Who needs a man, when you can make your own mixed superbaby?
BS
A recent New York Times article discusses the current situation of single mothers by choice and their options in sperm donors. One woman discussed her desire to find a sperm donor of a different race:
She was also attracted by the idea of a donor of another race. ‘I believe in multiculturalism,’ she said. ‘I would probably choose somebody with a darker skin color so I don’t have to slather sunblock on my kid all the time. I want it to be a healthy mix. You know how mixed dogs are always the nicest and the friendliest and the healthiest? If you get a clear race, they have all the problems. Mutts are always the friendly ones, the intelligent ones, the ones who don’t bark and have a good character. I want a mutt.’
Okay first I have issues with her referring to her future baby as an “it.” That’s not cool. I also don’t appreciate being compared to a dog. Also, her quote seems as if she’s trying to create a novelty baby. We’ve had plenty of discussions regarding transracial adoption and hoping that people are not intending to adopt “exotic” children. I recognize that this is not usually the case and that there are plenty of single parents with mixed children not by choice, so why should I deny single parents by choice the right to have a mixed child? I suppose it’s the motive. It goes back to this whole generalization that “mixed is attractive,” without considering all the negative as well as positive factors that come with being a mixed race person. She thinks her child will be healthier if the child is mixed? Just today I was ranting to a colleague that sometimes I get frustrated that I have all this supposed “hybrid vigor” and yet I have so much eczema (my mom’s side) and I’ll eventually have impending health problems (type 2 diabetes on both sides). To desire a mixed child so that you don’t have to put sunblock just seems ridiculous, and frankly I’m disappointed that the New York Times, which I consider to be a publication with high standards, would publish such a quote.
So should single mothers by choice be obligated to choose a sperm donor of similar ethnic origin? Of course not. It’s natural for parents seeking outside genetic sources (sperm and/or egg donors) to look for qualities like good health history, intelligence, artistic ability, and even superficial qualities like height and weight, similar to what you would look for in a potential mate. This is the point; you should choose a genetic source the same way you would choose a mate and definitely not to create a novel superchild. Is it just me or does this smell of utopia?
mtevc wrote:
can we find her and steal her baby away and raise it for her, before she damages the “it”…sheesh…it, mutt, dog, can you think of a nice way to say thing and not human baby
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 11:21 am ¶
Rubberbiegeman wrote:
Hmmm, I think I just threw up in my mouth.
Wait, yeah, I did.
I think we pretty much have to steal her kid now.
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 12:16 pm ¶
the joy princess wrote:
OMG! She is 360 degrees of ignorant! Everybody should NOT be allowed to have kids all willy nilly!!!
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 12:32 pm ¶
SusanC wrote:
I agree that this woman’s reasons for having a “superbaby” are so not cool. And just because you have darker skin doesn’t mean you don’t have to use sunblock…
While I have been know in the past to call myself a mutt, it’s another thing to have someone else (especially a non-mutt) call you that. I don’t really think you can make the correlation of mixed dog = healthier/smarter/nicer dog, therefore, mixed human = healthier/smarter/nicer human, seeing as the health and mental issues attributed to purebred dogs is usually the result of extensive inbreeding. I highly doubt that the majority of the human population has that problem.
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 12:47 pm ¶
justin wrote:
Recently there has been afew newspaper articles in NZ about this scientist who wants people to be made aware of their sperm donors sexuality, because of “gay genes”. I really would like to see the world where people are not aloud to know a sperm donors race.
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 12:56 pm ¶
Marsha wrote:
“You know how mixed dogs are always the nicest and the friendliest and the healthiest? If you get a clear race, they have all the problems. Mutts are always the friendly ones, the intelligent ones, the ones who don’t bark and have a good character. I want a mutt.’”
OK- I almost threw up on my keyboard after reading that! Comparing mixed race people to “mutts” is about the most racist sh*t I have heard in years!!! You know how I keep bringing up on MMW about the fact that some (but not all) white people think that being “ethnic” and “exotic” is cool? Well, I think this is just a perfect example of that attitude. I have no idea if it is the fact that some white Americans feel like they don’t have a culture or that their culture is empty or bland and think other cultures are just so older and “cool”. “Clear race” I’ll have to remember that one too.
