I also have the right to construct a definition based on my observation of how the word is commonly used. If you choose to refer to it as an “alternate” definition, that is your prerogative.
I do not disagree with the World Economic Forum’s description of events.
The three paragraphs you quoted describe a wide range of social ills associated with the emergence of agriculture. I notice that the word “patriarchy” does not appear once in the three paragraphs. It’s almost as if they consider it irrelevant.
You applied the term patriarchy in referring to the range of social ills cited in the quoted paragraphs. That is the “common usage” I referred to in my last comment.
I wonder if you can cite a social ill that you do not attribute to patriarchy.
From now on, when you apply the term “patriarchy,” I will understand it as you described it in your comment. I recognize that you hold “patriarchy” responsible for racism. I’m not sure how that contributes to eradicating racism, but I guess it can’t hurt.
The World Economic Forum forgot one detail. They attribute the ills they describe directly to the emergence of agriculture. They left out the five-thousand-year gap between the emergence of agriculture and the emergence of the range of ills — what you refer to as a dominance hierarchy (otherwise known as patriarchy).
Five-thousand years is a long time. One would think that if agriculture had been practiced for five-thousand years before the patrio-dominance hierarchy emerged, then agriculture was not the triggering event at all.
I understand that you do not use “patriarchy” as a synonym for “men.” However, men are often held directly responsible for its emergence.
This comment by @H.N. is an example:
I’m glad you enjoyed my anecdote. Maybe you’ll like my dog story in one of my other comments.
