (mostly ) true in a normal private conversation.  But this is a public forum.  I dont agree with the nasty comments.  And I dont think people should cast aside the normal rules of being humane when commenting in such a forum.  But its not the same as a private conversation.  There are legitimate reasons for disagreeing with this article.  It invites comment.  So are you saying that one should only place supportive comments?

This is such a sensitive and private subject that anyone who disagrees will seem harsh.  

 I find it troubling if someone puts their private life on line only with the hope of harvesting support for their way of thinking and reject anyone who questions them. 

...but not the human. I had a very strong and negative response to the way the NYT presented, edited and produced the piece, but I have no idea what the writer's journey really was.

This is an excellent, new perspective on the article Melissa. Thank you! Great post.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder ( http://www.blogher.com/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/politics-news ).

That's good to know.  Because I sort of hated the photographs, too.  They absolutely coloured the article for me and affected my view of the author, who of course I've never met.

~ Amber

www.strocel.com ( http://www.strocel.com )

http://babygiddings.blogspot.com/

For me the comments were so much worse than any picture that they could have put in the article.  Choosing surrogacy and choosing to be out in the open about the choice is really scary.  I am constantly amazed at how cruel people can be to each other.  The sad truth is that many of the comments are ones that we have heard from people who are close to us.  My mother-in-law has called me an opportunistic parasite for choosing to use surrogacy.  I really wish that people would just keep their mouths shut.  Whatever happened to, "If you do not have anything nice to say, then do not say anything at all."

One theme that many missed was that there is a general dislike of this author by the commentors due to her other work as well.  I am unfamiliar with her since I avoid the NYT as a piece of yellow journalism.  Give me the WSJ or a non-NY paper any day for good reporting. 

 I'm sorry, but the NYT is nothing more than a controversy rag.  No respectable historian considers it a paper of record despite its own delusions.  I believe it is starting to compete with the Daily Mail in England as to how skewed any piece can be.

MLO / Melissa

I'm not sure when the photos were taken, but it seemed to me that they were another form of commentary on the text of the article.  A subtle dig at the author by NYT.

I didn't particularly care for the author's tone in the article, and some of the things she said were off-putting.  But the vitriol in the comments was amazing to me.  I don't know what purpose it served - other than to reinforce my opinion that people simply go out of their way to make other people feel badly.

If you can't respectfully disagree, I don't know why you'd bother to comment anyway.  I guess I didn't realize what a polarizing issue infertility treatment was.  But attacking someone's personal choice is about the worst way I know of to make your point.  You can't change someone's mind by simply telling them how wrong they are.  I am beginning to miss the days where the newspaper editor filtered out all the cranks and only put in letters with valid and reasoned arguments.

I know that people get very emotional about issues, and everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion.  I just don't understand what is gained by personally attacking a writer.

I've been reading some of those comments, and its very interesting how many of them are reacting mostly to the photographs.  When i read that article, I hardly glanced at the pictures, so I'm surprised at this.

Some of the people who comented did not seem to have read the article, but only react to the pictures.

About your question:

what is gained or lost by critiquing
someone else's decision-making all the while recognizing that we often
know very little of the real picture even if the person is presenting
writing of great honesty based on their life?

For me, this points out a very interesting aspect of writing on the internet.  Up to now, a person could write an article like this in the NYT and apart from the letters page, it would be pretty much them putting their words out there for the rest of us to read and discuss among ourselves.

And the letters page is not nearly as direct as comments are.

Is an article like this in the on-line version of the NYT different from a personal blog article?

Is the author asking for comentary, or is that just a by product of the medium that she is not neccesarily asking for?

For me - its impossible not to judge here.  You may judge harshly or compasionately, but it would be strange to read that article and be left entirely neutral.

Now once I have read this - what do I do with my judgement?  I can share it - harshly or compasionately, or keep it to myself.  And is it possible to share it compasionately if I feel that a wrong has been comitted, or dont agree with any or all of the article?

Its such a personal issue, any disagreement seems like I am, as you say critiquing someone else's decision making based on little knowledge.  

Presumably the author has a strong reason to share such intimate
things.  Does she want sympathy and understanding?  Does she preach the
rightness of what she has done or is she undecided herself?

My own reaction here was mostly to try, as one must, not to judge harshly.  I did not feel that she was gloating or preaching or showing off.  It is a honest piece of writing. I did find parts of it disturbing - the bits about the surrogate mom being computer literate, for example.

My personal rule when leaving comments is to act as though I am actually talking to a real person. Its so easy to slag someone off, insult them, and get snarky on-line.  If a stranger just sat down in front of you, and told you these things about themselves, how would you react?

My reaction to the comments are that they are very American.  I find so much in America is so polarised. People seem to be unable to look past the labels and see the humanity of others.  So you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Christian, White, Black, Gay, a Rich, Poor, and so on?  Well let me reach into my pocket for my ready made opinion about people like you.

The photos were horrendous, but she probably didn't have a lot of say over the photos.  That was the editor/photographer.  My experience with the Times and photos is that it was all-or-nothing: they dictated the shot and when I said I didn't feel comfortable with it, they refused to take the photograph.  So no photo.  I would separate out the story from the photos and separate out Kucsynski from the Times.  And place the photo blame squarely on the shoulders of the Times, magazine editor, and photographer.  Because they were horrendous.

Venting about infertility since 2006
www.stirrup-queens.blogspot.com ( http://www.stirrup-queens.blogspot.com )
and we're not talkin' cowgirls...

Seriously. I wanted to pet Alex on the head and ask her about how difficult life must be in the antebellum south. Except that wouldn't be fair since she was at one of her homes in the Hamptons. I didn't find what she wrote to be offensive since she was writing about HER experience but don't have it with accompanying photos of your black baby nurse standing at attention and the woman carrying your child sitting on what seems to be a dilapidated front porch. That's what made the rest of the article unnerving and obnoxious. It's like "I have money. Tra la la. Here are some photos to prove it!" 
Heather B.Personal Blog: No Pasa Nada ( http://nopasanada.org )BlogHer CE: Business, Career & Personal Finance ( http://blogher.org/topic/business-career-personal-... )

I think that's it--it's one thing to discuss a situation.  It's quite another to pass judgment on an individual.  And some of the comments on Kucsynski were brutal.

Venting about infertility since 2006
www.stirrup-queens.blogspot.com ( http://www.stirrup-queens.blogspot.com )
and we're not talkin' cowgirls...

As an alumni of the NYT comment hate-fest, I thank you for this post. There's nothing stranger than being judged by people who have never met me or contemplated the decisions I've had to make -- in real life, not as a matter of theoretical discourse. Not all decisions are easy ones especially when they involve something as personal as how we create our family.

Pamela Jeanne

http://www.Coming2Terms.com