You need to be more careful with your use of terms. The skyrocketing popularity of patriarchy as a term coincides with the increasing realization that ideas about human society in prehistory was not organized quite how we--or Thomas Hobbes, perhaps--had envisioned.

One of the most influential works in that regard is The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler. She disfavored the term "patriarchy" herself, favoring "dominator model", but others, noting that men were almost always heavily overrepresented in domination-based societies, took "patriarchy" and ran with it.

The point, which Eisler oversells but which is worth considering nonetheless, is that prehistorical societies seemed oriented around worship of goddess and fertility, and much less oriented around war and conquest. The dominator society, or patriarchy, run largely by men, falling back frequently to application of violence to maintain control, and glamorizing warfare and conquest, was a new invention as of about ten thousand years ago.

Gerda Lerner, around the same time, published "The Creation of the Patriarchy", which levels many of the charges that you still find echoed today, but without simply being a lazy slogan: rather, it is an examination (perhaps biased, but not completely baseless) of the ways in which the idea of men-run-things has played out throughout history.

The part which needs more attention from you is when feminists say "patriarchy", what do they mean? The reason it needs attention is that it isn't even the same thing! Sometimes it's a lazy slogan. Sometimes it means what Eisler meant by dominator societies. Sometimes it's Lerner's flavor. Sometimes it means rule by men, specifically, but without clarity on what counts and what doesn't. Sometimes people fail to acknowledge to what an extent our society has tamed, by law and culture, what was just recently a male-centric dominator society into something far different, far more peaceful, far more equitable, and which scales far beyond what any prehistoric "partnership model" (as Eisler calls it) of society managed.

So there are things to critique, but so far you're on target to write angry ill-informed rants about the stupidest bits of what ends up under the label "patriarchy" as given by its detractors. That's not particularly fair or helpful, given that there's a broad range of perspectives here. People who know a bit more will, correctly, view your outlook as ignorant and will, incorrectly, discount all your arguments (since some depend only on the use or misuse of the term in practice).