To clarify, this is the critique behind [my initial post](https://qoto.org/@tripu/106796492140032253), which proved somewhat controversial:

**I.** Mainstream #feminism today tends to see “patriarchy” everywhere and (consistent with that view) focuses almost solely on issues affecting more women than men, and on differences of outcome where women seem to do worse than men.

**II.** Definition of #patriarchy (in bold, my emphasis):

> _“Social system in which the father or a male elder has **absolute authority** over the family group; by extension, one or more men […] exert absolute authority **over the community as a whole**.”_

— [Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/patriarchy).

> _“Social organization marked by the **supremacy of the father** in the clan or family, the **legal dependence of wives** and children, and the reckoning of descent and **inheritance in the male line**.”_

— [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy).

> _“Society in which the oldest **male is the leader of the family**, or a society **controlled by men** in which they use their power to their own advantage.”_

— [Cambridge English Dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/patriarchy).

**III.** According to normal definitions of the term (and also because there are important issues affecting more men than women, and differences of outcome where men are clearly doing worse than women) prosperous liberal democratic countries today are obviously _not_ patriarchies.

**IV.** When confronted with this error, #feminists often bend and distort the definition of “patriarchy” to make it a synonym of “sexism”, and (consistent with that redefinition) say that the patriarchy is also hurting men, and that ending the patriarchy will benefit men, too.

**V.** That redefinition of “patriarchy” is unnecessary and confusing. Why conflate two words with very very different meanings? Can we then say that the Taliban and the old tribes of hunter-gatherers were merely “sexist”, instead of outright “patriarchal”? Should we then lump together under the same category truly retrograde societies where a few old men are the only people _legally_ entitled to exert absolute authority and to inherit and all women are _legally_ subservient, and extremely egalitarian 21st-century Sweden? The redefinition is (conscious or unconsciously) disingenuous.

**VI.** In spite of all those issues, bona fide #feminists often accept this bizarre framing for the sake of moving the conversation forward and making actual progress against sexism, naïvely assuming that _finally we are all now talking about the same thing_ (ie, fighting sex-based discrimination, wherever it occurs).

**VII.** After making this concession, inevitably it so happens that the original denouncers of the patriarchy get back to focusing only on issues affecting more women than men, and on differences of outcome where women do worse than men — ignoring or dismissing all male issues, just as before.

**VIII.** The result is that all participants in the discussion have now agreed that our modern, developed, equal-under-the-law societies are _patriarchies_ (I invite you to re-read the three definitions above) while at the same time having made zero progress against actual sexism of any kind. In fact, participants make _negative_ progress, because this swallowing-the-patriarchy move generates a lot of guilt and resentment.

I find this recurrent pattern dishonest, counterproductive, and irritating.

/cc @namark @b6hydra

@tripu Reading your material, it really seems like the entire thrust of it is, "Not all men, don't say it's all men."

Which doesn't seem like a novel or useful contribution to the conversation.

@Elucidating

If that's your takeaway, I must have done a really bad job at explaining myself.

What does “not all men” even mean?

Which of the steps in my argument do you disagree with, and why?

@tripu You did.

Step III says: "According to normal definitions of the term (and also because there are important issues affecting more men than women, and differences of outcome where men are clearly doing worse than women) prosperous liberal democratic countries today are obviously not patriarchies."

And yet, if we were to device a series of observational tests which ask, "What structure would patriarchal societies take?" we'd find a lot of positive results.

@tripu For example, we'd find that women's labor is devalued compared to men's labor, and we'd find a sharp divide in what's "acceptable" and "preferable" for the sexes to execute on.