Feminist claims about patriarchy are often difficult to falsify because they are framed in a way that makes them resistant to counterarguments. For example, Sylvia Walby, a feminist sociologist, defines patriarchy as "a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress, and exploit women." This definition may lead some to believe that there are no advantages to being a woman in a patriarchal society. However, some feminist frameworks acknowledge "benevolent sexism," which refers to seemingly positive but ultimately restrictive gender norms—such as the idea that women and children should be protected first in emergencies or women should be protected from harm.

Benevolent sexism suggests that protective behaviors, resources, and societal advantages provided to women are actually forms of misogyny masked as care. I argue that this perspective reframes historically protective roles as oppressive rather than recognizing them as complex social dynamics that have both advantages and disadvantages.

Furthermore, discussions about men's societal roles raise additional questions. Men, particularly young men, are often expected to take on risky, labor-intensive roles in fields such as mining, military service, and other hazardous industries. Some view these expectations as evidence that men also face systemic disadvantages. However, feminist theory often explains this phenomenon as "toxic masculinity," where men uphold patriarchal norms because they like the benefits/power that it gives them but it ultimately harms most of them while benefiting a small, elite percentage of men. A counterargument might be that elite women throughout history also wielded significant influence over societal structures via their relationships with male leaders. They also got massive benefits from the exploits of those men by having access to safety, comfort, resources, etc. that the average person could never dream of. Both of these counterarguments are explained away by the next point (i.e., internalized misogyny).

Another aspect of feminist thought involves internalized misogyny, which argues that women may enforce patriarchal norms themselves due to societal conditioning. This perspective allows feminist theory to reconcile instances where women engage in harmful behaviors toward other women—such as slut-shaming, abuse, or discrimination—by attributing these actions to deeply ingrained patriarchal values. This approach removes agency from women by shifting responsibility entirely onto the system (implicitly men) rather than the individuals involved.

Side note: a recurring pattern in many feminist arguments is the tendency to remove agency from women when reality does not align with the initial premise, instead shifting the blame to the patriarchy. Notably, this shift does not occur in reverse—there is no equivalent mechanism within feminist philosophy to attribute responsibility of men's actions to women because even when there is, it circles back to men as a whole due to internalized misogyny. This has some obvious problems with causality, is it toxic masculinity that creates internalized misogyny or the other way around?

Second side note: Another pattern can be seen in the concept of benevolent sexism. When men engage in protective or paternalistic behaviors, it is labeled as benevolent sexism—suggesting that such acts reinforce systemic oppression. However, when similar principles are applied within a feminist framework, they are often reinterpreted as empowerment or a recognition of societal injustices. Essentially, paternalism has been repackaged within a philosophical framework and presented as feminist theory. The idea that "men should protect women because they are more vulnerable" is criticized as benevolent sexism, whereas "women are primary victims of the patriarchy and must be protected by society" is framed as an acknowledgment of systemic injustice.

Last side note: In situations where women harm men, such cases are often framed as acts of self-defense or responses to prior victimization. For example, if a woman kills a man, the argument frequently asserts that she must have felt she had no choice, possibly believing her life was in danger (the same is not argued for men harming women). These are the feminist arguments especially used within the context of domestic violence. This reasoning can lead to the practical invalidation of alternative interpretations of such incidents and incidentally propels the idea that women are morally superior to men (more caring, more tender, more kind, etc.) and simply not as capable of evil. This is another case of reframing patriarchal norms/beliefs that would be considered benevolent sexism as feminist thinking.

A key concern about feminist arguments is that they may be broad or flexible enough to reinterpret any evidence in ways that reinforce their initial claims, making them resistant to disproof. The physicist Richard Feynman said:

If the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill, any experimental result can be made to look like an expected consequence. You’re probably familiar with that in other fields [soft sciences]. For example, 'A' hates his mother. The reason is, of course, because she didn’t caress him or love him enough when he was a child.

Actually, if you investigate, you find out that as a matter of fact, she did love him very much. And everything was all right. Well, then, it’s because she was overindulgent when he was young.

So by having a vague theory, it’s possible to get either result.

[...] It would be possible to say if it were possible to state ahead of time how much love is not enough, and how much love is overindulgent exactly, then there would be a perfectly legitimate theory, against which you could make tests. It is usually said when this is pointed out, [...] you’re dealing with psychological matters, and things can’t be defined so precisely. Yes, but then you can’t claim to know anything about it.

I believe this quote perfectly describes feminist theory even more so than the soft sciences (psychology, sociology, etc) which is what he is using as an example. In cases such as benevolent sexism, internalized misogyny, toxic masculinity, etc. I contend that these concepts are often defined vaguely enough to accommodate various interpretations that reinforce feminist frameworks rather than allowing for genuine falsification.

Ultimately, feminist theory offers a lens through which societal structures are examined, but its actual validity as anything more than a perspective to entertain temporarily is very questionable to me. Using it as a framework to write up legislation, institutional policies, do soft/hard science, etc. is especially problematic in my opinion.