It's also a wrong term. "Patriarchy" means a system where women are owned by men (husbands, fathers, brothers), cannot own property, etc. The only reason why feminists chose this term to describe the current social order (which is clearly not a patriarchy in the literal sense) is to elicit negative emotions.

Uh, no it doesn't.

Patriarchal societies are ones where elder males are the heads of households (generally true) and descent (such as surnames) are passed through the males (generally true).

There are matriarchal societies – including many Native American ones. Those are called matriarchal societies. They're notably different from what we have. I think they're less common today than they ever have been, but patriarchal societies are also "less patriarchal," i.e. males don't own females, as you stated.

Feminists, and everyone with an education, use that term because we do live in a patriarchal society.

Edit: In response to your comment below, you're literally in the comment section of an article discussing the repercussions of men "failing" in their expected social role of head of household.

So... your argument that we do live in a patriarchal society is (1) we get surnames after dads (I mean, really, who cares), and (2) the unsubstantiated assertion that men are the "head" of the household (what does that even mean? that they spend less time with kids? that they earn more money so the wife can spen more? that they're less likely to keep the kids in event of divorce?)? Oh, well, now you've convinced me, of course it's a patriarchy!

What society is the Sikh?

Women are surnamed Kaur (princess) and the men are surnamed Singh (lion).

Patriarchal and matriarchal?

Language evolves so words take on new meanings all the time. It's tedious to invent new words for everything, so you have to use context to figure out which definition is being used. This is completely standard, so I don't see why this is suddenly a problem when it comes to feminist terminology.

Today's society is one where men make most of the laws, own most of the property, earn most of the money, commit the most violence, set the behavioral norms and so on. Everything of importance is controlled by men, white men in particular. Using the word patriarchy to refer a society like that makes perfect sense to me.

Most of those points are moot. Women are > 50% of the population, so they could choose different lawmakers. Men work more, so it seems fair that they earn more money. More violence is caused by biology so we can't really help that (consequently, men also receive the majority of punishment), but statistics say that (1) men are also more often victims of violence, and (2) e.g. in relationships, violence is equally likely, but women get hurt more (which is kind of obvious, as men are stronger). I don't agree that men set most behavioral norms - if anything, I'd say that a lot of media is influenced by women and catered to women's desires. Your remark about whites is unnecessarily racist, whites are the original setlers of "the West" and still the majority of the population (but e.g. in Asia, most positions of power are held by ... drum roll please ... Asians!).

The only valid point is ownership of property, and I agree with it - although I don't want it to be more fairly distributed across sex, but rather across the whole population (the fact that owners are the 1% gives them much more power than the fact that they're white).

> The only valid point is ownership of property

Except it's not true: http://www.businessinsider.com/women-now-control-more-than-h...

They control most of the wealth according to that non-academic report (the report is an advertisement for wealth management services), and I couldn't find an academic study that came up with a similar number. I should also note that the report doesn't say US women possess 51% of the wealth, they just "control" it, whatever that means.

Women do not accumulate wealth at an equal rate to men, one reason is that their salary is much lower (wage gap). A second reason is that most single parents are women and that pushes the wealth distribution for women further down.

In terms of ownership it's closer to 36%.

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2011/shortchanged-women-and-...

It's especially bad for unmarried women who have about half the wealth of unmarried men. When you take race/ethnicity into account the gap is even wider.

http://globalpolicysolutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/...

The "wage gap" has been debunked many times over. Can we please put an end to using it in arguments? Here's one of many examples: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-real-gende...

On the topic of ownership of property, yes, the guy owns the property. That is, until she divorce him, then she owns half his properties. LOL.

In other word, she already owned half his property, he just didn't realized it until she divorced him. Hahaha.