The XX Factor: What women really think.

Surrogate Motherhood: It's Not Just a Job, It's ...

In response to Meredith's request to the mothers among us to tote up the number of "billable hours" in a pregnancy: This sum seems inherently incalculable, not only because it would differ wildly and unforeseeably from person to person and pregnancy to pregnancy, but because the normal model of pay for work just doesn't apply to bearing a child for someone else in exchange for money ... (Read the rest of this post, or the whole conversation, in Double X.)

You Want My Body for 3 Bucks an Hour?

A post from Double X writer Meredith Simons:

Jessica, Kerry, and Sarah, your posts have me curious about the price of parenthood in surrogate situations, for both “intended parents” and surrogates. I crunched some numbers using the $20,000 payment that you mentioned, Sarah, and was shocked to realize that a surrogate making that much for a full-term pregnancy would earn less than half the federal minimum wage... (Read more in Double X.)

The Feminism of Penicillin

When we talk about barriers to the entrance of women in the American workforce in the 20th century, the story we tell is largely cultural and economic. Married women with career aspirations had to contend with wage discrimination, marriage bars, and the perception that a working woman was ipso facto a degenerate wife and mother. A neat new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that we often understate the role of basic medical advances when talking about that sudden, collective jump from home to workplace. It's easy to forget how dangerous childbirth used to be; complications associated with sepsis, toxaemia and obstructed labor could ravage a body well into middle age. "Many maternal conditions had very long lasting or chronic effects on health," the researchers report, "hindering women's ability to work beyond their childbearing years."

Using historical data to quantify the effects of various maternal conditions, economists Stefania Albanesi and Claudia Olivetti find that medical advances like the introduction of antibiotics, the standardization of obstetric practice, and the hospitalization of childbirth were absolutely critical to the rise of married women's participation in the labor market over the last century. They also find a very large effect for the introduction of formula as a mainstream alternative to breastfeeding in the 1930s. A typical woman in 1920 between the ages of 23 and 33 would be nursing for something like 40 percent of her potential working time. As Hanna has so forcefully illustrated, our cost/benefit calculations change when we start to consider the possibility that a mother's time might have some kind of value.

Tireless Justice Ginsburg

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was supposed to give the keynote address last week at a conference on women's equality and the law, at Rutgers School of Law-Newark. She couldn't make it, because of her recent cancer-related surgery. But she called, en route from leaving the hospital, to wish the conference goers well and to announce that she was on the mend and feeling good. Justice Ginsburg was clearly sending a message of strength—one that, as Dahlia pointed out, is entirely in line with the forceful approach she took to denouncing the Supreme Court's decision in the Ledbetter pay discrimination case.

The Rutgers conference reminded me of an earlier era of Ginsburg as tireless tigress: In the 1970s, she was an early and forceful litigator for women's rights. It's a story well told by Fred Strebeigh in his new book, Equal: Women Reshape American Law. Fred was my undergraduate writing teacher; this book is an incredibly industrious reporting effort that takes full advantage of his access to Ginsburg's litigation files. A revealing how-far-we've-come moment from 1970: One of Ginsburg's clients, Nora Simon, was a former Army nurse who was barred from further work in the military because she had been pregnant. "Under Army regulations a discharge for pregnancy renders a person ineligible for re-enlistment," Fred reports of the rules then. For Ginsburg, Simon's plight was personal. Five years earlier, as a professor at Rutgers without tenure, Ginsburg herself had gotten pregnant over the winter. Worried about whether her contract would be renewed, she said nothing about her pregnancy all spring, had her baby son in early September, and went right back to work. Tireless, indeed.

“Rule by Republican Hissy Fit”?

I’m a bit disappointed by President Obama’s rude expurgation of contraceptive planning from the “economic recovery package”—as we’re being asked to call the stimulus bill that’s working its way through Congress. Perhaps I’m just not down with all the euphemism on tap this week: Why not just call “Republican skepticism” here on the Hill what it is—an attempt to derail the future expansion of health coverage, couched in a puritanical queasiness with contraception. Lisa Lerer reports Minority leader John Boehner asking: “How can you spend millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?” Well, John—hot button-ness aside—birth control is a commodity bought and sold like any other.

