Attitudes Toward Transnational Surrogacy, Ambivalent Sexism, and Views on Financial Allocation

References

• Africawala, A. N., & Kapadia, S. (2019). Women’s control over decision to participate in surrogacy: Experiences of surrogate mothers in Gujarat. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 16(4), 501–514.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Almeling, R. (2011). Sex cells: The medical market for eggs and sperm. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Begun, S., & Walls, N. E. (2015). Pedestal or gutter: Exploring ambivalent sexism’s relationship with abortion attitudes. Affilia, 30(2), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109914555216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhalla, N., & Thapliyal, M. (2013). Inside a “baby-making factory”: How the rent-a-womb industry became India’s latest booming industry. Daily Mail.
   Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattapan, A. (2014). Risky business: Surrogacy, egg donation, and the politics of exploitation. Revue Canadienne Droit et Société [Canadian Journal of Law and Society], 29(03), 361–379. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2014.14
   Google Scholar
• Chrisler, J., Gorman, J. A., Marván, M. L., & Johnston, I. (2014). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes, toward women in different stages of reproductive life: A semantic, cross-cultural approach. Health Care for Women International, 35(6), 634–657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciccarelli, J. C., & Beckman, L. J. (2005). Navigating rough waters: An overview of psychological aspects of surrogacy. The Journal of Social Issues, 61(1), 21–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connor, R. A., & Fiske, S. T. (2019). Not minding the gap: How hostile sexism encourages choice explanations for the gender income gap. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318815468.
   Google Scholar
• Cottingham, J. (2017). Babies, borders, and big business. Reproductive Health Matters, 25(49), 1360603–1360620. https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2017.1360603.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crozier, G. K. D., Johnson, J. L., & Hajzler, C. (2014). At the intersection of emotional and biological labor: Understanding transnational commercial surrogacy as social reproduction. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 7(2), 45–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dworkin, A. (1993). Prostitution and Male Supremacy, Mich. J. Gender & L. Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl/vol1/iss1/1
   Google Scholar
• Ekman, K. E., & Cheadle, S. M. (2013). Being and being bought: Prostitution, surrogacy and the split self. North Melbourne, Victoria: Spinifex Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fahs, B. (2020). There will be blood: Women’s positive and negative experiences with menstruation. Women's Reproductive Health, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23293691.2019.1690309
   Google Scholar
• Gezinski, L. B., Karandikar, S., Levitt, A., & Ghaffarian, R. (2017). “We want to offer you peace of mind”: Marketing of transnational commercial surrogacy services to intended parents. Health Marketing Quarterly, 34(4), 302–314.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(12), 1323–1334. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972312009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glick, P., Wilkerson, M., & Cuffe, M. (2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes. Social Psychology, 46(4), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hovav, A. (2019). Producing moral palatability in the Mexican surrogacy market. Gender & Society, 33(2), 273–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243218823344
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayaraman, G. (2013). The baby factory: Surrogacy, the booming business in Gujurat. India Today. Available from: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/surrogacy-blooming-business-in-gujarat-shah-rukh-aamir-khan/1/301026.html.
   Google Scholar
• Karandikar, S., Gezinski, L. B., Carter, J. R., & Kaloga, M. (2014). Economic necessity or noble cause? A qualitative study exploring motivations for gestational surrogacy in Gujarat, India. Affilia, 29(2), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109913516455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lozanski, K., & Shankar, I. (2019). Surrogates as risk or surrogates at risk? The contradictory constitution of surrogates’ bodies in transnational surrogacy. Social Theory & Health, 17(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-018-0066-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malesa, K. J. (2021). Married men’s perceptions of their wives’ sexual and reproductive health rights: A study conducted in the rural area of Waterberg District, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Women’s Reproductive Health, https://doi.org/10.1080/23293691.2021.2016136
   Google Scholar
• Martin, L. J. (2014). The world’s not ready for this: Globalizing selective technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 39(3), 432–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243913516014
   Google Scholar
• Nair, S. S., & Kalarivayil, R. (2018). Has India’s surrogacy bill failed women who become surrogates? ANTYAJAA, 3(1), 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Pande, A. (2009). Not an ‘angel’ not a ‘whore’: Surrogates as ‘dirty’ workers in India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16(2), 141–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/097152150901600201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pande, A. (2014). This birth and that: Surrogacy and stratified motherhood in India. Project Muse, 4(1), 50–64.
   Google Scholar
• Patel, C. J., & Johns, L. (2009). Gender role attitudes and attitudes to abortion: Are there gender differences. The Social Science Journal, 46(3), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2009.02.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins, K. M., Boulet, S. L., Jamieson, D. J., & Kissin, D. M, National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System (NASS) Group. (2016). Trends and outcomes of gestational surrogacy in the United States. Fertility and Sterility, 106(2), 435–442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petitfils, C., Munoz Sastre, M. T., Sorum, P. C., & Mullet, E. (2017). Mapping people’s views regarding acceptability of surrogate motherhood. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 35(1), 65–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petterson, A., & Sutton, R. M. (2018). Sexist ideology of men’s control over women’s decisions in reproductive health. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(2), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317744531
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, A. (2013). Our bodies, whose property?. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rapp, R. (2009). Reproductive entanglements: Body, state, and culture in the dys/regulation of childbearing. Social Research, 78, 1–52.
   Google Scholar
• Rudrappa, S. (2012). India’s reproductive assembly line. Contexts, 11(2), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504212446456
   Google Scholar
• Rudrappa, S., & Collins, C. (2015). Altruistic agencies and compassionate consumers: Moral framing of transnational surrogacy. Gender & Society, 29(6), 937–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215602922
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmen, A., & Dhont, K. (2020). Hostile and benevolent sexism: The differential roles of human supremacy, women’s connection to nature, and the dehumanization of women. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 0, 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Salter, B. (2021). Markets, cultures, and the politics of value: The case of assisted reproductive technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243921991929
   Google Scholar
• Sawyer, S. P., & Metz, M. E. (2009). The attitudes towards Prostitution Scale. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(3), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X08316706
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schurr, C., & Militz, E. (2018). The affective economy of transnational surrogacy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(8), 1626–1645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18769652
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spar, D. L. (2005). For love and money: The political economy of commercial surrogacy. Review of International Political Economy, 12(2), 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500105615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuvøy, I. (2018). Accounting for the money-made parenthood of transnational surrogacy. Anthropology & Medicine, 25(3), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2017.1392100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & McClellan, L. M. (2011). Benevolent sexism, perceived health risks, and the inclination to restrict pregnant women’s freedoms. Sex Roles, 65(7–8), 596–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9869-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tangri, S. S., & Kahn, J. R. (1993). Ethical issues in the new reproductive technologies: Perspectives from feminism and the psychology profession. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.24.3.271
   Google Scholar
• Tong, R. (1990). The overdue death of a feminist chameleon: Taking a stand on surrogacy arrangements. Journal of Social Philosophy, 21: 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.1990.tb00275.x
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Economic news release: Employment characteristics of families summary (Report No. USDL-21-0695). United States Department of Labor.
   Google Scholar
• Vora, K. (2015). Life support: Biocapital and the new history of outsourced labor. University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, and G. Lindzey (eds), Handbook of Social Psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 629–667). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yanagihara, Y. (2019). What constitutes ‘autonomy’ in the Japanese civil sphere? In Alexander, J. C., Palmer, D. A., Park, S., Ku, AS-M (eds), The Civil Sphere in East Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar