Article Discussing The Increasing Use and Societal Acceptance of Surrogacy

To be fair to the author, she uses the phrase "female patriarch" twice in the actual article (authors rarely write titles), and one of those is to say "If there is such thing as a female patriarch...", so she's clearly aware that there is debate about the phrasing.

But the origins of the word "patriarch" in classical antiquities is a mildly diverting sideshow. Modern discussion of the patriarchy isn't limited to meaning "ruled by men" - patriarchy didn't stop when Liz Truss was PM and Elizabeth was Queen. Part of patriarchy is the control of reproductive resources, and the term "female patriarch" is quite useful for identifying how certain women have opted out of being part of that resource and into being part of the controlling class.

And this matters because: "To elevate women — to grant them true equality — one must disassociate them from pregnancy and birth, activities for the lower orders. Feminists are no longer compelled to defend women as a group uniquely vulnerable to reproductive exploitation because such a definition of women no longer exists. And yet, the exploitation still happens. The babies are still born, to someone whose name denotes neither personhood (woman) nor a relationship (mother)."

not thinking - 'Brilliant Women' which is about eighteenth century intellectual women is interesting.

Reading 'Brilliant Women' by Elizabeth Eger and Lucy Peltz is of interest.

to be fair, I'm ambivalent at best about the concept of patriarchy.

I think the article does eloquently cover the increasing normalisation of this unique exploitation of women and that was why I thought it was a good piece

No, no and yes. But again the definition of patriarchy is not exploitation of only women. Patriarchy does in fact result in the exploitation of men as well as women.

The author decided to use “female patriarch” because how else would she then repeatedly connect it to patriarchy on her rhetoric? She can’t witter on about the objectives of patriarchy if she’s uses the correct word of matriarch. Even the least intelligent reader would pick up on the disconnect. But by using female patriarch over and over she fools the average reader into thinking there is any such thing as a female patriarch when there isn’t.

The specific situation she is discussing, childless women commissioning a surrogate is at root a female to female power dynamic which a matriarch and a subordinate woman. Therefore it cannot have anything to do with patriarchs or the patriarchy.

are only women exploited at work?

are only women exploited in relationships?

are only women exploited to gestate babies for others?

do you see?

Again, I’m not cross/angry. I’m bemused at the authors very obvious use of obfuscation to amp up her rhetoric. It’s a bit more than choosing an suboptimal word when writing about surrogacy. The misnomer, “female patriarch” is in her title and her entire article is an attempt to convince the reader that there has been a “rise of the female patriarch”.

Any female patriarch is a matriarch. So if one thinks surrogacy is always exploitation, rather than one of most things in life where exploitation can happen- work, relationships, et- then because it is female rule causing it, then we have an issue with matriarchal exploitation of women.

Not yet more patriarchal exploitation of women.

okey dokes

I'm just not going to get into a semantic argument about it

women being exploited because of their bodies makes me cross

someone choosing a sub optimal word when writing about it really doesn't

Yes, but patriarchy/patriarch refers to male controlled power dynamics in society. Patriarchy/matriarchy is about whether it is male or female rule, it has nothing to do with the sex of who is ruled/exploited.

fair enough

although it is only possible to exploit women for surrogacy. so there is a sex based aspect to it, even if it's one women exploiting another

Yes but that would be along axes of class and race. Not due to “patriarchy.”

one woman can still exploit another

I’m not angry. I’m pointing out linguistic gymnastic rhetoric to obfuscate that surrogacy is largely a female to female agreement. It’s not patriarchy.

Exactly right. Womens power and status fluctuated in Europe. It wasn’t a steady upward progress.

Great points!

