Crosspost from the egalitarian subreddit, because I want more input and it can sometimes get pretty sleepy over there.

So, when arguing with feminists about issues that affect men disproportionately, their go to answer seems to be that any issue men have is a consequence of the patriarchy, or how some men are hurt because expectations are patriarchal, and that in general, if one were to assume a patriarchy as they define it exists, then it at least intends to benefit men as a whole, and being how the exceptions (some men get hurt) are not the rule, their decision to assume the feminist banner over an egalitarian one is valid, and any attempt to address male concerns is derailing, as they're already the primary force against the underlying cause of any men's issues.

I actually find this as a pretty valid take for them, given what they consider to be true (if not still at least a bit hypocritical, considering how they don't mind directly addressing women's issues that are a consequence of the patriarchy, instead of ignoring them until the patriarchy is dismantled). To argue for men's issues without really having an argument against their notion of the patriarchy just seems a bit myopic to me.

So, here's my take on why I disagree with the feminist take on the existing patriarchy, in it implying oppression, over it simply being a consequence of traditional gender roles and perceptions (without implying oppression at all). Here goes... I hope you like parentheses.

Feminists generally define the patriarchy that they work towards dismantling as a societal system in which pretty much all positions of power are held by men (so far, still reflects reality), and as a consequence, society and the men in power within it collectively serve to benefit men and oppress women (okay... on what planet?)

So, a useful analogy to start might be how women are seen similarly to children (at least in a relative sense), in that they are perceived to be less competent, yet more deserving of empathy/protection. My intent of emphasizing this specific aspect of perception is to isolate what I think is the main reason why a patriarchal society could form regardless of explicit oppression (or in reality's case, without it)

Expanding on this, imagine a society of only adult-people, and child-people (still assuming similar roles to real society's treatment of adults and children). The adult-people being considered competent, and the child-people being considered less competent, yet they are more cared for (in reality, women would be only near, if not just vaguely analogous to the child-people, but with added gender-role fit responsibilities, not that this affects the point of this thought experiment).

Obviously this society would be an adult-archy, because relative competence is a defining aspect of how the adult-people are widely perceived, to both the people, and leadership positions (or any positions of power) would more than likely hold a proclivity towards which is perceived to be more competent. But, the adult-people are certainly not collectively manipulating the system to maintain their position for their benefit, just like how the child-people are not collectively manipulating the system to maintain their monopoly on empathy for theirs (both people just see adult-people as more competent by default, and child-people less capable of evil, by default), AND certainly the adult-people (given the "organic" nature of how the adult-archy was formed (catalyzed over a perception of greater competence, and not a collective effort to seize power)) do not generally intend to oppress the child-people, if they themselves subscribe to both the 'adult-people are to be less cared for, and more is expected of them, but they are afforded more respect, competence-wise' and the 'child-people are to be less respected competence-wise, but are generally more provided for, and not thought of as being any lesser an entity to society' mentalities, and attribute obtaining their positions to reasoning along those notions, as opposed to it being explained by them having a weird, unintuitive oppression complex.

Adults who are perceived to be more competent by the population will be more likely to be granted a position of authority over children, or even other adults seen as less competent, than vice versa. It's simply a human reflex in response to a conditioned bias in their contextual favor. The hierarchical relationship and ecosystem outlined still materialize themselves just fine without needing oppression as a necessary element, and even if you were to assume oppression, just because the entity on top is an adult, does not imply that all non-adults are then explicitly oppressed any more than anyone who isn't just that one individual (at least, within the context of actual adult-and-child relationship dynamics).

This does not intend to defend the validity of any of those perceptions, and their real-world counterparts (if anything, I think they are absurd). I'm simply stating that the real-world counterparts exist, and that they better explain our patriarchal society and it's position regarding "oppression" than the feminist interpretation, in my opinion.