Unresponsive Government=Patriarchy?

So we talked about bloated versus responsive government, and whether or not restrictive bureaucracy pushes people to rely on religious- based relief to fill the void as had occured prior to the modern welfare system. We toyed with the 'libertarian' and 'liberal' perspectives, and the hijacking of liberalism- now thought to be synonymous with inefficient overreaching government, as opposed to a clammoring for responsive and appropriate government. (that is also a provider of relief versus 'deserving' poor policy and religious-based charity).

Certainly having no social welfare at all presents challenges that few seem able to address in ways that do not AGAIN revert society to theocracy or patriarchy. The small government 'individualist' model seems to blatantly favor a 'traditional' family structure and also serves to suppress wages in the lowest paying sectors. (we know welfare must not compete with the minimum wage.)
The basic question in the last post came down to whether or not a preference for limited government intervention in social matters would serve to perpetuate a more theocentric society. A 'right' leaning society. And now I ask it again on patriarchy.
I want to share an interesting question from a feminist forum where I "ghostblog": Must a feminist be a liberal? (This was in response to the "Pro-Life Feminist" movement and our conversations about that) This question seemed like a good one to tackle here after the last post, because there is much research to indicate that yes- the conservative and libertarian view favor patriarchy. (continued)
That said, it also depends on the scope of your view on feminism. If one means autonomy, choice, equality, freedom from imposed morality, freedom from externally imposed and unwanted gender roles- than I think it would be very difficult to make the case that this view of feminism could survive in a moralizing, authoritative society where the 'traditional family view' is held up as the ideal OR where external forms of relief are restricted. Which is not to say that women cannot achieve those goals in a more 'individualist' society, we must be careful to say. But in general, where women are either defined or restricted on matters of choice and opportunity, oppression is pervasive. So it seems the 'liberal' view is more conducive to autonomy.
The proper answer to this question would indeed take volumes, but it seems helpful to t least distill this into some basic relationships that speak to the matter of welfare, the provision of social services, and what we might deduce from that- it would be helpful to know if there is disagreement on these from any of you:

1. A liberal view would favor higher welfare spending than a traditional conservative view.

2. A libertarian view would arguably include little welfare spending, but where the conservative view might supplement social welfare with religious-based charity, the libertarian model would not purport to speak to the provision void except to say that social problems might be better viewed in the context of individualism or forced social structures.
(note that some view marriage as one such structure, as a practical relationship for meeting familial and biological needs- often called the 'caveman approach' to gender roles, or 'biology based roles')

3. The conservative view would suggest that the mechanisms for relief would be primarily the family unit followed by non-governmental organizations poised to provide relief, often the religious institution by default.

4. The libertarian view might also emphasize the family as paramount for relief but might discount the unintended likely consequence of a society nudged toward religious institutions.

If we believe those general summaries to be representative, we can make the leap that the conservative view favors theocracy, the libertarian view traditional patriarchy. What does patriarchy mean? Typically, that the biological and social systems would be such that autonomy and equality for women would be at odds with systems that favor patriarchy.

Welfare has been linked numerous times to the conservative contention that it leads to the demise of the traditionally male headed household and 'preferred family model'. It offered options for women and children that many felt, particularly under Reagan, should rest in the hands of men and not the government. That the preservation of the family unit should be of highest priority- as the real unit of decision making, ethics and character education, of gender identity, and 'values'.
Some saw the "New Deal' as the shift- social welfare as the undoing of 'conservative' America- that modern welfare took power from both men and capitalism by providing an alternative to worker desperation, and the dependency of women with children struggling in a society where pay equity was far from achieved and where children were mercifully only beginning to be regarded as valuable. Social services provided relief that was not grounded in control and moral authority. And society began to understand that children needed a safety net, however modest.

The liberal view on welfare however refers to a system where religious or patriarchal gender roles are reduced in favor of needs-based governmental relief where assistance is not dependent on adherence to theocratic 'morality' or male domination but rather a more equal view of social provision. Clearly in the 1990's there was a call for reform, but changes did not come in the form of prevention, but largely in the form of 'roll reduction' with NO subsequent adjustment toward a living wage. So we have less 'welfare', but low wages and low spending priorities and THAT is where the left-leaning energies ought to be expended. The right wing, Santorum-spouting view of women and family must be rejected as an imposed view that flies in the face of self determination.