The term “patriarchy” is a misnomer for a misanthropic societal system whose goals are the increase of procreation (ie, birth rates), as well as economic and military strength with fascism being its extreme manifestation. Within this system, women are excessively assigned submissive-caregiving roles (eg, mothers), while men are assigned excessively dominant-aggressive roles (eg, soldiers). Both genders suffer and benefit from this in different ways, even if men have the impression that they control the system, while being unaware or not allowed to speak about their disadvantages (eg, parental rights, convictions for crimes). Therefore, the term “patriarchy” (rule by fathers/men) is misleading.
Mutual blame may serve as an entry point for discussion, but such simplifications do not address the fundamental systemic issues, as gender-specific behaviors are co-dependent (cf. hypergamy). For example, I suspect that men’s pursuit of power and wealth could be significantly countered if young, attractive women consistently preferred modest, poor men without upward mobility ambitions as partners. Similarly, changes in male beauty standards—such as a preference for curvier or more muscular women—could influence women’s health, for instance, by reducing the prevalence of eating disorders.
The systemic nature of the problem can be deduced from a thought experiment: in conflicts between societies with varying degrees of patriarchal structures, those that are more patriarchal are likely to prevail. To illustrate, consider two extreme examples:
A) A patriarchal society that pushes women (mothers) into roles focused on child-rearing (childbirth) and men (fathers) into roles focused on labor and combat.
B) An anti-patriarchal society that pushes men (fathers) into child-rearing roles and women (mothers) into labor and combat roles.
I suspect that, in competition between these two societal forms, A (“Patrichary”) would dominate B (“Anti-Patriarchy”) in the long term. Since women are the limiting factor for population growth, it is in a society’s interest to protect their lives more than those of men. I am not arguing that this is right or good (naturalistic fallacy), but rather basing this on theoretical considerations and anthropological observations.
In contrast, the concept of kyriarchy assumes that multiple dimensions of subordination and dominance overlap, leading to situations where a person may be dominant in one context (e.g., men in career advancement) and oppressed in another (e.g., men in child custody disputes or criminal sentencing).
Notes:
- I believe the principle of “women and children first” in disasters is less about morality and more about evolutionary survival, as it favors the procreation of society. If the goal were justice—such as protecting the weak—one might also prioritize “the weak and sick.” However, this is not customary in (Western) societies. Additionally, adult men likely have a higher survival rate in physical disasters due to their generally greater physical strength.
- Text was AI-translated (chat.mistral.ai) from the German original [2] and reviewed and revised by the original author Wilmar Igl.
Sources:
[2] https://biosphere.wilmarigl.de/?p=5401
English 
German