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

[Anonymous]

Never heard of this actress

[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.

The fed maternity benefits began in 2020 so most of us here didn’t have access to that when we had babies. We got 12 weeks FMLA and could use up our sick and vacation time for that if we wanted to get paid. A lot of companies have much better benefits.

[Anonymous]

She has no career and she's like 40 years old, thus she will never have a career. She's a deluded nut.

[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?

To be fair, they had twins which probably wouldn't have happened naturally for her (and given her build, not a good candidate for carrying twins). So if you want two kids you technically have to say 20 months + postpartum, which is what I think she was getting out when she said 2+ years.

I'm not justifying her choice, just pointing out the surrogate did have twins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has no career and she's like 40 years old, thus she will never have a career. She's a deluded nut.

I mean she has a career. She's not Reece Witherspoon, but she has a career.

[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.

DP. Idk about all that. I’m also in my early 30s and think it’s kind of sick for privileged women to feel entitled to an underclass of poor women to literally carry their children for them. These surrogates don’t even make that much money! Less than six figures for nine months of pregnancy.