But not in the sense that the Assyrians or Aztecs were, which is the sense of dominator that Eisler used. You're not going to file an complaint about workplace sexual harassment and discrimination to Ashurbanipal.

Doesn't Eisler consider Western democracies to have many aspects of partnership organization too? Or is it more convenient to forget that?

This is why I didn't know what you meant by "patriarchy". By your examples I could tell you weren't using it strictly in that sense.

And we shouldn't be assuming that there's a HUGE amount of influence, we should be measuring the influence. And trying to figure out things like why Sweden has rather high rates of intimate partner violence despite an apparently less patriarchal society than, say, Australia, which has anomalously low (but still too high) rates.

The "it's all patriarchy all the time" attitude doesn't help. Most problems don't covary with level of patriarchy, as I keep trying to point out with comparative analysis. (IPV is a lot higher, obviously, in male-dominated societies where women have no property rights and it's considered fitting to beat your wife if she won't have sex with you. Once you get to the level of partnership society that most of the West has, other factors seem more important.)