Jamie Chung used a surrogate because being pregnant might hurt her career

[Anonymous]

I think there is a generational gap here. I'm in my early 30s (as are most of my friends), and we all think Jamie is justified in her decision. The idea that women/mothers needed to sacrifice their bodies and careers for their children is really antiquated and misogynistic. At a time when women prefer and are expected to work, there is nothing wrong with prioritizing your financial independence.

[Anonymous]

I found pregnancy to be a small blimp in terms of inconvenience- it’s the raising of kids that truly makes things inconvenient! Hope she can outsource that as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a generational gap here. I'm in my early 30s (as are most of my friends), and we all think Jamie is justified in her decision. The idea that women/mothers needed to sacrifice their bodies and careers for their children is really antiquated and misogynistic. At a time when women prefer and are expected to work, there is nothing wrong with prioritizing your financial independence.

Feds on DCUM have platinum health benefits and the most generous paid maternity leave. Nobody in DC is sacrificing anything. It's a cope by hags to justify wasting their prime.

[Anonymous]

I detest all the negative talk about women "wasting their prime" and "outsourcing". We are not baby-making, childrearing machines! And being a mother is not our only goal in life. If women want genuine gender equality, we need to stop repeating these damaging discourses.

[Anonymous]

I don't get the argument against outsourcing though - seems like a major conservative viewpoint? You want women to have more babies, are you just upset that you think women like you are being 'used'? If pregnancy is so easy for them, what's the harm? Or is it not as easy as you're protesting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a generational gap here. I'm in my early 30s (as are most of my friends), and we all think Jamie is justified in her decision. The idea that women/mothers needed to sacrifice their bodies and careers for their children is really antiquated and misogynistic. At a time when women prefer and are expected to work, there is nothing wrong with prioritizing your financial independence.

Feds on DCUM have platinum health benefits and the most generous paid maternity leave. Nobody in DC is sacrificing anything. It's a cope by hags to justify wasting their prime.

Federal government workers only make up a small percentage of the actual workforce to keep D.C. running. On top of that it just started in 2019 thanks to Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a generational gap here. I'm in my early 30s (as are most of my friends), and we all think Jamie is justified in her decision. The idea that women/mothers needed to sacrifice their bodies and careers for their children is really antiquated and misogynistic. At a time when women prefer and are expected to work, there is nothing wrong with prioritizing your financial independence.

As a Gen X working mom, I weep for the future.

This sort of thinking is terrible. It’s as if all the kids who got a medal and juice box for showing up and never had to hustle because their helicopter parents ensured a perfect life now believe they are entitled to certain things. Good parents prioritize parenting; sacrifice comes with the territory.

Instead of alleging we have antiquated thinking, perhaps think about how surrogacy and outsourcing actual parenting is a lot like medieval England or the American antebellum south.

The “financial independence” bit tracks with younger generations who anticipate divorce and seem incapable of commitment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a generational gap here. I'm in my early 30s (as are most of my friends), and we all think Jamie is justified in her decision. The idea that women/mothers needed to sacrifice their bodies and careers for their children is really antiquated and misogynistic. At a time when women prefer and are expected to work, there is nothing wrong with prioritizing your financial independence.

As a Gen X working mom, I weep for the future.

This sort of thinking is terrible. It’s as if all the kids who got a medal and juice box for showing up and never had to hustle because their helicopter parents ensured a perfect life now believe they are entitled to certain things. Good parents prioritize parenting; sacrifice comes with the territory.

Instead of alleging we have antiquated thinking, perhaps think about how surrogacy and outsourcing actual parenting is a lot like medieval England or the American antebellum south.

The “financial independence” bit tracks with younger generations who anticipate divorce and seem incapable of commitment.

Im in my mid 30s and think the above poster is unknowingly playing into a caste system without advocating for more support of working women. They are playing into the idea that pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing are inconveniences and have no place in modern society except for those who need the money more than they worry about inconvenience.

I have an issue with anyone who promotes that they have PPD but weren't pregnant. Postpartum means you were pregnant. You've just got depression and sleep deprivation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found pregnancy to be a small blimp in terms of inconvenience- it’s the raising of kids that truly makes things inconvenient! Hope she can outsource that as well.

This is my issue with her story. Being pregnant for 10 months + the postpartum period is just so inconvenient for her career that she has to have another woman carry her child — but what does she think will happen when the child is actually here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a generational gap here. I'm in my early 30s (as are most of my friends), and we all think Jamie is justified in her decision. The idea that women/mothers needed to sacrifice their bodies and careers for their children is really antiquated and misogynistic. At a time when women prefer and are expected to work, there is nothing wrong with prioritizing your financial independence.

As a Gen X working mom, I weep for the future.

This sort of thinking is terrible. It’s as if all the kids who got a medal and juice box for showing up and never had to hustle because their helicopter parents ensured a perfect life now believe they are entitled to certain things. Good parents prioritize parenting; sacrifice comes with the territory.

Instead of alleging we have antiquated thinking, perhaps think about how surrogacy and outsourcing actual parenting is a lot like medieval England or the American antebellum south.

The “financial independence” bit tracks with younger generations who anticipate divorce and seem incapable of commitment.

