Patriarchy

For centuries, women and girls have been told to wait their turn, to negotiate harder, to adjust to the structures that exclude them. Yet patriarchy does not negotiate — it dominates, silences, and systematically excludes. It is not a misunderstanding to be resolved; it is a system of power that must be dismantled. That is why only radical feminism — clear-eyed, structural, and unapologetic — will do.

Patriarchy: The Architecture of Exclusion

Patriarchy is not merely a set of discriminatory attitudes or isolated cases of male dominance. It is an entrenched social, political, and economic system that determines who holds power, who has access to resources, and whose voices are deemed legitimate. It functions through our laws, our institutions, our workplaces, our cultures, and even our languages.

Patriarchy is a pervasive system of power relations that privileges men and disadvantages women across all spheres of life. It is, in essence, the invisible architecture of exclusion — replicated in every structure where decision-making and authority are concentrated.

Gender parity is dismal. These are not natural outcomes — they are deliberate designs of a patriarchal order. As the feminist theorist Sylvia Walby has written, “Patriarchy is a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women.” It is not accidental; it is organized.

Why Radical Feminism, Not Reformism

Radical feminism is often misunderstood as extreme or even militant. But the “radical” in radical feminism comes from the Latin radix — meaning “root.” It seeks to address the root causes of women’s oppression, not just its symptoms. It is not about hatred of men, but about dismantling a social order that privileges them.

As defined by Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Radical feminism is a branch of feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society to eliminate male supremacy in all social and economic contexts.” It does not seek accommodation within existing patriarchal systems — it seeks transformation.

Liberal or reformist feminism, by contrast, focuses on achieving equality within existing systems through legal reforms or representation. Radical feminism argues that those systems themselves were built on women’s exclusion and cannot deliver equality without being rebuilt. The tables where women are asked to “take a seat” were designed for patriarchal advantage. As the sociologist bell hooks observed, “Patriarchy has no gender.” Even well-intentioned reforms can reproduce male-centric hierarchies if they do not interrogate the system itself.

Why Seats Are Not Enough

“Seats at the table” has become a slogan for inclusion. Yet the table itself — its design, ownership, and purpose — often remains unchallenged. When patriarchal institutions invite women to participate, they often do so on patriarchal terms: speak, but not too loudly; lead, but not too differently; succeed, but without questioning the structure.

True justice demands new tables — not invitations to the old ones. This is why radical feminists argue for structural transformation rather than symbolic inclusion. As feminist scholar Catharine MacKinnon argues, “The law sees and treats women the way men see and treat women.” Unless the very rules of governance and culture change, participation risks being tokenistic.

Structural change means rethinking governance, redistributing resources, redesigning work, and redefining value itself. It means:

• Parity by design: Mandating 50:50 representation in political, economic, and corporate decision-making — not as aspiration but as institutional requirement.
• Redistributive budgets: Allocating national resources to care work, reproductive health, and social protection as core infrastructure, not “social spending.”
• Structural accountability: Requiring gender impact assessments, independent oversight, and enforcement mechanisms with legal consequence.
• Re-working work: Recognizing unpaid and care work as economic labor, restructuring work environments, and protecting caregivers from economic penalty.
• Reimagining safety: Addressing gender-based violence not only as individual crime but as a systemic failure of justice and security.

These are not abstractions. They are the precise recommendations emerging from feminist economists and policymakers who argue that equality cannot exist in a world built on unequal foundations.

Intersectionality: The Lens of Reality

Radical feminism today also insists on intersectionality — a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw — to address how patriarchy intersects with race, class, sexuality, disability, and other systems of power. The experiences of a wealthy white woman in a boardroom are not the same as those of a rural African woman displaced by war or climate crisis.

Any transformative feminist politics must therefore center those who face the compounded weight of patriarchy. True liberation cannot come from the top down; it must be built from the margins inward. As Crenshaw explains, “If you can’t see a problem, you can’t fix it.”

For global South feminist movements — from Tigray to Gaza, from Sudan to Afghanistan — this perspective is essential. Patriarchy is often reinforced by militarism, religious authoritarianism, and neo-colonial economic models that disproportionately harm women. Radical feminism, in its truest sense, must be anti-patriarchal, anti-racist, and anti-imperialist at once.

Dismantling the System, Not Decorating It

Critics often ask if radical feminism is “too idealistic.” Yet history shows that every major gain for women — from the vote, to reproductive rights, to anti-violence laws — began with demands once deemed radical. The urgent need for radical feminism today lies in its refusal to normalize injustice and its insistence that power itself must be redefined.

The truth is that patriarchy adapts. It learns to wear progressive language while maintaining control. Corporate feminism, where “empowerment” is reduced to branding campaigns, is patriarchy in new clothes. Radical feminism cuts through that illusion. It understands that as long as patriarchal logic defines leadership, value, and success, women’s liberation will remain incomplete.

Conclusion: No Justice Without Dismantling Patriarchy

Liberation for women and girls does not begin with waiting for inclusion — it begins with dismantling exclusion. Patriarchy cannot coexist with justice, just as domination cannot coexist with equality.

To call oneself a radical feminist is to recognize that the personal is political, and that politics must be rebuilt from the ground up. It is to refuse the comfort of partial justice.

Seats at tables built on our exclusion are not enough. New tables — designed by and for women, where equality is not granted but owned — are the only way forward.

Because justice cannot coexist with patriarchy. And patriarchy, finally, must fall.