I have noticed this long time ago - the patriarchy theory is a textbook example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. If you are not familiar with the concept, check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

​

The motte part is a patriarchy theory as used in anthropology and sociology. This part is solid and you can use it as evidence that patriarchy is a real thing. Arguments for patriarchy from anthropology and sociology are:

  • Wife and children takes husband's name
  • Mothers care for children and do majority of unpaid work while fathers win bread doing the paid work
  • In a relationship the man is on average slightly older than the woman
  • We still use male centric language like "guys", "fireman" and "mankind"
  • In some non-democratic countries men still dominate over women
  • In the past families or clans were controlled by the father or eldest male
  • Major religions and their gods are male-centric
  • Most top politicians and CEOs are men
  • etc.

The bailey part is a patriarchy theory as used in feminism. This part is usually completely made up and as a rule of thumb everything goes. Arguments for patriarchy from feminism are:

  • Men hold all power while women are excluded from it
  • "Heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women"
  • If men are disadvantaged it is because "patriarchy hurts men too"
  • Male loneliness and suicide are caused by patriarchy
  • "Patriarchy and capitalism interact together to oppress women"
  • Patriarchy is to blame for global warming
  • Misandry is not real because we live in patriarchy
  • etc.

How feminists typically use the motte and bailey fallacy:

They make an absurd claim of the bailey type, for instance "men are the majority of homeless because patriarchy hurts men too". When the opponent attacks the bailey and argues that no such patriarchy exists, the feminist will retreat to the motte and reply with "of course patriarchy is real, do you deny that wives take husbands names, do you deny that we still call ourselves 'mankind'?"

The trick of course is that arguments in the bailey part have no causal connection to arguments in the motte part. But because feminists never have to prove what they say they regularly use the motte-and-bailey fallacy to claim that patriarchy is the cause of anything and everything.