It may have been the seventeenth century's idea that matriarchy did not exist in the past, but Medieval European women definitely had both power and means to be patronas - often leaving large amounts of property to heirs or heiresses, inheriting lordships, being guild members, trading as femmes sole, running businesses in their husband's absence or after he died, going to war (though not to actually fight - a battle axe needs real hefting). Women's position socially and legally deteriorated as Europe moved into the modern era, eighteenth century women had fewer life chances and rights (e.g. UK women could no longer inherit a lordship except in very, very rare cases) than Medieval women, and nineteenth century women were more constrained than women in the eighteenth century.

It's a very powerful piece. It is incredible that liberal feminism, which is so obsessed with intersectionality in many ways, completely ignores the massive class, race and wealth axes of surrogacy. Not to mention the international nature of surrogacy meaning that in many ways surrogacy feels distinctly colonialist.

What is not mentioned here (understandably to keep it focused on women) is the lack of consideration of the child at the centre as well. And let's not get into the situation in Ukraine, or what happens when a child has problems at birth, or the complete lack of vetting of surrogate parents that has led to at least one case of a paedophile commissioning a child.

She’s made a deliberate choice to obfuscate

of everything in that article the choice of the word patriarch makes you angriest?

righty oh

whereas patriarch is not from father, but from from the Greek root for ‘family’.

No. The root of patriarch is also from father!

patriarkhēs literally means ‘father rule’ in ancient Greek. The root of patriarkhēs "chief or head of a family," combines patria "family, clan," which itself has the root of pater "father" + arkhein "to rule"

Now the Romans adopted alot of Greek words after conquering them and this morphed to patriarcha in late Latin.

She’s made a deliberate choice to obfuscate. I’m not assuming, I know.

Yes the linguistic entomology is that matriarch comes from mother and patriarch comes from father. But patriarch refers to the civic and social patronage system in antiquity which was not about biologically being a father.

Patriarch/Matriarch never were synonyms for an actual father/mother- it’s a different concept entirely- you can be 100% childless and still be a patriarch or matriarch. Its usage was and is more similar to the modern day patron (now unisex) than actually meaning a biological mother or father.

During late Antiquity this secular social patronage system was gradually Christianised- hence the reason why priests gained the title of “Father” even though they were not literally a biological father. Various churches were also headed by Patriarchs, not Popes. Even today, the Catholic Church is divided into twelve patriarchates.

The reason why there was no usage of matriarch as an equivalent to a patriarch until the 17th century was due to the historical oppression of women. There were no women fulfilling that particular role of social patronage as they did not have the power, influence or even ownership of the resources required to do it.

Matriarch is the female equivalent of a patriarch. To call modern day matriarchs “female patriarchs” erases the past three hundred years of the progress of women and pretends there has never been any such thing as a matriarch. It’s also no coincidence she chose not to use the correct term, this is a conscious choice to obfuscate female power dynamics by using terms that carry the connotation of patriarchy and thus cause the reader to think the power dynamics are male, when they are not.

The author has presumably chosen ‘patriarch’ knowing that the ‘matriarch’ is false analogy in etymological terms? Matriarch is a much later invention and comes from Latin, whereas Patriarch is Greek.

Matriarch is derived from the same Latin root as ‘mother’, whereas patriarch is not from father, but from from the Greek root for ‘family’.

Victoria Smith seems to me to have specifically chosen ‘female patriarch’ to describe a female babybuyer precisely because she isn’t a mother, and thus ‘matriarch’ is incorrect.

Smith is a very good writer and thus there is no reason to assume she has made a mistake in her word choice.

Agree. The market destroys everything by commodifying it. That's the way we are heading, sadly.

I dunno. I think patriarchy is banning two women from coming to a mutually beneficial agreement with each other. I don’t think the women who want to be surrogates are being exploited by the patriarchy by other women who are now being conveniently called ‘female patriarchs’ to try and connect them to the patriarchy through linguistic gymnastics.

There is no such thing as a female patriarch btw, a ruling female is a matriarch and that’s the exact opposite of patriarchy.

If the exploitation of women by other women were an issue, it’s matriarchy not patriarchy.