This post was something I made as a response to this other post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/n7o9tg/patriarchy_vs_plutocracy_and_why_the_difference/

I will make this post perhaps to get a broader response on this questions.

I can start first, if we can put our labeling aside for a bit.

Patriarchy have existed six thousand years ago, it came from the Greek word "the rule of father," "the father of race" and etc,...back when men were seen as superior. In those days men were in dominant position and it is expected that women are there for reproduction and no others. And there goes your common patriarchy argument many have repeated over and over.

Historically, the term patriarchy was coined to refer to autocratic rule by the male head of a family. However, in modern times, it more generally refers to social systems in which power is primarily held by adult men.Let's trace the usage of the modern version of the term as far back as possible to see if we can find when this change in definition took place.

Patriarchy have existed then, regardless of whether money is in place. Patriarchy can exist now, in a plutocratic society. I mean look at other capitalist society, from China to Japan, to India and etc,..I personally think patriarchy itself can extend itself into modern world even if feminists have done their degrees of work to move women outside of just becoming a common housewife.

That is to include other element of patriarchy, the idea of traditional gender norms, and traditional gender roles expected of both gender, to play parts in this idea of men being in leadership roles, the provider, protector, the father of the house and women being solely the nurturer and the mother.

How's this. In a more conservative or conservative christian household you will likely continue to find these social expectation on "the man of the house," the more conservative the more chances of this. Immigrants who move from a very conservative areas into your modern western world will also perpetuate patriarchy.

Women aren't exempt from perpetuating patriarchy either. Since I personally believe that there is a thin line between misandry and misogyny, within traditional gender roles developed and fully form from patriarchy.

The idea of patriarchy can stick with the idea of traditional gender norms/roles. Where men are preserve the dominant seats while women secondary to "the man of the house."

The idea of class can equally be argued as well. Though in my opinion, as far as leftism have achieved, patriarchy is already far softer in modern western world than a few decades ago. If we can define this modern society in this manner it can be understood more.

I don't think it's fair to argue that patriarchy cannot exist in plutocracy, since it's the case in other part of the world. As patriarchy have existed in autocracy or monarchy.

Though I have to give more credit to the post itself, since from a legal stances patriarchy within laws and policy is very unlikely since a full exhibition of patriarchy would requires far more institutional and collective actions to benefit the sole idea of men. That hasn't happened for a few good centuries.

For example, 16–18th century France wouldn’t allow a female ruler by law, while England, Spain and other principalities would… if a male heir wasn’t available. So France only benefited men, England benefited men first when it came to succession laws. None of those institutions or laws are still in effect for several decades or more across western societies. Mostly thanks to civil rights movements in the 60’s (both US and Western Europe). This was a bottom-up process, so the pressure from a societal viewpoint was already building up majorly decades before said laws and institutions were removed.

What we do have currently are cultural artifacts of patriarchy in the west. Semi-collective actions who, depending on context could maybe have similar power of laws and institutions… but are incredible difficult to prove or easily to be misinterpreted.

For example: arranged child marriages are legally not allowed in India anymore, but still, many Indian families are quasi-arranging marriages by having their respective children spend a lot of time with each other and drilling in expectations. Not illegal… but still… To find similar cultural artifacts in the West… is going to be a big challenge.

So in conclusion, sociologically speaking, some parts of patriarchy exist and some doesn't. We do not thrive in a strong patriarchal western society anymore. Since we are much more willing to promote a non-traditional cooperation between the two sex. The true fallacy in feminism's argument is how they seem to think there is some concrete form of oppression between sex, through some poor reasoning about some vaguely defense of one-sided gender issues?