This condescending comment ("whatever negative things happen to you", "more complicated than that, dear") ignores at decades of research in sociology, critical theory and political philosophy - which, at the very least, say that concerns about the effects of gender in the structure of society cannot be so easily dismissed.
>but rather with one single factor-- some ethereal 00.00001% group of conspiratorial, ostensibly straight white old men
This is not what "patriarchy" or "the patriarchy" refers to in any academic text. What you're saying is more akin to an anti-male conspiracy theory. The claim is not that there is a group of conspiratorial men in charge, or even men with bad intentions. You can read the most rudimentary details of the theory at Wikipedia[0] or at the highly regarded Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1].
I'm not a strict adherent to the theory myself, but I think it's worth pointing out when a claim as to what the word means and what the theorists say is obviously wrong.
(Side note: it's curious how my comment, in line with current research and citing respected sources, is downvoted by people who don't bother to engage with the arguments themselves.)
Having grounding in nature doesn't mean that it ought to be kept around though. Lots of harmful stuff is grounded in nature, and lots of amazing and good things have no grounding in nature. We have to examine everything and decide if it's worth keeping around regardless of the source.
Sure, but I think you'll find a lot of people are more than happy to drop the idea that only boys can play with toycars and only girls can play with dolls, and that if a girl like toycars she isn't "behaving like she should".
It's not a matter of the number of people who think (after all, there are a great number of people believing climate change isn't real and that the earth is flat) but the arguments which are presented. If someone has made an argument to the effect that gender is harmful enough to not be worth keeping around, then you can respond to that argument. However, not all opponents of the patriarchy argue that gender itself shouldn't be kept around. In fact, that's quite a niche position.
>but rather with one single factor-- some ethereal 00.00001% group of conspiratorial, ostensibly straight white old men
This is not what "patriarchy" or "the patriarchy" refers to in any academic text. What you're saying is more akin to an anti-male conspiracy theory. The claim is not that there is a group of conspiratorial men in charge, or even men with bad intentions. You can read the most rudimentary details of the theory at Wikipedia[0] or at the highly regarded Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1].
I'm not a strict adherent to the theory myself, but I think it's worth pointing out when a claim as to what the word means and what the theorists say is obviously wrong.
(Side note: it's curious how my comment, in line with current research and citing respected sources, is downvoted by people who don't bother to engage with the arguments themselves.)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-power/