Portrait of a Professional Baby Maker
July 27, 2021 12:41 PM Subscribe
At a time when so many Millennials like her have become less interested in marriage and children and are also delaying having children for their careers, she [Tyra Reeder] is a new kind of female fertility archetype: nurturing and distant at the same time.
Portrait of a Professional Baby Maker
When Reeder’s not pregnant, she drives heavy machinery for a private logging company. She uses the money from her baby-making side hustle to travel to places like South East Asia and Zanzibar, where she has also donated her leftover breast milk to an orphanage.
When Reeder’s not pregnant, she drives heavy machinery for a private logging company. She uses the money from her baby-making side hustle to travel to places like South East Asia and Zanzibar, where she has also donated her leftover breast milk to an orphanage.
I wish I had a fraction of her matter of fact chill.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 1:57 PM on July 27, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by St. Peepsburg at 1:57 PM on July 27, 2021 [11 favorites]
(More of a front hustle, am I right?)
Maybe it's stating the obvious, but being a professional surrogate/egg donor seems a lot like many other jobs, and a lot better in many ways than many other jobs. It's probably safer than driving logging machines although not all that much safer, and requires both luck (being able to get pregnant, stay pregnant, tolerate egg donation) and the ability to tolerate physical and psychic unpleasantness (I probably don't need to enumerate ways in which pregnancy and egg donation are physically and psychologically taxing!). Fair play to Ms. Reeder.
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 2:00 PM on July 27, 2021 [12 favorites]
Maybe it's stating the obvious, but being a professional surrogate/egg donor seems a lot like many other jobs, and a lot better in many ways than many other jobs. It's probably safer than driving logging machines although not all that much safer, and requires both luck (being able to get pregnant, stay pregnant, tolerate egg donation) and the ability to tolerate physical and psychic unpleasantness (I probably don't need to enumerate ways in which pregnancy and egg donation are physically and psychologically taxing!). Fair play to Ms. Reeder.
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 2:00 PM on July 27, 2021 [12 favorites]
(For me, really just an ungainly waddle, let's be honest.)
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 2:01 PM on July 27, 2021
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 2:01 PM on July 27, 2021
The neutral framing was refreshing.
I wish the author had gone into her faith (if any) a bit more. Being one of seven children likely means she was raised in a religious family- did that color her decisions?
posted by Monday at 2:03 PM on July 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
I wish the author had gone into her faith (if any) a bit more. Being one of seven children likely means she was raised in a religious family- did that color her decisions?
posted by Monday at 2:03 PM on July 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
ASMR suggests no more than six donations, I don't even know how to approach surrogacy, but if it's a niche workable for her, well, then good for her.
posted by firstdaffodils at 2:03 PM on July 27, 2021
posted by firstdaffodils at 2:03 PM on July 27, 2021
The neutral framing was refreshing.
To me, the dip into evolutionary psychology in the middle was deeply weird!
posted by babelfish at 2:39 PM on July 27, 2021 [21 favorites]
To me, the dip into evolutionary psychology in the middle was deeply weird!
posted by babelfish at 2:39 PM on July 27, 2021 [21 favorites]
I was glad to hear she's planning on retiring. Everyone needs to find their niche and I'm glad everything worked out for this lady so well.
posted by bleep at 2:39 PM on July 27, 2021
posted by bleep at 2:39 PM on July 27, 2021
Not my jam, either doing or hiring, but there are a lot of people who can't carry children and adoption is way more morally and emotionally complicated than the casual "just adopt" line acknowledges.
posted by tavella at 3:13 PM on July 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by tavella at 3:13 PM on July 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
Research from Euro suggests the ability and process in doing these procedures at a rate about the third they are being performed in the US. The research would appear to be pretty wild west. Thoughts expressed, miscarriage truly hurts a lot* of women, and the process of birth seems to really reach the core of some couples or people. It's an uncertain process, but I totally get it.
posted by firstdaffodils at 3:33 PM on July 27, 2021
posted by firstdaffodils at 3:33 PM on July 27, 2021
well this puts me in mind of one of the better low-key comedies I watched in the last couple of years.. "Private Life"
posted by elkevelvet at 3:39 PM on July 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by elkevelvet at 3:39 PM on July 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
I am extremely impressed by the physical stamina and mental stability she must possess in order to withstand the physical toll on her body and that repeated onslaught of hormones. I looked into egg donation and when I read about the possible effects of the ultra-hormone injections on people who already have depression I nope'd right out of there. The human race BENEFITS from her spreading her DNA.
