Well...I just read both of those, and three other articles of yours, and I'm still completely confused about a key issue (though I've learned some other things).

The United States, and to a lesser but still substantial extent other Westernized democracies, has as an ideal an egalitarian merit-based but highly hierarchical (not partnership-based) organizational ethos. This doesn't preclude partnership-based organization, but when it's a useful strategy, partnership is typically enabled by assent of the hierarchy. (E.g. "single point of accountability" is considered to be a very effective way to accomplish things, even if that single accountable party achieves it by a partnership strategy (also considered effective).)

As a practical matter, various biases and expectations corrupt the ideal of egalitarian meritocracy, but this is basically the classical liberal view and it is what you seem to be endorsing via the Star Trek references.

So when you criticize the "dominance hierarchy" I can't actually tell what you mean. There is nothing about a dominance hierarchy that prevents an atheist Filipino lesbian from being in charge of a white Christian man, where he needs to go to her for approval for purchasing decisions and the expectation is that he is deferential. You say dominance hierarchy (which only says that there is some axis along which dominance is decided), but you show a caste system with the castes (i.e. dominance relations) determined primarily by race and sex. But you also give other examples of markedly different organizational structures.

So I really can't tell what it is that you're objecting to primarily. Is it the caste system, where certain identity categories automatically place you higher on the hierarchy than others? Or the nature of the hierarchy (e.g. expected level of deference)? Or what?

If this is standard terminology, do you know of a source where I can read about it to get all the concepts straight? Right now it feels more like a grab-bag of pejorative appellations with only a very vague actual meaning. (Also--if the source clarifies whether "patriarchy" is generally intended to include a caste distinction between men and women or only a style of hierarchy typical of masculine gender roles, I would appreciate that. It is very hard to think about issues when one can't tell what the words are intended to mean.)