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 1:30 pm ¶
bertie wrote:
Well–since this “lady” enjoys the canine comparisons and euphamisms so much, all I can say to her is “bitch shut up”
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 2:23 pm ¶
eva wrote:
I have to say that this is just a worrisome attitude for anyone to have, not only because we are in a country where there is so much knowledge that is available yet the ignorance level of some members of society is quite mind boggling. I agree that I about puked when I read the article in the times and I was very much relieved to find that I was not the only one that took rather personally her banter, and to say that mixed children do not need sun block, that’s a laugh and a half right there and anyone who is mixed will candidly agree that that’s pretty hilarious and extremely ignorant on her part. I hope that that baby grows up into normalcy cause with a mother like that, there will be issues, since he or she will be viewed as this “Ethnic or exotic creature, animal , or in her own words, an IT”
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 3:50 pm ¶
P.Moore wrote:
What’s more disturbing to me is the fact that this kid will be brought up a single, clearly racist (racism, by definition [according to Hirschman], is believing that one race [in this case ‘mixed’/'mutt’/'ignorant term here’] is better than another by virtue of one’s biology - made highly popular around the time Darwinism took hold), uni-gendered environment in which the mother is a crank. I’d rather not get into the issue of women choosing to have children on their own without a male influence around, as divorce is just barely less likely to turn a woman into a single mother, but I worry with all my heart for the child that she will have.
No one mentioned the fact that more than anything, the issue of a child growing up with identity problems will result from a cracked out mother like this woman. It’s already hard enough being biracial as it is (and don’t give me that anti-tragic-mullato mumbo jumbo: we all have moments in our lives where we seek to define ourselves within the context of race, often times leading to mixed people being angry/confused/apathetic/race-blind, etc.) and with a Hitler-esque woman who wants to start breeding nice ‘mutts’, this only spells trouble.
I’m not down for limiting the freedoms of people, but we need to make it harder for people to have kids. For starters, by giving them a f*cking personality test.
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 5:19 pm ¶
Daniel wrote:
Clearly, the woman in question is ridiculous, bordering on ignorant and blatantly stupid. Then again, this is from the NY Times. The NY Times is hardly a bastion of truth and justice in Journalism. Nobody should be surprised when they read questionable stories in its pages. I think she should have just gotten pregnant the old fashioned way, unless she has some fertility issue. It seems odd that she would want to have a mixed baby but have no desire to engage in “mixed” copulation. I hate to be so critical when she is not here to defend herself, but really, what an idiot!
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 5:59 pm ¶
Merq wrote:
“Clearly, the woman in question is ridiculous, bordering on ignorant and blatantly stupid.”
nah, dude. she crossed that border eons ago. I’ve said it before; I’ll say it again: people should be required to earn a licence before being allowed to raise a child.
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 9:30 pm ¶
eva wrote:
And I agree that there will definitely be identity issues, even when you are brought up in a family with both races present, there is still that struggle to find where you fit into society, needless to say a child raised in this kind of environment, i truly hope and pray that somehow there is an intervention that either strips her ignorance and candid stupidity off her or the baby is taken away from her and placed in a more healthy environment, hopefully the former rather than the later will transpire here
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 11:22 pm ¶
Tony Comstock wrote:
Our dog are pure-bred, and they’re nicer, smarter, and healthier than yours. So are our kids.
Posted 23 Mar 2006 at 7:55 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Merq:
I’ve said that same thing, with one change… we shouldn’t be in the business (we meaning society) of telling people how to reproduce…
But somethings in society - say, tax write-offs per child? - are not inalienable human rights…
So you can have kids/raise kids if you wish to, but if you want to claim them on your taxes, you have to keep your (free, publicly available, easy access) parenting class certification up to date.
Posted 23 Mar 2006 at 4:11 pm ¶
MizuWari wrote:
So she wants a darker baby thru sperm donation…maybe bypassing the negative aspects of having IR sex with a “darker man.”
gotta love what people REALLY mean underneath all the semantics, eh?
Posted 24 Mar 2006 at 8:44 am ¶
Darla wrote:
Should a woman with these blatant prejudices be allowed children? It’s one thing if she chooses to reproduce naturally but to be seeking out “supernatural” sperm. . .aren’t there dangerous reprocussions for a child who is held on a pedestal to ideals s/he cannot possible live up to? And what about that white child in the picture. Will he grow up wondering if mommy hates him because she has to “slather him up” with sunblock? Will the “dark child” also grow up hating his/her mother because while she dotes on the lighter child by protecting them from the sun s/he is allowed to burn and get skin cancer simply because their mother is an idiot?
