ah you've caught me at lunch, i'll bite.
You've said the same thing three times now. Here are some things you should consider:
1. sometimes words are used by different people to mean different things!
For instance, “patriarchy” was used by me above to fill in the missing actor in your original post, with a rough definition given above. The word can also be used to refer to the patrilinial systems of property or government that existed in Europe before modern systems of law. It can also be used to describe systems of government in general in which power is largely in the hands of men. It is also sometimes used in a more theoretical sense to describe a system, process, or tendency that causes these other forms to sustain themselves. One time, some woman on the internet used it to refer to “an ugly, self-sustaining, omnipotent invisible force that explains everything” but seeing as this is not a definition used by anybody else it's pretty clear that it was a straw man designed just so she could write a huge screed about how it is an unfalsifiable theory.
You seem completely unconcerned with which of these is being discussed when you call it an unfalsifiable theory, despite most of them referring to observable tendencies or things, or even formalized systems of law.
Please don't lecture people on definitions when you don't understand how words work.
2. maybe you should think about reading the criticism section of that wikipedia page you linked instead of holding up a concept not generally accepted by philosophers (of science or otherwise) as the End of All Arguments?
3. If you are really so worried about being bullied and called names, as mentioned in the first post, I would invite you to consider that maybe the lack of support you say you receive could be connected with the fact that when people try to apply their own tools that they find effective for fighting oppression in order to explain, address, and ideally point a way to resolution of the ”ghettoization” that you describe yourself in, you seem most interested in chasing them away with unrelated wikipedia links, a patronizing tone, and a tremendous chip on your shoulder.
Like, what is the correlation between being called a neckbeard and telling people they are wrong about things they clearly understand better than you?
4. bonus round: maybe if you are going to hold every response up to a ridiculous standard of logical completeness you shouldn't lead with a rhetorical strategy of ”that's what they want you to think” by listing some actions that you seem to want to attribute only to an unnamed ugly, self-sustaining, omnipotent invisible force that explains everything. Because that sounds an awful lot like an unfalsifiable theory.
Or maybe you know, don't complain about things you clearly don't want to change?