The way words work is they have a particular meaning. You certainly have the right to make up alternate definitions for fun, or decide that the current definitions mean something else, but that doesn't take away from the widely accepted definition - which does actually have particular properties and qualities. As you know, I do write about the ills that I'm aware of - and I might add do a yeoman's job of explaining the social dynamics that they sprang from - complete with academic citations and expert analysis. I would have thought you'd have read enough from me by now to understand exactly what patriarchy is (in a sociological context, which is somewhat different than a strictly feminist context). But, apparently not, so here's a short primer which is a bit oversimplified but in general describes how societies shifted in response to the agricultural revolution and the new conditions that accompanies it -something that goes far beyond a historic power differential between men and women. The first quoted part is taken from an article in the World Economic Forum:
“Labor roles became more gendered as well. Generally, men did the majority of the fieldwork while women were relegated to child-rearing and household work. Without contributing food (and by association, without control over it), women became second-class citizens. Women also had babies more frequently, on averageonce every two years rather than once every four in hunter-gatherer societies.
Because somebody had to have control over surplus food, it became necessary to divide society into roles that supported this hierarchy. The roles of an administrator, a servant, a priest, and a soldier were invented. The soldier was especially important because agriculture was so unsustainable compared to hunting and gathering. The fickleness of agriculture ironically encouraged more migration into neighboring lands in search of more resources and warfare with neighboring groups. Capturing slaves was also important since farming was hard work, and more people were working in these new roles.
This division of labor and social inequality had very real consequences. For instance, while the majority of people had disastrous health compared to their hunter-gatherer ancestors, the skeletons of Mycenean royalty had better teeth and were three inches taller than their subjects. Chilean mummies from A.D. 1000 had a fourfold lower rate of bone lesions caused by disease than commoners.”
In other words, patriarchy is at its heart a dominance-based hierarchy where might makes right, and those who have the most social power have gotten it by intimidation, force, and coercion and by maintaining traditional power once it is established. This is typically accomplished by keeping those further down the pecking order from having an actual chance to compete. Ruthlessness is not only an accepted method of acquiring and maintaining power, but for many, it actually reads as a leadership quality, even today."
So yes, patriarchy is responsible for racism (among other things) because social stratification based on immutable traits is a core element of patriarchy as a social system. All types of social stratification not based on merit are. There's no mythology taking place. It's straight up scientific analysis of the facts.
Thanks for the story about your granddaughter and your reading list. It gave me a smile.
Edit: by contrast, egalitarian cultures tend to have these properties: Ad hoc leaders emerge for certain tasks and decisions are made by the group for the good of the group. The absence of social classes, significant wealth disparity, ruling classes, and no hierarchy of traditional power that is maintained by intimidation — these are the things that make for an egalitarian culture.