I agree with EJ that in many cases (I felt this way about Rick Warren) progressives should attempt to see the forest, not the offending tree. But here, it’s not just a bunch of women begging for their crazy pills! The Democratic White House’s concession of rhetorical and political ground—about whether contraception (a better than average return on public investment) and other Medicaid assistance counts as “stimulus” or not—could have outsized effects on the future of the universal health coverage debate. Over at the Washington Independent, Lindsay Beyerstein makes roughly this point. Harold Pollack and Nicholas Beaudrot at TAP make it explicit: We’re now, the latter writes, subject to “rule by Republican hissy fit.”

Who knows whether it’s the public climate that requires lifting of the odious global gag rule to be done under cover of media darkness, or the lightweight status afforded to “women’s health” in general—but birth control represents an arm of the pharmaceutical industry that nets drugmakers over $5 billion annually—perhaps even in a recession. I imagine the investors of $5 billion in any other American industry could, presumably, expect some back-scratching, be it through money kicked into the search for a better product, or strenuous lobbying to ensure access to said product is available to American women—especially those planning families, and seeking “economic recovery” from the new Congress.

She Rented a Woman's Womb and Then Was Rude to the Landlady

Here's a post from Slate contributor Nina Shen Rastogi, who's having technical difficulties:

Susannah,

I think the galling thing about Kuczynski's Times piece wasn't her decision to have a child via gestational surrogacy—I think lots of people can relate to the intense desire to have a baby that's genetically related to you. (As Shakespeare noted ominously: "Die single"—i.e., childless—"and thine image dies with thee.") What was upsetting about the piece was her sheer tone-deafness. Take the following passage, for example:

When we came across Cathy's application, we saw that she was by far the most coherent and intelligent of the group. She wrote that she was happily married with three children. Her answers were not handwritten in the tiny allotted spaces; she had downloaded the original questionnaire and typed her responses at thoughtful length. Her attention to detail was heartening. And her computer-generated essay indicated, among other things, a certain level of competence. This gleaned morsel of information made me glad: she must live in a house with a computer and know how to use it.

A lower-income person who's "coherent" and knows how to type—gee, that's just like finding a mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy! Kuczynski just ends up seeming patronizingly elitist and sort of oblivious throughout the piece. I found myself wanting something deeper, more insightful—some real, felt evidence that the experience had actually taught her something. I would have also been happy with a nice middle-finger retort to anyone who would question her choices—but her faux-genteel, halfway-apologetic stance didn't fly with me. (Though I will say, I did really like this line on Page 8: "She could be seen as the fertile, glowing mother-to-be as well as the hemorrhoidal, flatulent, lumpen pregnant woman. I could be the erotic, perennially sensual nullipara, the childbirth virgin, and yet I was also the dried-up crone with a uterus full of twigs.")

But honestly, Kuczynski didn't have a chance in hell of winning my sympathy once I saw the accompanying photos. There's Cathy, the birth mother, literally barefoot and pregnant on a dirty porch. And then there's Kuczynski, looking regal in her neat separates, on the lawn of her sprawling Southampton home, while a black "baby nurse"—seriously, that's what the caption says—stands smartly at attention (but without pulling focus). Even the cover is a doozy—couldn't someone have ironed Cathy's khakis? Or at least told her to close her mouth?

Alex Kuczynski Rented Another Woman's Womb. So What?

