Money are a basic need in todays society, even though they do not belong to the primary needs of human beings, they are necessary for our survival and shape our lives significantly. They construct social classes and so citizen rights. It is clearly seen in NRT, when “ ‘naturilization ‘ ” of one mother creates ‘denaturalization’ of the other, as one of them looses her citizen rights to motherhood and so becomes a partial citizen” (Schrauwers,2005; “New (non) Reproductive Technologies). Motherhood becomes a class issue. It is logical when considering the the price of surrogacy services, which is roughly $30, 000 (Schrauwer,2005; “New (non) Reproductive Technologies), that these services are not for everyone. Drawing upon example from Egypt, it is beneficial to talk about why do Egyptian women consider NRT option. As Marcia C.Inhorn explains, “in such high- fertility settings, where children are highly desired and parenthood is culturally mandatory, infertility is a socially unacceptable condition, leading most infertile couples on a relentless ‘quest for conception’ that may eventually involve resort to NRT.” One other reason is also, as already mentioted, the restriction to adoption. Women have clearly defined roles within societies as mothers. Some women are even seen dangerous, “suspected of harming others’ children through their uncontrollable envy and casting of the evil eye” (Inhorn,2003;1842). It is understud why then they turn to NRT, but as in United States so in Egypt, the access to NRT is a class issue. An article by Marcia C.Inhorn, “Global infertility and the globalization of new reproductive technologies: illustration from Egypt” clearly indicates these inequalities:

Without question , the NRTs are absolutely unaffordable for most poor and even middle-class infertile Egyptians, even though they may be aware and highly desirous of such treatments. The women patients who present to IVF clinics today tend to be highly educated professionals, who are employed as doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, accountants, bankers, professors, tourism officials , and even movie stars. (1845-1846)
In other words, the author states, “the IVF scene in Egypt has become extremely class based and exclusionary, the arena of a handful of elite doctors and their high- class patients”. Motherhood is suppose to be about love and carrying, not about money,but as we can see, it is about money in the first place, as not evryone is allowed to the same oppurtunities of being a mother.

Motherhood is seen as “natural” for women and with this assumption also come many other expectations of women, as can be seen in public versus private or nature versus culture divide. Women place is at home, taking care of family, breastfeeding children and cooking meals for their husbands, which is not necessarily a bad picture, as long as it does not interfere with womens choice of being one or not being one, as it often does. Understanding of gender norms and expectations brings understanding of the commercial versus altruistic surrogacy contraversion. Why is there different media approach to these two issues? Why is one treated with respect and sympathy and the other as deviant and unacceptable? Gender norms provide at least a part of the answer.
Gender norms relate to presentation of self, marriage, maternity, sexuality, and occupational choice and define and limit the roles and behaviour considered appropriate for women. Commercial surrogacy contracts are designed deviant because they are deemed to contravene gender norms that specify women’s place in the private sphere of the family, not the competitive marketplace emphasizing purposive rationality and impersonality.In contrast, altruistic surrogacy conforms to pervasive expectations of women’s roles and does not threaten the conjugal family, as long as altruistic arrangements occur only between family members or close friends. (Anleu,1992; 32)

Gender norms are deeply rooted in the history of human kind, at least in the history of West. Women are not suppose to become pregnant for money, but for love, however it is “acceptable” to be able to buy babies, because in the end there will be an appropriate nuclear family at least on the surface. Excuces are always created in order to confirm to these assuptions, as the payment is often characterized as payment for services not for the baby. How different are then the commercial and altruistic surrogacy or should we ask, how similar? Sharyn Roach Anleu in her article argues that they are not different,as in both cases women are exploited and used as she explains: “Differences between commercial and altruistic arrangements reflect process of interpretation, definition, and deviance designation, rather than an obejctive describtion.”

In the case of Egypt, as already mentioned , the gender norms are even more powerful than in the West, where the motherhood is mandatory. “… Islamically inspired pronatalism and public support for woman’s domesticity become more and more pronounced in Egypt…” (Inhorn,2003;1843). Gender norms not only restrict womens movement, they define motherhood and try to create natural relationships from already ambiguous relations in order to fit the “normality”, however at the same time they create “partial citizens” and only put aveneer on nuclear family in the end, which is not a nuclear family at all.
Govermentality through the pastoral method in infertility clinics creates power relations, as it able to define relational versus custodial stages of motherhood (Schrauwer,2005; “New (non) Reproductive Technologies”). A power of governmenatlity, a power of institutions is used in West to define the motherhood as natural for those who pay. The folowing paragraph taken from Sharyn Roach Anleu article,from page 34, allows to understand the great unequalities of creating motherhood through the pastoral method: