"The reason why Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad girls live." -- George Carlin
I have something of a friend -- more like an intellectual adversary who lacks intellect -- who likes to pretend that he has women all figured out. After all, he's studied anthropology and reads all the "right" books, and despite the fact that he obviously does not understand much about economics, politics, Western Culture, history, psychology, biology, and why he gets beaten bloody by people who find him annoying on a regular basis, he's put himself out there as something of an expert on the subject of sex.
And you just know by looking at him that he doesn't get any.
He has what he believes to be two "trump" cards to play in any discussion of the subject.
1. That eggs are more valuable than sperm. This based upon the idea that since there is more sperm than there are eggs, this relative scarcity makes them more valuable.
2. Women are the prime selectors when it comes to choosing mates. Therefore, this gives them a power Men cannot overcome.
1 is a fundamental misunderstanding of relative values. By themselves, eggs are worthless. They only become valuable in the presence of sperm, and vice-versa.
2 is a regurgitation of boilerplate feminism; that the vagina is a mystical organ possessed of magical powers over time, space, matter and men....when it isn't a fucking burden that holds you back at work, cripples you with cramps and water-retention, relegates you to second-class citizen status, and prevents you from doing things you wish to do (like powerlifting or becoming a fireman) which are then conveniently blamed on "Patriarchy" (I'll get to that nonsense in a minute).
Of course, if you disagree with either these premises, my adversary has a raft of excuses as to why you aren't on the right side of his opinions, or can't see the righteousness of his position:
1. You're obviously a right-winger.
2. You suffer from a lack of self-esteem.
3. You have some kind of "chip on your shoulder" (this is really a backhanded class argument by people who style themselves as "egalitarians")
4. You are biased.
5. You're an idiot lacking in understanding.
6. You're not an expert (you are?).
7. You're a ________ - ist.
8. You can't --EVER -- be logically consistent.
Mind you, this is the same guy who will make a statements like:
"Climate Change was occurring for billions of years" and then tell you "Man is solely responsible for Climate Change" (the planet being 4.5 billion years of age, Humans only about 2 million, escapes his grasp) .
"Temperatures don't matter, CO2 is the culprit" and "2-degrees Celsius hotter spells disaster". Ask what the optimal planetary temperature should be, and he has no answer, and quickly changes the subject.
"We're producing too much CO2", and if you ask him in this context simple questions like "what is the best level of CO2 concentration?" , he switches back to temperature and CO2 becomes unimportant.
If you can't establish a bare minimum baseline, then your argument has no floor beneath your rhetorical feet, and you're just mentally masturbating. After all, how is anyone supposed to take you seriously and believe you if when making the statement "The Climate is out of kilter!", someone asks you to describe what "kilter" looks like, and you can't?
He's a goal-post mover and plays stupid when it suits his purpose, and then he accuses you of being stupid.
Like I've said, "lacks intellect". His interest in these subjects is related directly to his politics and immediate needs: he likes Climate Change because it's a means of destroying capitalism (which he isn't very good at, despite all the pretense to class arguments).
His interest in the dynamics of sex -- the Facebook page he's devoted to it -- is really about false pretenses. From the way he speaks on this particular subject (sex) it's clear he's pursuing a passive-aggressive dating strategy -- if he simply tells women what they want to hear, they'll give him some, and though he's a fucking cad, he can be forgiven it because (altogether now) he has the "right" feelz and ideas.
Anyway, back to this stupid idea that women are the "primary" selectors when it comes to sex and this gives them ultimate power.
Given the numbers of divorces, the numbers of women in battered women's shelters, the number of fake "rape" hoaxes, and the often 3-to-1 differential between female and male profiles on adult dating websites, it would seem that if women had this absolute power to make the choice of who gets access to the Pearl of Great Price, they're not doing a very good job of it. In fact, the statistics would indicate that they actually suck at it.
In fact, I would wager this is a prime example of why, if we left all questions of mating and reproduction solely in female hands, we would have gone extinct many millions of years ago (because they'd be too busy choosing china patterns and matching the dust ruffles to the duvet).
Given this evidence, we could surmise that women are irresponsible with their private parts, pitch their price far too low, and let their emotions often overcome their good sense (if they ever had any). There's only so much "bad luck" to explain the thrice-divorced drunken cougar on the hunt for someone -- anyone -- to fill that empty hole between her legs as a (very) temporary substitute for filling that empty hole in her heart.
(Your Overlord spent far too much time in bars as a younger man, and has known far too many women, especially carnally. Seen it all.)
If, for example, you've been married and divorced multiple times; if you keep finding the same abusive boyfriend/husband; if you continue to fail to learn your hard-learned lessons about what you should want in a mate and keep bringing home tattooed louts in guinea tees who treat you, alternately, as slave, punching bag, prime enabler and sex toy, there's obviously one common denominator in all of those circumstances.
That would be YOU, Lady.
This is called "establishing a baseline".
So much for your power of choice.
Perhaps there was a time when women had the power of choice in mating, but then they devalued sex, so the power to make that choice is, likewise, devalued.
