Okay, very good! Elle Beau has well-developed ideas on what the patriarchy is, and it seems concordant with how late-stage feminists use it more broadly, so I'm happy to use her definitions for our purposes here.

So, yes, I agree: contemporary feminism has a strong anti-patriarchy ideological component, and that could be a counterexample to my claim. We would need to establish two things, though: (a) patriarchy defined like this is embraced rather than rejected as an ideology, and (b) this is actually a dominant cause of the problems you list.

Let's consider the second point first.

The three main areas you've brought up are (1) sexual antagonism and violence against women; (2) lack of perceived authority of women; and (3) ejection from certain fields like STEM.

The claim is that it is "literally the problem underlying everything else".

Therefore, we should predict that we would find strong correlations between those three things and "patriarchy"--and even if we can't quantitatively measure patriarchy, they should all be strongly correlated to each other by virtue of being caused by the "patriarchy" (except possibly in the case where patriarchy is so maxed out that there are only residual variations left).

Unfortunately for this hypothesis, the correlation between female-equality measures and STEM participation is backwards from the prediction: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

If we look for factors underlying sexual assault, we find that poverty is an immense factor: https://qz.com/1170426/the-poorest-americans-are-12-times-as-likely-to-be-sexually-assaulted

If we look at leadership approval in the G7 using the Reykjavik Index for Leadership (available at https://www.kantar.com/campaigns/reykjavik-index, but requires signup), we find that only 41% of Germans say they're very comfortable with women as heads of government or CEOs (Merkel notwithstanding?!)--lower than Nigeria!--while the U.S. is considerably better with 65% (average across the two). And yet, at least the reported incidence of rape is four to five times lower in Germany.

So with easily-checked measures--and granted these are all subject to problems--the hypothesis seems to be an almost total dud.

And then if you ask what people think a good leader should look like, you find that they favor things like "communication" and "ethics" far above things like "direction" and "personal attributes" which could (not even must!) be proxies for patriarchy as we're defining it here (source: https://trainingindustry.com/magazine/mar-apr-2020/what-people-want-in-a-leader-how-do-you-measure-up/).

So it seems wrong on both counts.

The evidence is poor that people embrace aggressive dominance hierarchies as a means of social organization. It might happen anyway, but people already seem sold on wanting something else.

And the evidence is poor that this underlies the factors that you correctly call out as problems even in affluent (e.g. G7) counties.

So while this could have been a case where feminism had something useful to say, it seems like it's instead preaching to the choir--using language that is hard to instantly understand, because "patriarchy" sounds like it's inherently man-based which the definition doesn't require!--about factors that aren't the dominant ones anyway.

If you have hard evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. But at least preliminarily, it seems like an idea that has been adopted on the basis of rhetorical appeal, not evidence.