Article Discussing The Increasing Use and Societal Acceptance of Surrogacy

[UtopiaPlanitia]

I found this to be a fascinating article and thought I would share it.

Surrogacy and the rise of the female patriarch
thecritic.co.uk/issues/march-2023/surrogacy-and-the-rise-of-the-female-patriarch/

‘If a single act could exemplify the one per cent woman treating a less-privileged woman just as badly as men have treated women throughout history, it is this. No other form of exploitation is so sex-specific, so central to the distortion of male-female power relations. If there is such a thing as a female patriarch, it is the rich woman who outsources and appropriates female reproductive labour…

…patriarchy is not about policing sexual mores; it is about the control of resources.
This understanding ought to be basic feminism. However, a combination of new reproductive technologies and calls for gender liberation have turned the analysis on its head. It is as though there was never anything wrong with patriarchy’s objectives, just with its methods.’

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

Feminist political theory conceptualises patriarchy as a system that controls women and their reproductive capacity. Women using patriarchal systems to take advantage of other women’s bodies is wrong.

I completely disagree with the prevailing libfem position that anything a woman decides she wants to do is a form of feminism or an act of empowerment. These (rich) women using the bodies of surrogate mothers are just as bad as men who use the bodies of women as surrogate mothers. These women’s lack of empathy for another woman and their willingness to risk her body and her health chills me.

I think the points made in this article are valid and are worthy of consideration. A woman who behaves in a patriarchal way is trying to have and to do things men have and do. She is exploiting women and her behaviour is not excusable or justified by the fact that she lives in a male-dominated culture and is operating within, or using, those male norms to her own advantage.

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

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

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)."