If the goal is to capture hearts and minds to change the world, controversial attention is the opposite of what you want because antagonizing a group of people will always generate opposition, sometimes where there was none, and sometimes even where there was formerly support.

i think the intent was to be inflammatory to gather the obvious negative responses and double back on those so you can use the whole thing as publicity stunt essentially. Though there are going to be negative aspects of it, that's why i've been pretty critical over most of it.

As for patriarchy, i think it's both a bit of thinking back to the good old days, and trying to edge a little bit of "trust me bro, it's going to work" out of people. Because for men, it obviously has some advantages that we don't need to talk about, but they also have to sell it to women, so they're selling it by claiming stuff like "you won't have to work anymore" and the list goes on really. None of that is true or beneficial, but an incorrect statement sells a good story, so.

Honestly, i don't forsee a world war 3, i feel like it would've already happened if it would have. At best north korea is going to try and pull some shit, but that will almost certainly do nothing. I think realistically a lot of places are going to collectively agree on "enemy bad" "kill enemy" and there is a non zero chance that some sort of mutiny happens during or immediately after, but given some time people won't want it. I don't really think it's a significant concern to be honest, i think most of the political shit is mostly rhetoric, things seem a lot worse than they are, a lot of bark and no bite essentially.

If ww3 ever happens it's going to be incredibly messy, because ww2 was, and ww1 even more so before it.