Dictionary definition. There's no opinion about it.
> Spain, as I pointed out earlier, has a majority female national leadership.
Not what defined a matriarchy.
> If it isn't a matriarchy, one could still argue that's closer to a matriarchy than a patriarchy.
Not how it works. It's a gradient, yes. Spain being a matriarchy? No.
> You insist that we don't have any matriarchies, yet my request for you to explain how you're choosing to define matriarchy remains unfulfilled.
I gave several examples...
Like, have any modern countries denied men to vote before women? No.
> And why would we think that a matriarchy would have over 50% women in technology?
You. You f-ing asked that. You expected some countries to have over 50% representation, which is stupid since every country is patriarchal on some level.
We don't have matriarchies. I can't stress this enough.
You can't make claims on what we can't observe.
> As countries move away from patriarchy and towards gender equality the percentage of tech worker that are women go down.
You yourself told me of several countries where that's not true. How are you not getting this?!
> Why would one conclude from this that a matriarchy would see a majority of women in technology?
I don't, matriarchies don't exist.
> Sure, some Eastern European countries have similar rates as India. And most do not.
Population wise, they do.
>> Than why are you comparing these countries with the US's women participation rate in the workforce?! What does the US have to do with this?
> You adjust for labor participation by selecting a baseline, and adjusting the other countries to match this baseline. Sure, I could have used any country for the baseline.
No... My point was about how many women were in that country's workforce... Do you not get maths?
> I am very confused as to what you're saying here.
Yes, you clearly are.
> By comparison the US has 82 women in the workforce for every 100 men.
Nobody cares. It does not matter.
> Why do you think that I'm not comparing women's labor participation rates with men?
Because you're not? You keep bringing up the US for some reason.
> You do realize that the ratio of female to male labor participation is, fundamentally, comparing women and men's labor participation rates?
Yeah, I told you that. Yet, still, you bring up the US. Why, ffs, why?
> 0.657 means only 65 of women work for every 100 men. How are you not getting this?
I told you that, thanks.