Most feminists are radical feminists by the literal dictionary definition of radical feminism: "the belief that society functions as a patriarchy in which men oppress women"

You can believe the patriarchy exists without thinking men are actively oppressing women. In fact, that's what most people in the west think.

So you believe that men are passively oppressing women. How? This isn't what 'most people in the west' think.

Wikipedia says the patriarchy is " a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property."

Alright.

1. Women have social privilege over men. I can give you numerous examples of this, let me know if you want to see them.
2. Women are and have always been seen as the more moral sex. If you were to ask the average person on the street, they will most likely say that women are more moral than men (https://cosmosmagazine.com/people/behaviour/are-women-more-moral-than-men/). For most people in the west, mothers are the ones that teach good behavior to their children: hence are the moral authority. In fact, radical feminism teaches this idea as well.
3. Men don't even completely predominate in control of property. More single women own homes than single men (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alyyale/2020/01/22/single-women-own-more-homes-than-single-men--but-they-pay-more-too/?sh=6f1f846428ca), and have more than half of all personal wealth in the US (https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/women-now-control-more-than-half-of-us-personal-wealth-2015-4).

The only part of patriarchy theory that is true is that men predominate roles of political leadership. Furthermore, that isn't even because of men. In a democratic system, candidates are elected by their constituents. If people voted for female candidates less than male candidates, you might have an argument. But that isn't true. Women run for office less than men, and that completely explains the gender gap in political office (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/upshot/the-problem-for-women-is-not-winning-its-deciding-to-run.html). Women win political office at the same rate that men win when they choose to run.

It says nothing about how men are to blame as a prerequisite to existing.

True, but many use patriarchy theory to justify their hatred of men. There is no hate in the idea itself (although it is factually incorrect), but the people who employ the idea are hateful.

Men holding more power doesn't mean men are oppressing women. It means women haven't completely caught up from a time when they were more oppressed.

No, but when women face issues, it automatically places the blame on men i.e. men oppress women. This is because of the assumption that they have the power over women to "fix" women's issues. The fact that they are choosing not to fix those issues is why they are oppressing women. Hence, having more power implies oppressing the other group.

Think of it this way, if men and women were in a race and men took off in 1900 AD. Women took off in 1970. Men aren't holding women back so they aren't inhibiting their progress at all. But that doesn't mean that starting right now everything is even. Women still need to catch up in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege, and control of property.

Like I said, women were already above men in 2 of those things even when the race started (moral authority and social privilege) and already surpass men in control of property (in 2015; see above). If men aren't holding women back from political office, then whose fault is it that women aren't being elected? Surely not men. Okay, you can blame the "system" but then since men control the system ("hold power over women") according to your theory, it reflexively puts blame on men. So in reality, women themselves are to blame for not being in political office, since they choose not to run. To say otherwise is to deny that women don't have freedom of choice, which in itself is misogynistic.

In the half century since 1970, women have made tremendous growth in their political, social, and financial power. But arguing they haven't quite caught up yet is not the same as arguing that men are purposefully slowing them down. Those are VERY different statements.

1. They already have higher social and financial power.
2. Who is slowing them down then? You can blame the system which, as explained above, reflexively blames men, or blame women, who choose not run for office.

I'd argue in favour that women haven't caught up. I would not say men are purposefully holding women down.

Again, who is holding them down? The "system" or themselves? Blaming the system within the framework of patriarchy theory is equivalent to blaming men. Hence, you are blaming women for not having caught up, which would contradict patriarchy theory, or blaming men, which would contradict your statement.

So there are crazy feminists that think men are oppressing women at every turn. But most feminists are much closer to the line of thinking that women were disadvantaged and haven't caught up. And 'dismantling the patriarchy' means closing the gap that still exists between men and women.

You will find that patriarchy theory itself implies that men are oppressing women since according to the theory, men hold the power to right the wrongs done against women, but choose not to. Most feminists that believe patriarchy theory, therefore, believe that men are oppressing women.

We should close the gap between men and women. Show people that men are also just as moral as women, remove the social privilege of women, equalize the wealth gap between men and women, and show women that they too are capable of running for office. None of those things implies the existence of a patriarchy.