Both are true (your propositions are not mutually exclusive), although I would dispute the term "oppress".
Patriarchy is a mutually beneficial arrangement among men, women, and children which allows civilization to exist and which protects and provides for children.
It requires from all of the participants a certain surrender of self-actualization. This surrender is incorrectly described as "oppression", since the benefits derived over time are greater than that which is given up.
Also, the refusal of consent (in our time, principally by women) can destroy the arrangement, which is also not a feature of oppression as I understand it.
It may or may not be possible to restore patriarchal social relations in our time. The massive amount of angst and unhappiness about socio-sexual relations that is so visible in mass media and on the dating circuit suggests it may be possible, but who knows?
The term "oppress" generally means to impose burdens without compensating benefits. My job does not oppress me: I have to spend lots of time at it, but I get paid. If I was forced to work at it without payment, then it would be oppression. My point is: did patriarchy generated benefits to women that exceeded the costs to women? I think it did.