That Wikipedia article is one of the worst offenders as it freely confuses the anthropological sense of “patriarchy” which is quite clearly defined.

Your definition adds something that no other definition I’ve seen before, including Wikipedia, specifies: powerful men. This ambiguity of multiple, conflicting definitions is exactly what I’m talking about.

It’s an incoherent theory so nah.

In theory it’s merely referring to a social structure. Just as in theory feminism supports equality. But actual practice doesn’t match up with the theory. “Benefiting from the Patriarchy” and like phrases are often used against individual men, or even women who don’t toe the party line.

I read quite a bit of Radical Feminist theory in my younger days, and did my penance of apologizing for the half of the human race to which I belong. Only later did I go back and fact-check their assertions and found almost all of them to be falsehoods.

Altho I myself am an egalitarian and therefore antifeminist, many of the points I made above are not inherently antifeminist. Before Patriarchy theory’s ascendency in the Fourth Wave, it was contested amongst feminist theorists. It was feminists themselves who first pointed out how incoherent, self-contradictory, and wholly unsuited to its purpose Patriarchy theory is.

I fail to see what I have in common with Jordan Peterson beyond a passing interest in Jung. I support trans rights, and indeed equal rights for all.

abstract wordings

Did you read my post? The entire point I’m making is that “Patriarchy” is “abstract wording”

accusatory misogyny

Care to point out what exactly I wrote was misogynistic?

straw men

You’re the one throwing out strawmen by calling me a misogynist, Petersonian.

Like what? Critically thinking? Not accepting of dogma?