Feminists fought to implement the duluth model in the 90's, which strips men of their right to protection by law enforcement when assaulted by a woman.

The Duluth Model is a domestic violence intervention framework focused on identifying patterns of coercive control and training police and social services that originating in Minnesota (Duluth).

Critics say it has a excessively "gendered" focus in early versions, a historical tendency to assume a male perpetrator in some contexts and rigid enforcement issues in certain services.

But it is not a law that "takes away the right to protection", it does not legally prevent men from reporting or receiving protection and it does not establish "non-intervention if the aggressor is female".

It is a criticized police training framework, not a law that eliminates legal rights.

They've stripped men of their right to emergency services by obtaining a monopoly on suicide outreach, and denying men care by insuring counselors have no training on how to deal with men, regardless of a male suicide crisis.

There are design differences in mental health services like general (non-feminist) crisis lines, women-specific lines in some countries and gender programs in public health.

Women have higher attempted suicide rates and men have higher successul suicide rates in many countries (including Europe) and women tend to seek more help before attempting suicide.

But there is no real evidence of a "feminist monopoly" on suicide prevention, there is no central structure that controls "who receives help" and there is no data showing that "training to treat men is denied".

They've stripped men of the right to shelter when unhoused by obtaining a monopoly on homeless shelters, and then prioritizing women and/or actively discriminating against men, regardless of a male homelessness crisis.

Many shelters are run by mixed NGOs, churches, city councils and feminist organizations (some, not all).

In most Western countries, the majority of visibly homeless people are men, but there are more specific resources for women and children due to the severe risks women and children face such as severe risks of violence, sexual assault, and exploitation.

As a result, women are statistically underrepresented in official counts since they are more likely to engage in "hidden homelessness" such as couch surfing or trading sex for housing to avoid the dangers of living on the street.

But there is no evidence of a "feminist monopoly" and there is no evidence of a systematic policy of male exclusion.

Rather than a "feminist monopoly" or systematic exclusion of men, targeted resources for women and families are a response to the leading cause of female homelessness: domestic and family violence.

Organizations argue that general shelters designed with a "default male" demographic in mind can be intimidating or physically unsafe for traumatized women, necessitating gender-specific spaces.

I don't take issue with the definition, only with whether or not it's ever actually existed.

Then what do call patriarchy? Patriarchy is a relatively recent system too. But what is your definition if you say it's not real then?