I'm not attributing anything - sociologists and experts in the field do that for me. I'm just reporting what they say. The way the term patriarchy is commonly used isn't the way that it is academically used (which is how I use it because I'm interested in the scholarly aspects). Social stratification and classes only emerged with patriarchy. That's how racism fits into the equation. Egalitarian systems see equal value in each individual - patriarchy does not. Reminding you again, in egalitarian systems, everyone eats, everyone gets medical care, everyone matters. There are no slaves. That only comes with patriarchy.

Here's a long quote from a book on organizational development that describes patriarchy in it's broader (not just feminist) context:

"In deciding how to govern, one critical choice is between patriarchy and partnership. Patriarchy expresses the belief that it is those at the top who are responsible for the success of the organization and the well-being of its members. A measure of patriarchy is how frequently we use images of parenting to describe how bosses should manage employees in organizations. To create workplaces that provide meaning and are economically sound and strong in the marketplace, we need to face the implications of having chosen patriarchy for the governance system inside our organizations.

The governance system we have inherited and continue to sustain is based on sovereignty and a form of intimate colonialism. These are strong terms, but they are essentially accurate. We govern our organizations by valuing, above all else, consistency, control, and predictability. These become the means of dominance by which colonialism and sovereignty are enacted. It is not that we directly seek dominance, but our beliefs about getting work done have that effect. We pay a price for our top-driven, parenting, patriarchal governance system:"

Block, Peter. Stewardship

So, you are correct that the WEF piece is oversimplified. Do you ever get around to reading the story of mine on autonomy that I've linked you a couple of times? In it I discuss the 5 thousand year gap between the onset of agriculture and patriarchal dominance hierarchies.

https://medium.com/inside-of-elle-beau/personal-autonomy-is-important-to-humans-cd2ea2ae495

"What happens if we accord significance to the 5,000 years in which cereal domestication did not lead to the emergence of pampered aristocracies, standing armies or debt peonage, rather than just the 5,000 in which it did?"

A patriarchy is a dominance based hierarchy in which men are at the top of the pyramid of power. It is a social system that women participate in as well, but until really very recently, women were second class citizens both by law and by custom. So, although there are aspects of how this social system evolved in response to things happening in the environment which have some organic elements, I don't think there is any real question of whether or not men had a significant impact in the intentional disempowerment and control of women - they hardly would have suggested that for themselves.

As per the quote from the book above, overtly seeking dominance is not necessary in order to have adopted systems that enshrine a dominance hierarchy. Men don't have to be malicious in order to have created and sustained a system that gives a few men the most power, and all men at least some power over women. That women did not somehow rise up and throw this off because "all people are responsible for their own actions" is a bit like complaining that a junior high student did not stand up to a teacher who was treating them unfairly. The power differential is not equal, the risk for demanding something better is not equal. It's a red herring to say something like that, and it serves no purpose but to distract from the realities.

If you are concerned that patriarchy somehow makes men look bad, I think it's time to grow up and not make it about you. As a white person I can acknowledge and accept that white people have systematically and intentionally disenfranchised people of color without internalizing some narrative that this means that white people are evil, and therefore if I acknowledge this dynamic, that I am evil. I'm sorry to say, that's fragility in a nutshell and that very fragility is absolutely what stands in the way of greater equality. You cannot correct problems if you won't acknowledge that they exist and if you are too defensive to actually grapple with the realities of what is taking place. (FYI, you doesn't mean you personally, I mean One).

I look forward to your dog story.