Correct. I posted earlier that I think surrogacy in this case is unethical, and the above is why. And I also think the above poster probably has little to no idea what is involved/how complicated it is/the expense.

There's a reason it's considered a last resort - are you really telling me that as a healthy woman capable of conceiving and carrying your own children that you are going to pay $100k per kid, possibly not be the legal mother at birth, and then own all the publicly. Plus, this point of view indicates not really understanding children or what it means to raise one. It's very gross and disordered thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I detest all the negative talk about women "wasting their prime" and "outsourcing". We are not baby-making, childrearing machines! And being a mother is not our only goal in life. If women want genuine gender equality, we need to stop repeating these damaging discourses.

I'll agree with this, but I also think what Jamie Chung did was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found pregnancy to be a small blimp in terms of inconvenience- it’s the raising of kids that truly makes things inconvenient! Hope she can outsource that as well.

This is my issue with her story. Being pregnant for 10 months + the postpartum period is just so inconvenient for her career that she has to have another woman carry her child — but what does she think will happen when the child is actually here?

Maybe her husband really wanted kids, but she didn’t because of her disordered thinking about pregnancy, weight, etc. and he suggested surrogacy as a compromise or even an ultimatum?

Maybe the grandparents are raising the kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a generational gap here. I'm in my early 30s (as are most of my friends), and we all think Jamie is justified in her decision. The idea that women/mothers needed to sacrifice their bodies and careers for their children is really antiquated and misogynistic. At a time when women prefer and are expected to work, there is nothing wrong with prioritizing your financial independence.

Feds on DCUM have platinum health benefits and the most generous paid maternity leave. Nobody in DC is sacrificing anything. It's a cope by hags to justify wasting their prime.

Feds just got maternity and paternity leave a couple of years ago. The health insurance is far from platinum. Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a generational gap here. I'm in my early 30s (as are most of my friends), and we all think Jamie is justified in her decision. The idea that women/mothers needed to sacrifice their bodies and careers for their children is really antiquated and misogynistic. At a time when women prefer and are expected to work, there is nothing wrong with prioritizing your financial independence.

Feds on DCUM have platinum health benefits and the most generous paid maternity leave. Nobody in DC is sacrificing anything. It's a cope by hags to justify wasting their prime.

Feds just got maternity and paternity leave a couple of years ago. The health insurance is far from platinum. Carry on.

AND dual feds can only take (1) 12 week or split it amongst the two of them, which is surprisingly idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with people saying she is a nobody. She's not that well known of an actress, for sure, but she's worked enough and has enough of a presence to have 1.5 million followers on insta, which means she can make good money posting. She gets a lot of paid appearance gigs. It's obvious from her social media and features in magazines and stuff.

It's not the 90s anymore. A lot actresses make a ton of money not acting but through social, appearances, etc.

I don't have an opinion on the whole surrogacy thing one way or the other cause I just don't know care enough about this situation to ponder it, but saying she doesn't have a career just case you don't know what she's up to isn't accurate.

Tons of nobodies are TikTok or Insta famous and get paid. A million followers isn’t really a lot. It doesn’t make them celebs, and it certainly doesn’t prompt them to go the surrogacy route to protect their “career.”

If only one or two people on dcum recognized her name, then she isn’t truly famous.

Her surrogacy and ppd stories smack of a desperate pr move.

She’s trying really hard to make fetch happen.

I think her lack of notoriety actually makes her more likely to be accommodating to shooting schedules and saying yes to any project that came up. Scarlett Johannsen refused to walk the red carpet for her own major franchise movie while heavily pregnant. That was a choice she made. Someone like Jamie Chung wouldn't have had that choice. She needs to be available whatever the cost in order to secure the next contract.

Wasn’t her last gig a teeny tiny role on the Dexter reboot?

I’m not sure that’s a legit career.

I mean, Caitriona Balfe was able to do sex scenes while heavily pregnant shooting the last season of Outlander.

Remember soap operas? Remember all the big purses Kristian Alfonso carried when not standing behind a tall chair or potted plant?

Honestly, I think her biggest concern should be her giant forehead and thinning hairline.

Its a career because Hollywood is more than just the lead actor or actress. There's something called a cast.

Hollywood will accommodate (sometimes) a lead character who is in every episode. The friend of the friend of the main character who is an avid hiker and just shows up every 4th episode however can just be re-cast easily.

Since she clearly has a hang up with her body/weight, I bet she easily could have been one of those gals who only gains 18 lbs while pregnant and never wears maternity clothes.

This “issue” was in her head.

Asian women have smaller builds and I don't think she would have liked her post-partum body (no one does). Nothing wrong with wanting to avoid sagging everything.

Her unwillingness to carry a child because she didn’t want to potentially sag or potentially impact her career speaks volumes about her character and mental health.

Plenty of celebs have babies and their bodies bounce back.

Plenty of non-celebs with unhealthy body issues take drastic steps to only gain 20lbs (if that) and immediately start dieting afterwards.

Her rationale for surrogacy is next level cray-cray.

If you're jealous that you don't have the $$ and ended up full of tiger stripes, just admit it.