A friend of mine is going through great lengths to adopt– she has to pretty much write her autobiography, get papers signed, resigned, notorized, checked and double checked and every inch of their personal life, morals and values are being questioned and probed. . .
They are the kindest, gentlest most deserving parents I know. why then is it so easy for women like this one to get what she wants?
Posted 24 Mar 2006 at 12:40 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Why do the women in these articles get what they want?
I read the whole article (not just the race-obsessed one), and they all come across as upper to upper middle, professional, selfish women.
They also come across as not a little emotionally stunted and somehow scared by a relationship or something.
Really, probably just the artistic license of the reporter (maybe to get just the reaction we’ve all had here), because I know lots of comfortable professional older women who want to have kids and DON”T come across this way. It’s a disservice to those who do adopt or make a choice to otherwise raise a child as a single parent. They’re not all nutcases, but this article makes them so.
Posted 25 Mar 2006 at 9:21 am ¶
communicatrix wrote:
Intrigued by your post and the attendant comments, I went back and read the entire NY Times article, too.
I have my own issues with both artificial insemination and single women choosing to be parents, and I’m sure that’s part of the reason that all—yes, all—of the women in this article come across to me as unbelievably entitled and solipsistic and all the rest that too often seems to accompany membership in the upper-middle class.
However, having read the full article, I’d like to point out a couple of things.
First, the woman being quoted is not the woman in the picture. Not that I’m so all-fire thrilled with our poster girl, but it doesn’t seem fair holding her up to extra vilification for something she didn’t do.
Second, the woman being quoted (”Daniela”) is a native German, meaning English is not her native language, nor is American English her vernacular. In my experience, while the English spoken by young (
Posted 25 Mar 2006 at 5:22 pm ¶
Daisy wrote:
After reading this article I find it strange that no-one mentions the African American woman who wants a Latino sperm donor so that her kids can have lighter skin and non kinky hair… But at the same time asserting that her child will be African American because the child would get this from her…
Posted 27 Mar 2006 at 5:26 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Daisy:
I saw that too - didn’t add specifics to my post because I was tyring to figure out what all the women had in common.
Yes, that woman scares me. She obviously has internalized the “good” hair/light skin is better” crap. She doesn’t say that she wants a diverse child or mixed child (Although that comes w/ its own brand of fetishization, of course). AND she is stupid to assume that 1) children get a 50/50 equal share of genetics, 2) phenotype = genotype, and 3) as a result of 1 and 2 (both false) that the child would automatically have a nice 50/50 split between her features (whatever they are, since African-American tells me nothing) and “Latino” features (whatever they are, since the diversity w/in the Latino population can also mean anything).
And one-droppism on top of all of that? Oh god.
Posted 03 Apr 2006 at 8:00 am ¶
Harbinger wrote:
What a crock!
The real issue here is about sexism, not racism. Sure, she may sympathize for people of color but, her main issue here is her personal suffering from sexual discrimination by some man or men in her life. Most likely her father but, could be an exhusband or her boss or just white men in general. Having a mixed baby is just her way of abusing herself to mocking and/or punishing him or them.
Posted 11 May 2006 at 7:30 pm ¶
jamesesq wrote:
No need to throw up. I think that the woman is trying to be cool in her own way and is a bit careless in her choice of words.
We understand what she really means to say
Posted 12 May 2006 at 4:27 pm ¶
James wrote:
Stealing babies!
What utter rot!
You are worse than a mutt.
Writing such rubbish is enough to make anyone throw-up!
Posted 13 May 2006 at 3:20 am ¶
Keira wrote:
WHAT
SILLY SLA*G
KIDS NEED BOTH PARENTS
A WHITE WOMEN TO HAVE ANOTHER RACE BABY BECAUSE SHE WANTS ONE, IS SICK.
I HAVE A BABY GIRL, AND I AM WITH HER DAD, HE IS BLACK AFRICAN, SO I KNOW HOW TO LOOK AFTER HER PROPERLY.
OIF COURSE YOU NEED BLOODY SUN BLOCK/CREAM.
BLACK/ASIAN…… ETC ALL NEED THEIR OWN RACE AND CULTURE AROUND THEM (FFAMILY) BECAUSE THEY NEED TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE FROM, AND THEY JUST NEED IT, UNONDITIONAL LOVE FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE FAMILY.
JUST LIKE WHITES ETC.
I CANT BELIEVE HOW PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO HAVE BABIES, BECAUSE OF THEIR COLOUR, IT IS JUST DISGUSTING.
SILLY COW
Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 8:25 am ¶