I believe that's my position. If the social structure of humanity is based on genetic necessity, I wouldn't think to frame it as any one group of individuals making decisions that harm others.
I think people in these discussions over-assume that patriarchal is consciously intentional. So we're confusedly agreeing?
> The social structure that results is emergent, not designed.
... yes, and the undesigned structure that has emerged we are labelling "patriarchy".
> the social structure of humanity is based on genetic necessity
... requires a lot more unpacking. Is this asserting that culture doesn't exist and material conditions are irrelevant? All behaviour is only genetic? I don't think that's what you're claiming, but I can't parse it otherwise.
Definitely. It feels like there's a difference in our interpretation of the context of the word "patriarchy". I have most often heard it used as a condemnation of a group of individuals who are also disadvantaged by the social structure. Similar to the way "idealism" is commonly used to disparage positive future thinking.
I would sure rather a society where no one has to feel like they're in a fight for survival where the only way to win is someone else losing.
The same sorta pattern repeats a lot. Even a lot of quite toxic MRA stuff is basically dudes redescovering core feminist concepts but then not seeing the forest for the trees.