Feminism transformed sex from a personal matter attached to committed spouses attempting to create a nuclear family in stable circumstances into an act of revolutionary fervor and psychological warfare. When sex was less-prevalent, women had power in who it went to.
But now sex is like low-hanging fruit. Modern feminism has turned sex into (alternately) a weapon of revenge, a crowbar with which to pry privileges from Men, a useful tool for advancement in a profession, a means of claiming victimhood (which makes you a hero?), a drug a woman uses to , at least, "feel empowered" when the rest of her life is a godawful, shitty mess.
And Men reacted accordingly.
When sex was hard to get, we deferred to the female power of choice. When sex is about as easy to come by as air -- because let's face it, Ladies, if you aren't putting out, your sister, girlfriends, and probably even your mother, are -- Men paid less attention to the need to cater to a female's extra-coital requirements, like commitment, financial support, or even to give a fuck about your feelings.
Which only made women angrier.
Which is why women have, accordingly, lowered their own value. Or, perhaps, that value is "just right", given the predominance of the slovenly, drunken, antagonistic, uppity, too-stupid-for-their-own-good, sexually-profligate, barfly, "Swipe-Right" pigs on today's market.
So, my friend is sadly mistaken.
Women are not "selectors", they are "solicitors". Vomiting up all the Gloria Steinhem and Naomi Wolfe in the world will not get you laid, and if it does, it's probably not the primo stuff. But, hey, even your fish tank needs bottom-feeders, right?
In the meantime, the power "to select" has slowly drifted back into the hands of Men. If you doubt this, start to count up all the getting-long-in-the-tooth single women you know, and all the ones who complain "there are no good ones left".
You wouldn't still be single if you had the power of selection.
They're only no good because they haven't picked you, and besides, why buy the cow when you give the milk away for free?
A note on "Patriarchy": you're using that word incorrectly. Or more to the point, dishonestly.
For while Patriarchies do exist (the Vatican comes to mind, as an example), it isn't the Pope or the mere existence of the Boy Scouts and NFL that keep women from achieving "equality".
No, the cause of that would be women, themselves. Because like my climate-change-goal-post-mover, they aren't honest about their motivations and ultimate goals.
Because if they told the absolute truth -- that feminism seeks to create a society in which women are granted every opportunity and relieved of every responsibility, while Men are saddled with every responsibility and relieved of every opportunity -- then Men would get wise and chain you back to your stove.
Unable to be honest, then, feminism has to engage in a program of deception, double talk and double standards, which always boomerang upon them, and make them look sillier than they did previously. Which just makes them angrier and determined to double-down on stupid, thinking if they just try the same failed programs repeatedly, only with more fervor and stricter orthodoxy, they'll eventually win.
That strategy didn't work for the Communists, the Nazis, or Radical Islam: I can promise it won't work for you, either.
Which brings us back to Patriarchy, because it's a dishonest term, which (as intended) conjures up images of cigar-chomping chauvinists meeting in smokey back rooms, or secret complexes inside extinct, hollowed-out volcanoes, plotting how they're going to screw you every day of your life.
Because those guys are busy: the racial ambulance chasers, the gay-rights advocates, the One-World-government types, the Conspiracy Theorists, the anti-Semites, the Eliminate-the-Fed, tin-foil hat wearer, all blame the same bunch of guys for their troubles, too.
There is no "Patriarchy", per se, in that sense.
The word you really are searching for is "Hierarchy", and it's the prime organizing force (or seems to be) for every living thing on this planet.
Beehives and anthills have hierarchies (Queen, Drone, Soldier, Forager, Worker).
Birds have pecking orders.
Packs of hunting animals (wolves, lions) have their Alphas, Betas, Gamma, and Omegas.
And so every human endeavor follows a similar pattern.
In business, we have the hierarchy of Executive, Manager/Administrator, Worker.
In government, President, Congress, voter.
Even feminism has a hierarchy -- Icon/mouthpiece, Academic, Organizer, Stupid Broad marching in the street with a vagina hat and mailing her bloody tampons to people she doesn't like, who can't figure out why her circumstances have not changed.
One's position within a hierarchy is dependent upon two things: the first is competence. It is very rare for the incompetent to rise very high in a hierarchy before their incompetence is discovered and they are ferreted out. Some will point to, say, the American Congress, to insist this is evidence that I'm talking out of my ass, but this discounts the fact that Congress (or, rather, the means by which Congresscritters are selected) is not about Hierarchy, but about politics and the systems involved.
The more-competent one is, the higher one will rise.
The second conditioning factor is utility. The more-useful one is to the organization, the more likely they are to retain a position. Useless people are bad for hierarchies.
So, if you are competent and serve a vital function within the hierarchy, you will rise to the top. You will also accrue most of the rewards the hierarchy has to give out, since you're too effective to short-change and too useful to screw over.
This means that if you have seem to have no place within a hierarchy, it's most likely an indication that you're a talentless slug who's taking up valuable space and air.
Calling it "Patriarchy" and imbuing the word with emotional and political character won't change that fact.