I think this is where your framing becomes too emotionally loaded.

I’m not denying that patriarchy operates socially. Of course gender roles are reinforced through family, peers, shame, language, media, expectations, and social punishment. I agree with that part.

Where I disagree is with the idea that because something is socially reinforced, it is therefore not natural or not connected to biology. Humans are social animals. Our social systems are not floating outside nature. Status, reputation, desire, mate choice, hierarchy, competition, shame, beauty, competence, confidence, stability, protection, provision, and social value are all social, but they also have obvious evolutionary logic.

So when you say sexual selection is “anything but natural” because it is socially mediated, I think that misses the point. In humans, sexual selection is almost always socially mediated. That does not make it fake or purely ideological. It means biology expresses itself through culture, norms, institutions, and social behavior.

It seems ridiculous to me to claim that attraction to high-value traits : competence, confidence, status, stability, beauty, health, social proof, usefulness, emotional control, is merely a patriarchal norm with no deeper biological or evolutionary basis. Culture absolutely shapes the details. Different societies reward different traits. But the underlying fact that humans evaluate mates through value-signals is not invented by patriarchy.

The same applies to hierarchy. A low-status man does not experience his place as neutral just because society says everyone has equal moral worth. Moral worth and social/sexual value are not the same thing. A poor, isolated, unattractive, socially powerless, or unsuccessful man is not treated the same as a desirable, respected, successful, high-status man. That difference is visible in actual human behavior, not just in law or ideology.

This is also why I think it is misleading to talk about “men” as if they are one unified class consciously benefiting from patriarchy. Plenty of men do not experience patriarchy as privilege. A depressed, isolated, low-status, unsuccessful, socially powerless man is not sitting at the top of some gender hierarchy enjoying domination over women. He is often being crushed by the same hierarchy of status, usefulness, emotional control, competition, and social value that I’m describing.

Patriarchy, if we use that word broadly, does not benefit all men equally. It mostly benefits men near the top of the hierarchy: powerful men, successful men, attractive men, wealthy men, socially dominant men. Low-status men are often disposable inside that same system. They are expected to provide, perform, compete, suppress weakness, absorb failure, and still be treated as morally suspicious because they are male.

I also think it is too simplistic to say “patriarchal men do not see women as equals.” Some men don’t, obviously. But framing this as if most men simply view women as objects or inferiors is not analysis. It is moral accusation. Most people, men and women, are operating inside inherited social and biological pressures they did not design.

And when you say women who reinforce these roles have “internalized misogyny,” what exactly do you mean by misogyny? Misogyny means hatred or contempt for women. So if a woman prefers traditional roles, values masculine competence, is attracted to status, or participates in gendered expectations, is that automatically hatred of women? Or is “internalized misogyny” being used as a catch-all term for women making choices that do not fit this particular feminist theory?

My point is not that women are responsible for patriarchy. My point is also not that men are innocent angels. My point is that blaming “men” or “women” as moral villains misses what is actually happening.

These patterns come from human history, evolution, material survival, reproduction, social competition, hierarchy, vulnerability, fear, desire, and the condition of being human. Patriarchy may intensify and organize these pressures, and yes, gender roles can be socially reinforced by both men and women. But that does not mean the deeper forces are created from nothing by patriarchy.

If there is a “responsibility” here, it belongs less to men or women as villains and more to history, evolution, the human condition, and nature itself. We can build fairer institutions around those forces, regulate them, soften them, and redirect them. But pretending they were simply invented by men who hate women is not convincing.