(yes the last sentence is tongue in cheek)
posted by Anonymous at 4:51 PM on July 27, 2021
(yes the last sentence is tongue in cheek)
posted by Anonymous at 4:51 PM on July 27, 2021
Schroe is on it. It seems like a variable interest: a person can plan for multiple donations but only make it to two. It isn't for every person.
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:00 PM on July 27, 2021
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:00 PM on July 27, 2021
Also I don't think it's really a career. Most women interested stop after a few times. 🤷
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:56 PM on July 27, 2021
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:56 PM on July 27, 2021
They mention how she listed it as her job description on the dating app; but they also talk about her other job, and use the phrase "baby-making side hustle".
You can tell she does think of it as a career, in a way at least, but it also seems like it's been important for her to be able to offer "this" (from eggs, to a womb, to breast-milk) part of herself to people "in need".
I find it all very fascinating, not just her story, but the greater idea of people who do this... women especially.
posted by Laura in Canada at 6:09 PM on July 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
You can tell she does think of it as a career, in a way at least, but it also seems like it's been important for her to be able to offer "this" (from eggs, to a womb, to breast-milk) part of herself to people "in need".
I find it all very fascinating, not just her story, but the greater idea of people who do this... women especially.
posted by Laura in Canada at 6:09 PM on July 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
we've surely inherited complicated, nuanced predispositions toward strategies that are better fits for whatever our reproductive role is
Evolutionary psychology is not scientific. It is based on dominant, retrogressive ideas about gender. It is not just a few loud people who give it a bad name. It is not based in anything but a desire to further impose the dominant power structure on people by making it seem like it has some kind of scientific basis. What about people who don't have a "reproductive role"? Where do they fit? There are not only two sexes, but evolutionary psychology would lead us to believe that there are, and that our behavior is intrinsically tied to our reproductive capability. This is how it aligns itself with eugenics.
As for the article, wow. I was born with a body that can birth babies and I want nothing to do with all that, so hearing about someone who is functionally the opposite of me was fascinating. I'm glad for her, but was a little frightened at the eugenics that were baked into the selection process. This honestly reminded me of the handmaid's tale, although she's doing this voluntarily. I hope she enjoys her retirement.
posted by twelve cent archie at 9:22 PM on July 27, 2021 [12 favorites]
Evolutionary psychology is not scientific. It is based on dominant, retrogressive ideas about gender. It is not just a few loud people who give it a bad name. It is not based in anything but a desire to further impose the dominant power structure on people by making it seem like it has some kind of scientific basis. What about people who don't have a "reproductive role"? Where do they fit? There are not only two sexes, but evolutionary psychology would lead us to believe that there are, and that our behavior is intrinsically tied to our reproductive capability. This is how it aligns itself with eugenics.
As for the article, wow. I was born with a body that can birth babies and I want nothing to do with all that, so hearing about someone who is functionally the opposite of me was fascinating. I'm glad for her, but was a little frightened at the eugenics that were baked into the selection process. This honestly reminded me of the handmaid's tale, although she's doing this voluntarily. I hope she enjoys her retirement.
posted by twelve cent archie at 9:22 PM on July 27, 2021 [12 favorites]
The fact that it is voluntary makes it the exact opposite of The Handmaid's Tale, though.
posted by Anonymous at 10:00 PM on July 27, 2021
posted by Anonymous at 10:00 PM on July 27, 2021
For an alternate (dialectical) take on this, look at Full Surrogacy Now, by Sophie Lewis. A in-depth conversation with the author on her book is here (transcript, though audio is available). Food for thought.
posted by eclectist at 3:33 AM on July 28, 2021
posted by eclectist at 3:33 AM on July 28, 2021
I think the exact opposite of The Handmaid's Tale would be a society ruled by women where men are subjugated, not something like this.
posted by emd3737 at 5:36 AM on July 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by emd3737 at 5:36 AM on July 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
emd3737: I think the exact opposite of The Handmaid's Tale would be a society ruled by women where men are subjugated, not something like this.
