In November 2017, CBC Comedy began airing a web series called How to Buy a Baby. The series is about one couple’s struggles to conceive a child. They navigate the often confusing world of fertility treatments all while receiving nonsense “advice” friends and family. (For example, one friend, in particular, advises that if they want to conceive, they should totally stay away from GMOs!)
The trailer for How to Buy a Baby depicts the series as a funny take on societal norms around child-rearing and the invasive questions people feel they can ask individuals and couples trying to get pregnant. Awkward small talk with doctors poking and prodding at your bits, that one super granola friend who begs you to at least try a juice cleanse, please, and the envy that overwhelms you when your friends are having children but you aren’t is what the show attempts to take on.
But… is it Satire?
Through satire, one can and should be able to say things that are considered taboo or inappropriate in an effort to highlight their absurdity or to simply show people that they are not alone. Taking on a persona, such as that of a journalist, a politician, or another “mask” gives us the power to say things we would not normally say. Researcher Megan LeBoeuf (2007) explains that, in this way, satire “has the ability to protect its creator from culpability for criticism, because it is implied rather than overtly stated.”
Because How to Buy a Baby is a fictional show and not a docu-series, the characters should be able to get away with asking inappropriate questions and overall mentioning what is often thought of as unmentionable.
Satire also requires a level of insider knowledge. That’s how we know what these implications actually mean. For example, people who have no knowledge of Canadian politics whatsoever will not understand the above headline nor find it funny. It is not attention grabbing if you’re not caught up on your Canadian political scandals.
In the case of How to Buy a Baby, the show requires that one have experience or knowledge of infertility, in-vitro fertilization, gamete donation, or adoption. All of these can be exhausting to navigate. Humour can, of course, be a healthy way to deal with this exhaustion.
However, the parents, intended or adoptive (this is donor conception and adoption lingo), are not the only ones navigating these systems. This is why the show is controversial.
It’s Not Satire. It’s Comedy.
LeBoeuf (2007) explains that satire typically has 3 key elements:
Critique. Satire is always a critique of some form of human behaviour, vice, or folly, with the intent of persuading the audience to view it disdainfully and thereby encourage a degree of social change.
Irony. Satire uses irony, often in a humourous way, to point out the problems with the behaviour being critiqued.
Implicitness. Satire is not an overt statement, and it does not come to an explicit verdict, but rather the critiqued behaviour deconstructs itself within the satirical work by being obviously absurd, most often because it is exaggerated or taken out of its normal context.
How to Buy a Baby is funny because it uses hyperbole to the extent that it renders people’s everyday behaviour meaningless and foolish — such as the scene wherein the couple has repeated womb-rental offers from one woman who is overly enthusiastic at the idea of being their surrogate (even though they were not searching for one). Of course, the audience’s reaction is meant to be, “Oh, I can’t believe that actually happens.”
It works.
The forgotten aspect amongst all this, however, is power.
Satire is absolutely useless if it is done by those who have the power to control an overarching narrative anyway. Take, again, the example of Walking Eagle News. This is a “work of satire, comedy and parody” by and for Indigenous peoples — a group that is severely marginalized in Canada. Making fun of Canadian politicians is pointing out the absurdity of the relationship between the government and Indigenous populations. Because it, fundamentally, does not make sense and since Indigenous peoples do not hold the same level of social, political, legal, or economic power they, largely, do not control the broader narrative surrounding this relationship. Satire is a means of pointing that out and an attempt at regaining some of that power.
In the case of donor conception and adoption, donor-conceived people and adoptees, largely, do not control our own narratives. Rather, donor-conceived people and adoptees are often seen as perpetual children who, unless constantly affirming how grateful they are, should shut up because the adults are talking right now.
“Aren’t you grateful some nice person did such a great thing?”
“Aren’t you happy to be alive?”
“Would you rather not exist?”
“You’re just an angry person!”
The constant tone-policing by those who do not share our experience is not just a minor inconvenience — it has informed a discourse that has material consequences. Arguments surrounding legislative reform or the ethics of these industries are hardly ever really donor-conceived person- or adoptee-centred.
