Made in Chelsea #3

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Sorry if I've got the formatting wrong to quote a post, I'm new here haha

The way Ollie and Gareth speak about the surrogate is grim. The words they use and their tone/body language is so detached it's as if they're talking about an object. It comes across as though she's just an incubator and not an actual human being who is going through an incredibly physically and emotionally draining process for their benefit. It worries me because paid surrogacy is so open to exploitation. (I don't mean to say that all paid surrogacy is bad, I know it's not. But it does carry a risk of poor women being exploited by it, and the detached way O&G talk about their surrogate is just...IDK it feels a bit red flaggy to me. Could just be the way it's been edited for TV though of course, but they never sounded like they were talking about an actual person)
Totally agree and I really don't think it's just how it's been edited for MIC or anything like that because even on their social media pages it comes across very "we've bought everything else and we've got married so let's buy this now"
 
They won't be long coming back down to earth when they are up all night, and covered in puke and poop. It's a humbling experience 😁
I thought it was quite interesting they chose the American route. Its has many benefits and they aren't short of the money to go that way.
the US lets the UK parents be the legal parents automatically or by following a few simple legal steps so they are the legal parents of the baby straight away which is good to avoid difficulties post birth with the technical mother if the surrogate tries to keep parental responsibility for the baby. Whereas the surrogate mother is regarded as the legal mother in the UK regardless of the child’s genetic origins. I do hope ollie and Gareth appreciate how lucky they are I'm happy they will have a baby etc but I agree I feel like they just see the surrogate as a prized cow rather than a person. But than again some women do this to make money. It's a complicated area.
 
I think they’re detached from it because so much can still go wrong and surrogacy has become so much more watertight via the law which is why people go to the US, if any of you are interested look up on YouTube tom Daley and Lance on LBC and why they decided to go to the US. I think they say the female because that’s how they see it, not because she’s not important because she is but she isn’t the intended parents so maybe saying mother isn’t the narrative they want to set out. It’s tricky because the UK is very different
 
Not interested in it really, in the same way I’m not particularly interested in other people’s journey to be become a parent. However I would say I can see what you mean re detachment; in my opinion it’s not a kind of self preservation detachment but one of a dismissal to the female who is literally enabling them to make this journey. Like the Diver and his partner - they literally never refer to the fact that there is/was & has/had to be a woman involved. I further explain my point in my previous post I made about the subject.
 
Like the Diver and his partner - they literally never refer to the fact that there is/was & has/had to be a woman involved. I further explain my point in my previous post I made about the subject.
If you watch the LBC interview they do and explain what her role is now
 
Not interested in it really, in the same way I’m not particularly interested in other people’s journey to be become a parent. However I would say I can see what you mean re detachment; in my opinion it’s not a kind of self preservation detachment but one of a dismissal to the female who is literally enabling them to make this journey. Like the Diver and his partner - they literally never refer to the fact that there is/was & has/had to be a woman involved. I further explain my point in my previous post I made about the subject.
I agree. You don't have to call the woman baring the child the mother or parent etc. but to refer to her as simply "the female" or anything else equally dehumanising is disgusting, imo. Even "the woman carrying our child" is better. Just to completely ignore the fact a woman was involved doesn't dismiss that they were. It's one thing to take the parental roles etc. out of things but it's a totally different thing to treat the women involved like they're just breeding stock and nothing more.
 
I agree. You don't have to call the woman baring the child the mother or parent etc. but to refer to her as simply "the female" or anything else equally dehumanising is disgusting, imo. Even "the woman carrying our child" is better. Just to completely ignore the fact a woman was involved doesn't dismiss that they were. It's one thing to take the parental roles etc. out of things but it's a totally different thing to treat the women involved like they're just breeding stock and nothing more.

I agree with you and @Sliceofpizza.

I personally think the use of 'female', especially when used in a situation where 'man' comes up right afterward could be considered a bit dehumanizing/annoying and I notice that some people (usually men) do this a lot, i.e. "...These females don't know a good man when they see one."

I also don't want to get political but I am noticing discussions on the removal of woman personhood through language in ways not done to man's personhood for the purposes of reproductive inclusion regarding trans rights. I won't get into it because again politics.

I remember being in school studying in my social sciences degree and the argument kept being made that "words are not important" but also "that language and words have meaning". I have come across some academic writing and pop culture writings that advocate referring to women as "persons with a uterus"/ "persons with a vagina", etc. to promote inclusion on what womanhood means to different people. I don't have anything against inclusion, but it made and makes me a bit uncomfortable and kind of screams of misogyny (which is already so normalized) and of relegating a woman to her reproductive parts and property/ back to earlier historical periods where women were often regulated to the private sphere as vessels for childbearing and rearing.

And to be honest, I was raised being told using the words 'male' or 'female' referring to human men and women, (my mother a stickler for old school grammar) was not considered grammatically correct. I think that has changed now but old school grammar says that woman is a noun while 'female' is an adjective. Sometimes nouns and adjectives come together, but usually, an adjective should not be used as a noun. In English when 'female' is used as a noun it is often in a derogatory fashion more often than it is not.
 
Bloody hell you lot are far too intelligent 🤣. I watch mic because my tired brain can just about keep up with the intelligence level 🤣.

No, in all seriousness, I dont want to get in to politics but I agree. And to be thought of as merely a spawn vessel is disgusting.

And didn't ollie and Garreth just buy another dog? Strange time to buy one. I guess apart from a baby, dog no.2 was next on the shopping list.

Did anyone see Louise's reel on ig re. Different outfits for tv programmes? Her face looks just like maeva.
I thought maeva had taken her face to the surgeon and asked for the louise!!
 
Doesn’t Sam live in Fulham..?

Yeah I do agree with what has been said about the use of the word ‘female’ to describe the woman carrying O&G’s baby. It is slightly dismissive and dehumanising. I think I would even prefer ‘our surrogate’ to ‘female’, words are important. However, I am an Ollie & Gareth fan and I do like them as a couple.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top