CommentPlus: pick of the papers

The ten must-read pieces from this morning's papers

1. Stephen Byers and the sad ghost of New Labour (Times)

Byers's fall from grace mirrors that of his party, writes David Aaronovitch. As New Labour was "intensely relaxed" about people getting "filthy rich", it is not surprising that Byers sought to profit himself.

2. Little has changed since the scandals of the Nineties (Independent)

Meanwhile, in the Independent, Antony Barnett recalls the first "cash for access" scandal in 1998, and says that little has changed in the murky world of political lobbying.

3. Only America can end Britain's Trident folly (Guardian)

Britain's "independent nuclear deterrent" is neither independent nor a deterrent, says George Monbiot. Yet only when the US dismantles its own Trident missiles will the UK consider doing so.

Read the full CommentPlus summary

4. Britain has bigger problems than the unions (Financial Times)

The Conservatives' recent talk of militant trade unionists is a distraction from the real challenges facing Britain, argues Philip Stephens. The number of working days lost to strike action is a fraction of those lost during the 1970s.

5. Anyone got an idea for the Labour manifesto? (Times)

Labour is struggling to think of affordable manifesto pledges and there are growing tensions over which policies to include, writes Rachel Sylvester. The party must work harder to prove it has not run out of ideas.

Read the full CommentPlus summary

6. Labour's cupboard is bare, apart from the three rattling skeletons (Daily Telegraph)

Warming to the same theme, Mary Riddell writes that Labour could be finished off by this week. The lobbying scandal, a troubled Budget and industrial unrest form the triple onslaught that could destroy the party's election hopes.

Read the full CommentPlus summary

7. Darling prepares for his ultimate test (Independent)

Turning to tomorrow's Budget, Steve Richards says that Alistair Darling faces the biggest test in his long and extraordinary ministerial career. He must deliver an authoritative economic message but also keep his desperate party in the game.

Read the full CommentPlus summary

8. Obama's bounce changes the world (Financial Times)

President Obama's success over health-care reform will undermine the cartoon image of America as a country where big business ruthlessly exploits the poor, says Gideon Rachman.

Read the full CommentPlus summary

9. If this is modernity, let me stay in the public sector cave (Guardian)

New Labour's programme of "modernisation" in the public sector has marginalised the first-hand experience of workers, argues Joe Moran.

10. You've made a fortune -- now let it go (Daily Telegraph)

The example of Albert Gubay, who has given away all but £10m of his £480m fortune, should be emulated, writes Christopher Howse. There are positive social and religious reasons for giving your wealth away.

Read the full CommentPlus summary

Sign up now to CommentPlus for the pick of the day's opinion, comment and analysis in your inbox at 8am, every weekday.

A woman in an Indian surrogacy hostel. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Handmaid's Tale has already come true - just not for white western women

Why, if the fate of the fictional Offred is so horrifying, is the fate of real-life women in surrogacy hostels causing so little outrage?

When anti-choice Republican Justin Humphrey referred to pregnant women as “hosts”, I found myself wondering, not for the first time, whether everything had got “a bit Handmaid’s Tale.”

I’m not alone in having had this thought. Since Donald Trump won the US election, sales of Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel have spiked and we’ve seen a plethora of articles telling us how “eerily relevant [it] is to our current political landscape.” In an interview during Cuba’s international book fair, Atwood herself said she believes the recent “bubbling up” of regressive attitudes towards women is linked to The Handmaid’s Tale’s current success: “It’s back to 17th-century puritan values of New England at that time in which women were pretty low on the hierarchy … you can think you are being a liberal democracy but then — bang — you’re Hitler’s Germany.”

Scary stuff. Still, at least most present-day readers can reassure themselves that they’ve not arrived in the Republic of Gilead just yet.

For those who have not yet read it, The Handmaid’s Tale tells the story of Offred, who lives under a theocratic dictatorship in what used to be the United States of America. White, middle-class and college-educated, Offred once enjoyed a significant degree of privilege, but now belongs to a class of women whose sole purpose is to gestate offspring for high-status couples. Much of the shock value of the story comes from the contrast between Offred’s former life – in which she had a name of her own - and her present-day existence. If this can happen to someone like Offred, it is suggested, surely it can happen to any of us.