For example, Vivek Sankaran, the director of the Child Advocacy Law Clinic and the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic at the University Michigan Law School, asks, “As a system, do we do enough to hear the voices of [adoptees], either before or after they are cut off from their families? Have we learned how these children experience the termination of their parent’s rights?” The answer is no. Yet, reform is difficult. There are several aspects of the adoption process that could be amended. But, when you don’t control the narrative, why would anyone listen?
Canadian MP Anthony Housefather proposing a bill that would seek to help gamete donors, intended parents, and surrogates — but leaves donor-conceived people out of his analysis entirely, other than vaguely stating that Canada’s current laws do not work for “children born of donation.” When questioned about it (yes, I’ve spoken to him personally), he simply repeats this line but never explains what he really means or how he actually plans on fixing it.
Moreover, the rise of commercial DNA testing is increasingly controversial, not because it exposes the degree to which entire industries have been built upon secrecy deemed appropriate by lawyers, politicians, and the medical community but, rather, because it “jeopardize[s] the privacy of [gamete donors].”
It’s clear who controls the narrative and who is centred within it.
When the couple in How to Buy a Baby asks how they can know the medical information they are receiving about their sperm donor is accurate, they are told that they cannot know for sure. When they are perusing photos of sperm donors (who are willing to have their faces shown), they laugh and make jokes about someone whose description of his physical characteristics wasn’t exactly accurate.
The issues are brought up but, of course, not delved into. This process is about the parents and is framed as though they are the only ones with a stake in this. Seeing as this is meant to be a fresh take on taboo subjects, there are several opportunities to talk about something absolutely built upon absurdity: the fertility and adoption industries.
Continuing the Trend (of Shutting People Out)
Donor-conceived people and adoptees cannot even control their own narrative on the How to Buy a Baby Facebook page.
Recently, the Changing the Adoption Narrative page shared a post from How to Buy a Baby. The post was a cutesy pink graphic that read, “Adoptruth: I can’t sleep until our adoption is finalized.” Changing the Adoption Narrative shared this and added, “She is fearful someone might impede on the legal ownership she has over the children she has bought. What about worrying about how adopted children fare?” Then, proceeded to point out that comments from adoptees were being deleted on the original post.
Many proponents of the show responded to critical comments by asking adoptees and donor-conceived people if they had ever actually watched the show, if they had ever experienced infertility, or if they wanted to outright ban adoption and fertility-related services altogether.
Something that the supporters of the show are missing is that adoptees and donor-conceived people are stakeholders in this process. Adoptees and donor-conceived people have experienced processes associated with infertility. In the process of alleviating the discomfort that accompanies infertility, we’ve been commodified.
Forgive the harsh comparison, but asking adoptees and donor-conceived people what we have or have not experienced and asserting that only opinions formed by one perspective can be taken into consideration can be likened to asking a group of people what their experience of a bank robbery is. If you’re the bank robber, your experience is vastly different than the person being robbed. But, the person being robbed is still a part of the experience.
In the cases of adoption and donor conception, infertile people have their own perspectives, but adoptees and donor-conceived individuals are still involved in this process and have our own unique perspectives. Being told we aren’t reliable narrators of our own stories or that we should not be taken into consideration because of our position within this hierarchy is dehumanizing and reinforces the idea that we are the products. Seen and not heard.
How to Buy a Baby doesn’t do the complex work of making itself accessible. It assumes that the paths infertile people take, such as donor conception and adoption, have no other stakeholders. It doesn’t do the work of being a cathartic experience for parents and donor-conceived people and adoptees alike — letting everyone involved in these processes laugh at the absurdity of these industries or take comfort knowing they, too, are not alone in their pain.
Rather, donor-conceived and adopted people are ignored entirely. But, it doesn’t end there. When the couple jokes that their baby “better be fucking amazing” because of how much money they’ve paid to create it or when they’re scrolling through an online catalogue of sperm donors, compartmentalizing their future child’s traits and trying to build the perfect child (“What’s more important? The fact that they’re smart? Or the fact that they’re good looking?”), something even worse happens: we become the joke.
-
Several adoptees have outlined their concerns regarding How to Buy a Baby in a Change.org petition and are seeking to get it defunded. If you’re interested in learning more about their perspective and petition, visit the petition here.
