I did not intend to assert that any definition is the correct one. I intended to direct your attention to the similarity between the dictionary definition and the feminist definition.

"...your strong reaction to patriarchy..."

What strong reaction?

If I knew what my unconscious was thinking, it wouldn't be unconscious.

The sociologists you refer to consider that a single, universal, comprehensive system is the cause of all injustice, unfairness, suffering, poverty, hunger, homelessness, racism, and other social ills. They call that system patriarchy. Their reference to patriarchy creates the impression that a general relationship between men and women is the basis for all social ills. If the flaws in that relationship were corrected, all the other social issues would be resolved.

Casting all social ills as connected to the relations between men and women may have underlying political motives. It could be that one drop of politics added to the sea of social science.

I don't find that all social ills are so tightly and intricately related. I don't consider them part of a single universally comprehensive system. Expecting to perfect society by dismantling a system and replacing it with a new, improved system is futile.

If you or anyone else wants to "dismantle patriarchy," go ahead; it doesn't interest me. Is that what you call a strong reaction? I know it is a conscious reaction. I did not have to put on my scuba gear and go unconscious diving to find it.

I understand the listed social ills as caused by character flaws in individuals - lazy, frightened, greedy, schismogenic people looking for easier, safer, more profitable, and distinct ways to do things. Society will never be perfect because it consists of imperfect individuals. We can continuously improve but will never reach perfection. People do not even agree about what constitutes improvement, let alone perfection.