Or so that is what a white, middle-class reader – a reader like me – might tell herself. Recently I’ve started to wonder whether that’s strictly true. It can be reassuring to stick to one narrative, one type of baddie – the religious puritan, the pussy-grabbing president, the woman-hating Right. But what if it’s more complicated than that? There’s something about the current wallowing in Atwood’s vision that strikes me as, if not self-indulgent, then at the very least naive.

In 1985, the same year The Handmaid’s Tale was published, Gina Correa published The Mother Machine. This was not a work of dystopian fiction, but a feminist analysis of the impact of reproductive technologies on women’s liberties. Even so, there are times when it sounds positively Handmaid’s Tale-esque:

“Once embryo transfer technology is developed, the surrogate industry could look for breeders – not only in poverty-stricken parts of the United States, but in the Third World as well. There, perhaps, one tenth of the current fee could be paid to women”

Perhaps, at the time her book was written, Correa’s imaginings sounded every bit as dark and outlandish as Atwood’s. And yet she has been proved right. Today there are parts of the world in which renting the womb of a poor woman is indeed ten times cheaper than in the US. The choice of wealthy white couples to implant embryos in the bodies of brown women is seen, not as colonialist exploitation, but as a neutral consumer choice. I can’t help wondering why, if the fate of the fictional Offred is so horrifying to western feminists today, the fate of real-life women in surrogacy hostels is causing so little outrage.

I suppose the main argument of these feminists would be that real-life women choose to be surrogates, whereas Offred does not. But is the distinction so clear? If Offred refuses to work as a handmaid, she may be sent to the Colonies, where life expectancy is short. Yet even this is a choice of sorts. As she herself notes, “nothing is going on here that I haven't signed up for. There wasn't a lot of choice but there was some, and this is what I chose.” In the real world, grinding poverty drives women of colour to gestate the babies of the wealthy. As one Indian surrogate tells interviewer Seemi Pasha, “Why would I be a surrogate for someone else if I don't need the money? Why would I make myself go through this pain?"

None of the feminists who expressed shock at Justin Humphrey referring to pregnant women as “hosts” have, as far as I am aware, expressed the same horror at surrogacy agencies using the exact same term. As Dorothy Roberts wrote in Killing The Black Body, the notion of reproductive liberty remains “primarily concerned with the interests of white, middle-class women” and  “focused on the right to abortion.” The right not just to decide if and when to have children, but to have children of one’s own – something women of colour have frequently been denied – can be of little interest of those who have never really feared losing it (hence the cloth-eared response of many white women to Beyoncè’s Grammy performance).

As Roberts notes, “reproductive liberty must encompass more than the protection of an individual woman’s choice to end her pregnancy”:

“It must encompass the full range of procreative activities, including the ability to bear a child, and it must acknowledge that we make reproductive decisions within a social context, including inequalities of wealth and power. Reproductive freedom is a matter of social justice, not individual choice.”

It’s easy to mock the pretensions to pro-life piety of a pussy-grabbing president. But what about the white liberal left’s insistence that criticising the global trade in sexual and gestational services is “telling a women what she can and cannot do with her body” and as such is illiberal and wrong? “Individual choice” can be every bit as much of a false, woman-hating god as the one worshipped by the likes of Humphrey and Trump.

One of the most distressing scenes in The Handmaid’s Tale takes place when Janine/Ofwarren has just given birth and has her child taken from her:

“We stand between Janine and the bed, so she won’t have to see this. Someone gives her a drink of grape juice. I hope there’s wine in it, she’s still having the pains, for the afterbirth, she’s crying helplessly, burnt-out miserable tears.”

Right now there are women suffering in just this way. Only they’re probably not white, nor middle-class, nor sitting in a twee white bedroom in Middle America. Oh, and they’re not fictional, either.

The dystopian predictions of 1985 have already come true. It’s just that women like me didn’t notice until we started to be called “hosts”, too.

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.