I’m going more along the lines that subjectivity = no legitimisation, whilst objectivity =legitimisation of knowledge. So the point of being a patriarch is to have one’s knowledge legitimised by claiming an objective status for it.
Now I think this is what patriarchy, in modern times, has been trying to do with male sexuality. It has endeavoured to associate it with the objective quest for knowledge, and thus to legitimise it, by making is seem objective.
My view is that patriarchal thinking does not succeed here — that the way the patriarch experiences his sex drive remains subjective, not least because he changes the environment he moves into (he HAS to see women a certain way, in order to legitimise his sex drive). Also, because he does not engage in a genuine dialectic with women, but only seems to do so. Rather, he engages in a very subjective dialectic with his own internalised version of “woman as she has to be, in order for me not to lose my legitimisation”. He is not participating in reality objectively, because the reality that he would have to participate in has been labelled as polluting. So he invents a fantasy and participates in that, instead. A fantasy, however, seems to suffice him in terms of being a compromise between maintaining patriarchal mores and experiencing (albeit in a very safe and mediated way) a certain level of dialectical relationship.