In last weekend's New York Times Magazine, beauty writer, Botox fan, and Beauty Junkies author Alex Kuczynski writes about how, after she'd spent more than $100,000 on in vitro fertilization and suffered multiple miscarriages, she hired another woman to carry her baby for her. So far, there are more than 400 comments on the article, many written by women, most blasting Kuczynski for having the gall to rent a womb. You should have adopted! You're a spoiled brat! You're a kept woman who sees a baby as one more purchase! I say: Give her a break. She was infertile. She'd lost multiple babies in utero. She had the means—thanks to her writing career and her wealthy husband—to have her egg and her husband's sperm implanted into the womb of a woman who was willing to carry her baby for $25,000. I'm not sure what Kuczynski's bashers expected her to do. Follow their directions? Suffer silently so as not to offend anybody with her money? Do ... nothing? Something about this outpouring of female vitriol reminds me of the tarring and feathering of Sarah Palin. Maybe you don't agree with this woman's choices or that woman's beliefs, but who are you to deny her the choices that she has the right, power, or money to make? Sounds like envy to me.

Did Bristol Tie the Knot?

Cheering for Juno

Engaged and Underage

Linda's piece on Slate yesterday notes that the statistics on teen pregnancy show a grim reality for girls in Bristol Palin's situation. The numbers on teen marriage don't look much better. A 2001 study found:

If the wife was a teenager at first marriage, the marriage is much more likely to dissolve than if the wife was at least 20 years of age at marriage. ... After 10 years of marriage, 48 percent of marriages of women under age 18 years at marriage have disrupted compared with 40 percent of marriages of women who were 18-19 years of age at marriage, 29 percent of marriages of women who were 20-24 years of age at marriage, and 24 percent of marriages of women at least 25 years of age at marriage.

So will those wedding bells ring when Bristol's 17 or 18? It might make a difference. Of course, quickie marriages can work—see Rachael's parents' story below.

But how's this for unfair? We're discussing the odds that someone in Bristol's circumstances will end up broke, uneducated, and divorced, while everyone's drooling over her boyfriend. A New York blogger calls him "sex on skates." The New York Daily News rhapsodizes about "the handsome teen with a light dusting of whiskers on his chin—his dark brown hair curly and wet," calling him "ruggedly handsome" and "broad-chested." I guess I'm the only one who can't get past his almost-mullet.

 Update: The almost-mullet is gone! The McCain-Palin campaign must have made Levi get a haircut before letting him on the plane to Minnesota.

Palin and Cheney

Slate spouse Nora Krug sends in this guest post to XX Factor:

Of course, Bristol Palin is not the first vice-presidential child to be pregnant out of wedlock. That honor goes to Mary Cheney. (Perhaps this is something the GOP vetting committee looks for?)

But at least Bristol is allowed to get married.

The Palin Paradox

Why 9/11 Means More Daughters

If a woman's stressed during pregnancy will she not have a son? A piece in the new issue of the Economist suggests a connection between maternal stress and a baby's gender. Here's the theory: First World women are 5 percent more likely to have a male child than their counterparts in developing countries, but that gap's been closing lately. That could be because women under stress are more likely to give birth to girls. A few studies have shown that women are more likely to have girls when they conceive in war zones, right after natural disasters, or after the loss of a loved one. One tempting bit of association: Fewer baby boys were born to New York City mothers who got pregnant the week after the Sept. 11 attacks.    

I wonder how this fits into our discussion on evo pysch. A Danish scientist who's researched the effects of chronic stress on reduced male birth rates (as opposed to stress brought on by a catastrophic event), suggests that the reasons for stressed mothers having fewer boys "might be adaptive" because

the chances are that a daughter who reaches adulthood will find a mate and thus produce grandchildren. A son is a different matter. Healthy, strapping sons are likely to produce lots of grandchildren, by several women-or would have done in the hunter-gatherer societies in which most human evolution took place. Weak ones would be marginalised and maybe even killed in the cut and thrust of male competition. If a mother's stress adversely affects the development of her fetus (as it is likely to do) then selectively aborting boys, rather than wasting time and resources on bringing them to term, would make evolutionary sense.

The "cut and thrust of male competition?"  I hear echoes of Dana's monkey-men.