Has anyone written a science fiction dystopia where a woman becomes a dictator and forces all other women to bear her eggs, resulting in an ant-like society after a couple of generations?
posted by clawsoon at 5:57 AM on July 28, 2021 [2 favorites]
Has anyone written a science fiction dystopia where a woman becomes a dictator and forces all other women to bear her eggs, resulting in an ant-like society after a couple of generations?
posted by clawsoon at 5:57 AM on July 28, 2021 [2 favorites]
Sokka shot first: and as such, we've surely inherited complicated, nuanced predispositions toward strategies that are better fits for whatever our reproductive role is.
You might find Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's Mother Nature interesting. One thing she argues is that there's no such thing as "a" reproductive role. Human social situations are complex, and people can find themselves at many different positions on various social ladders. You're going to have to have very different strategies in a society with partible paternity than in a strictly patriarchal society, so both men and women have been forced to evolve to be flexible and intelligent and adaptive.
I'm not sure if Hrdy is right about everything - she's still an evolutionary psychologist working in the dominant tradition of Robert Trivers, after all - but she does at least provide a counter to a simple Victorian "passive females" view of evolutionary psychology.
posted by clawsoon at 6:19 AM on July 28, 2021 [4 favorites]
You might find Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's Mother Nature interesting. One thing she argues is that there's no such thing as "a" reproductive role. Human social situations are complex, and people can find themselves at many different positions on various social ladders. You're going to have to have very different strategies in a society with partible paternity than in a strictly patriarchal society, so both men and women have been forced to evolve to be flexible and intelligent and adaptive.
I'm not sure if Hrdy is right about everything - she's still an evolutionary psychologist working in the dominant tradition of Robert Trivers, after all - but she does at least provide a counter to a simple Victorian "passive females" view of evolutionary psychology.
posted by clawsoon at 6:19 AM on July 28, 2021 [4 favorites]
clawsoon - "Has anyone written a science fiction dystopia where a woman becomes a dictator and forces all other women to bear her eggs, resulting in an ant-like society after a couple of generations?"
I bet you just kicked off a miniseries somewhere.
posted by lon_star at 9:21 AM on July 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
I bet you just kicked off a miniseries somewhere.
posted by lon_star at 9:21 AM on July 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
A close contact of mine works in this industry (matching egg donors and surrogates with people wanting these services). Best I can tell being a surrogate - apart from the huge amount of effort that goes into carrying and birthing a child - seems like an exercise in managing *a lot* of expectations from the individuals you are carrying for (and they can be extreme - like as an example - people expecting their surrogates not only eat healthily but that they will only eat specific brands of food or produce from a specific supermarket for nine months, don't travel or undertake all sorts of activities, etc.). In theory the surrogate is compensated for additional costs but seems like a lot of mental/emotional labor aside from the physical. I'm sure there are lots of stories the other direction as well.
And COVID apparently has made this even more challenging - lots of arguments about whether the surrogate can get vaccinated etc. (both surrogates who do and don't want to get vaccinated where the people paying the surrogate want the reverse of that), as well as the disruption where surrogates carrying were supposed to give birth at a designated hospital or do egg retrieval at a certain clinic but can't travel all of a sudden or get very uncomfortable with travel etc.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 10:40 AM on July 28, 2021 [2 favorites]
And COVID apparently has made this even more challenging - lots of arguments about whether the surrogate can get vaccinated etc. (both surrogates who do and don't want to get vaccinated where the people paying the surrogate want the reverse of that), as well as the disruption where surrogates carrying were supposed to give birth at a designated hospital or do egg retrieval at a certain clinic but can't travel all of a sudden or get very uncomfortable with travel etc.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 10:40 AM on July 28, 2021 [2 favorites]
"In theory the surrogate is compensated for additional costs but seems like a lot of mental/emotional labor aside from the physical." I don't think I could ever do this. It's too intimate. There are a thousand intimacy-centric causes for compensation and this taps taboo in my taste.
Expressed, I have a ton of respect for surrogates and what they bring to non-cis-het families or otherwise. It's slightly a legendary/mythic endeavor! It's like next level doula'ing. (literally carrying the baby)
posted by firstdaffodils at 11:29 AM on July 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
Expressed, I have a ton of respect for surrogates and what they bring to non-cis-het families or otherwise. It's slightly a legendary/mythic endeavor! It's like next level doula'ing. (literally carrying the baby)
posted by firstdaffodils at 11:29 AM on July 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
@ twelve cent archie:
Where exactly did you see eugenics in the article? I re-read it twice, just to make sure I wasn't missing something. There's nothing eugenical about selecting for people who are demonstrably fertile, nor against people who are unusually likely to miscarry. Not all people searching for surrogates are rich, and money is lost when a miscarriage occurs. Is that what you were talking about? Frankly, I don't see any problem in people paying for a surrogate service to make choices about who carries the baby, or for the agency to do so on their behalf. Same goes for people who select for traits in their children. People have already been doing this with sperm donation agencies for a long time, anyways. Not-so-anonymous sperm of tall men with doctorates is coveted.
