system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe oligarchy is a bigger and much more urgent problem than patriarchy. CMV

Let us define these concepts first:

**Patriarchy:** From feminist theory, the *a priori* truth that society is immediately geared to favor male *(cis-gendered(?))* people, male-like qualities and male role models to the derision of women, feminine traits and role-models in women and everything else in between. 

**Oligrachy:** The *a priori* turth stating society is immediately geared to favor wealth and the wealthy, venerates money and the accumulation of it and puts wealthy people in a pedestal to revered and admired.

Colorary:

While I have many qualms with contemporary feminism (i.e. it's a movement that preaches gender equality and freedom of expression but acts to tarnish those same principles when met with dissenting opinions), I think some of the ideas it purports have a basis in fact (i.e. the right for a woman to choose over her own body).


That being said, I think the concept of *patriarchy* as the great boogeyman and the reason for all society's ills is misguided, ham-handed and short-sighted. It fails to represent societies around the world in a fair manner over time, assumes men are always favored over women in all circumstances and doesn't acknowledge healthy relationships between a man and a woman exist in many different hues and styles. I also believe the concept destroys history, culture and any kind of context in an effort to view everything with a short-sighted lens.

View:

I think that patriarchy is dwarfed by oligarchy, defined above. Wealth is held by any person at any given point of time, and it is the wealthy who have the power to oppress those who don't have as much wealth. While this is a point counteracted with the argument that most CEOs in the western world are men, this is also short-sighted: It's not hard to see wealth doesn't have a prejudice towards women. Positions of power held by women and men have alike have been based around the accumulation of wealth and social clout. Whenever a woman came from a wealthy family or built her own wealth, power never escaped them because they were female. If we lived in a purely patriarchal society, the smashing success of Oprah Winfrey, Anna Maria Escobedo or Sonia Sotomayor wouldn't be possible. These are all women who built their own wealth, and I'd argue they jumped through as many hoops and obstacles as man in a similar or even identical situation. Looking back on history, wealthy women had a lot more privileges than men and women in lower classes of society. Even though Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake." is a fake quote, it speaks to the vision of the French people of their higher classes as privileged people, disenfranchised from their woes. They even went so far as to execute her, not because she was a mother or a woman, but because she represented the crown they hated. 

In my opinion, men aren't favored over women. Society simply favors the wealthy, whoever these people may be. As as society, we allow these people to be beacon and a finish line, a set of desirable traits that sets those who have far above those who haven't. These same people are the ones who get to make our laws (the 2013 US government shutdown), dictate our economy (AIG and the 2008 financial meltdown) and get to decide who thinks what (oligopoly of media). 

The poor man will never be favoured over the rich woman. 

I want this view to be challenged.
gpt
I'd say that a lot of feminists aren't quite as reductionist as to say that patriarchy is the reason for all of society's ills. Rather, they'd point out that a lot of social problems are shaped by patriarchy. For example, Wall Street is overwhelmingly male. This is because Wall Street strongly rewards competitiveness and risk-taking, which are attributes men are more likely to have. But this emphasis has led to some bad outcomes, and has exacerbated the problems of oligarchy that you mention. 

Feminist authors write mostly about gender issues for the same reason that scholars of religion or race write about those issues. It doesn't mean they believe that there aren't any other issues.