According to Merriam-Webster, patriarchy is:

1 - 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; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power

2 - a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy

So, do we live in a patriarchy?

I would say that through most of out history, we have had a male as the leader. This has not always been the case. There have been many periods where large parts of europe (or, the world for Queen Victoria) was ruled by a woman.

As for family, I can remember remember the phrase "she wears the pants in the family" being used a lot in the 70s and 80s. In my experience and observations, men mostly take a submissive role in marriage. Hence, the whole bending a knee right from the start. And today, in 25% of families there is no father.... so, not that many families are marked by the supremacy of the father in this day and age.

Legal dependence of wives and children - This is very much enforced by WOMEN.

The reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line - Historically this was the case. Maybe because anything worth passing on (land, gold, etc) had to be physically defended/protected. But, today... I have never seen it enforced.

Power - This one fun because they don't say what kind of power they're talking about. And, power means different things to different people. For some women, money (and the ability to get it) is power. For some men, sex (and the ability to get it) is power. And yet, to other's it's simply the exercise of choice.

http://blogs.psychcentral.com/relationships/2013/05/on-the-nature-of-power-will-you-choose-real-power-or-an-illusion-part-1-of-2/

"power in relationships is regarded as an ability of one person to impose their will on another" - This is the type of power that gets the far left all riled up. Ironically, it is a power they often (try to) wield.

Feminists version of patriarchy - This varies depending on who you ask but generally they define it as a structure in which men have power over women.

The only part from the actual definition that supports this claim today is that the clan leader is a male. Putting aside the evidence that men are more out-group vs. womens in-group bias which is important in leadership, and that historically and currently western countries have and are run by women..... it misses one very important point. Male or female, at any given time, there is only one person at the top. The leader. And generally, that leader has power over every MAN and woman he leads. Every man under that leader is "oppressed" just as much as every woman.

I live in Canada. And, Queen Elizabeth is the Sovereign of the parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy of Canada. For my entire life, the face on a lot of our money... the highest position that Canada legally recognizes is a woman!

Some consider this patriarchy to be male privilege. But for me, this "privilege" is balanced by the privileges women receive as a result of the gynocentric nature of our society. It is my belief that without this gyno-parti balance humans would not have become the most dominant species on the planet. Historically, this balance of "mens domain" and "womens domain" resulted in what we call society and culture.