Your flagrant assertion really bugged me, because while any and all conscious selection in reproductive processes could be said to be technically eugenics, there is very little relation between that and the objectionable history of genocide or murder in which eugenics was only a part. Guilt by association is not an argument. I'm sure you're aware that the Third Reich's administration was a fan of soy beans, but I can't imagine that'll stop you from eating tofu.
If your bar is so low as to say "any selective process involving reproduction is eugenics", that qualifies capitalism (which rewards, as a statistical fact, the smartest in such a way that they are more able to reproduce comfortably and in volume, regardless of what they actually do), feudalism (where elite overproduction was a serious social issue), and really any societal system of organization in recorded history. Love (which in the pre-contraception past would have almost invariably produced offspring) is eugenical, insofar as people have been proven in study after study to have very ruthless preferences in physical form, not all of which can be lazily attributed to some vague notion of social conditioning. This is damn near adjacent to saying that evolution itself is "eugenics".
As for "reproductive roles" in a human context, that's a social question, not a scientific one. Life reproduces, that's all it really does. We don't argue about the culture of hyenas, or the dreams of chimpanzees. They fuck, and then they make another generation, because it's all they're capable of. This is not a matter of purpose, or meaning, because those aren't principles the universe operates on. They don't do it because they're "supposed to", it just happens because that's what the instructions in their DNA make them do. Social expectations amongst ourselves, modified by prophylactics, have no import on this. What applies to people is up to you, but I will say that human exceptionalism is a malignant force just as closely associated with atrocities as eugenics, if you want to play that game.
posted by constantinescharity at 2:51 PM on July 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
Where exactly did you see eugenics in the article? I re-read it twice, just to make sure I wasn't missing something. There's nothing eugenical about selecting for people who are demonstrably fertile, nor against people who are unusually likely to miscarry. Not all people searching for surrogates are rich, and money is lost when a miscarriage occurs. Is that what you were talking about? Frankly, I don't see any problem in people paying for a surrogate service to make choices about who carries the baby, or for the agency to do so on their behalf. Same goes for people who select for traits in their children. People have already been doing this with sperm donation agencies for a long time, anyways. Not-so-anonymous sperm of tall men with doctorates is coveted.
Your flagrant assertion really bugged me, because while any and all conscious selection in reproductive processes could be said to be technically eugenics, there is very little relation between that and the objectionable history of genocide or murder in which eugenics was only a part. Guilt by association is not an argument. I'm sure you're aware that the Third Reich's administration was a fan of soy beans, but I can't imagine that'll stop you from eating tofu.
If your bar is so low as to say "any selective process involving reproduction is eugenics", that qualifies capitalism (which rewards, as a statistical fact, the smartest in such a way that they are more able to reproduce comfortably and in volume, regardless of what they actually do), feudalism (where elite overproduction was a serious social issue), and really any societal system of organization in recorded history. Love (which in the pre-contraception past would have almost invariably produced offspring) is eugenical, insofar as people have been proven in study after study to have very ruthless preferences in physical form, not all of which can be lazily attributed to some vague notion of social conditioning. This is damn near adjacent to saying that evolution itself is "eugenics".
As for "reproductive roles" in a human context, that's a social question, not a scientific one. Life reproduces, that's all it really does. We don't argue about the culture of hyenas, or the dreams of chimpanzees. They fuck, and then they make another generation, because it's all they're capable of. This is not a matter of purpose, or meaning, because those aren't principles the universe operates on. They don't do it because they're "supposed to", it just happens because that's what the instructions in their DNA make them do. Social expectations amongst ourselves, modified by prophylactics, have no import on this. What applies to people is up to you, but I will say that human exceptionalism is a malignant force just as closely associated with atrocities as eugenics, if you want to play that game.
posted by constantinescharity at 2:51 PM on July 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
« Older How the Piano Man Came Back to Life | Time Tax Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This is not a term I needed to see, nor a good user name, but it is her body, and it seems to satisfy her, so who am I to judge?
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:49 PM on July 27, 2021 [1 favorite]