Why is patriarchy never open for debate?

Vista_Seagrape · 2021-12-07T14:54:53+00:00

Feminist theory is presented on equal footing to actual scientific theories like Gravity or Evolution, when it's not. And feminists use publications from other feminists as "proof" of their own...proof? It's entirely invented, circular logic.

Note how in contrast, most MRA "talking points" are simply objective data/facts:

conscription laws
pension age laws
unemployment laws
government stats on life expectancy
eligibility for social and government welfare and healthcare programs
education rates

etc.

Many feminist stats are myths like the wage gap, lies such as "90% of DV victims are female" etc

Deadlocked02 · 2021-12-07T13:18:02+00:00

Interesting, as usual. I just wouldn’t say that ideology has no place at all in politics, but it definitely shouldn’t have such a prominent role in science as it currently does. I also believe it’s very problematic how we pretend that soft sciences have the same precision of hard sciences. It’s because of this line of thinking that feminists treat you as a denier for opposing concepts like toxic masculinity, as if it’s some clear cut law of physics.

f4z3ultr1x · 2021-12-07T14:33:13+00:00

I disagree with the last slide. Politics should be about DIFFERENT idealogies.

EddgeLord666 · 2021-12-07T13:15:19+00:00

It's not open for debate because it is part of a religious doctrine.

TheTinMenBlog · 2021-12-07T12:44:36+00:00

Science advances by applying rigorous skepticism to its own ideas.

A new theory or scientific approach is developed, and then presented to the entire scientific world to be bombarded with critique, testing and meticulous analysis where peers attempt to falsify it.

These new scientific theories will go through the relentless mangle of attempted falsification, repeatedly and forever, until better ideas are found to replace it.

This is called ‘The Scientific Method’ and it is what has driven unparalleled scientific progress and breakthrough since the 17th century.

Our understanding of the universe, our world and everything on it and in it, is thanks to science’s cynical and distrusting perspective of its own ideas, and its willingness to try and destroy them.

But we don’t see this approach within our theories around gender.The theory of ‘patriarchy’ for example are seemingly above approach and rarely subjected to this rigorous bear pit of skepticism. Those who support this theory do not try to falsify it at all, in fact, their efforts are spent trying to protect it *from* falsification.

So as new and alternative ideas are presented, discrepancies found, and flaws pointed out; instead of becoming an opportunity to rethink or expand patriarchy as a theory, it simply becomes a mindless exercise of batting away accountability, critique and reason as fast as possible.

And so we all witness the jarring displays of non-sensical mental gymnastics, or the desperate spluttering of semantic knit picking, or in some cases, childish cries of ‘misogyny’.

So it remains vaguely formulated and unfalsifiable by design.But this to me, is not science, it is far closer to ideology – and we ought to remember that, before we so willingly allow it to dictate our politics, education and provision of social support.

What is it to you?

Image by alecsander-alves of Unsplash

Tmomp · 2021-12-07T13:04:46+00:00

On slide 5: Lack of falsifying doesn't confirm the theory. It just supports it.

On slide 10, I propose a more relevant quote: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" by Christopher Hitchens because people can vote based on ideologies or for whatever reasons they want. I wouldn't say they have no place in politics.

Singdancetypethings · 2021-12-07T17:34:57+00:00

One issue:

Politics is nothing but ideologies, and that's not avoidable.

ugavini · 2021-12-07T18:54:06+00:00

Politics has everything to do with ideologies. Ideology has no place in science maybe. But democracy, capitalism, socialism, these things are ideologies.

RoryTate · 2021-12-07T20:57:18+00:00

How the questioning of patriarchy or core feminist claims is censored is very straightforward, and you only need to look at some of the new standards of conduct within academia to see how the practice unfolds. Basically, questioning Patriarchy is equated to violence against women, because it (somehow) excuses or justifies mistreatment of women, and then no one dares speak up against it. Just remember that CERN scientist who was fired for giving a presentation that dared to question whether physics was discriminatory towards women. Disagreeing with feminism is equivalent in many academic circles to disagreeing with a colleague by punching them in the face. "Violence of any type will not be tolerated." Therefore you must worship at the altar of feminism, and use every bit of energy in promoting and actioning their social causes, or else you are committing violence of the worst order.

I love the focus on Popper's concept of falsification, since most people don't have a proper understanding of how science is actually done. Too many focus on "verificationism", which is a very perilous and lazy method of making discoveries. And Patriarchy at its heart is an assertion that cannot be falsified. The "support" section is a little iffy though, because in reality, the few ideas that survive the bloodbath of falsification are given the status of "provisional truth", and even those ideas that are discarded are only provisionally false, since new information can be found that causes us to reconsider things.

Sudden_Example_2177 · 2021-12-07T13:20:46+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Phantombiceps · 2021-12-07T15:22:36+00:00

I have a criticism of this approach.

As much as we might like and need some part of Popper, the philosophy of science has developed over the last century beyond using “falsification” as a sufficient bullshit detector. Obviously it is important, but not at all times and not at all levels of abstraction and analysis, even in physics, and sociology is “harder” and messier than physics.

I think the patriarchy theory is falsifiable in principle, and instead people refuse to criticize it. You might either reframe how you use falsifiability in this piece so as to preemptively close off counter attacks from feminists, or instead approach it in terms of patriarchy being off limits to debate, revision and counter evidence . That is to say, they have sacred cows not up for argument, and are therefore anti scientific and anti intellectual on that basis.

Talik1978 · 2021-12-07T16:07:44+00:00

Note: newer fossils have been found beneath older ones. It's not terribly uncommon, actually. That doesn't disprove evolution; rather, it typically shows geologic shifting over time. While depth is often a good indicator of age, we have overlapping dating methods to evaluate the age of fossils in an area that are far more reliable than simply depth. Those dating methods are typically based on constant or predictable rates of radioactive decay.

Also, finding newer fossils wouldn't disprove evolution as a theory, which is strongly supported by several pillars of scientific research. It could show that a species survived longer than we thought (such a thing shocked science when the coelacanth was fished up, despite being believed to be long extinct), but wouldn't invalidate the overall framework.

RhinoNomad · 2021-12-07T17:58:55+00:00

I'll be honest with you, I disagree with the idea that "ideologies have no place in politics" because most of political discussion and thought is framed around various ideologies that motivate the laws that we put in place.

For example, if I might be motivated by ideology to test out whether worker unions increase workers wages, according to socialist/pro-worker though, it should, however, I might conduct an experiment and find that it either doesn't or when it does it causes turmoil within the business (this isn't a real study -- worker representation is often beneficial for both workers and for business owners.).

Often it's ideologies that motivate scientific research and while I think this post has good intentions, no one makes policies (especially in the US), based on the reality of the science of the problem because not all moral problems can be solved with science.

TheSpaceDuck · 2021-12-07T15:50:33+00:00

I only disagree with the last panel. Ideologies do have a place in politics, it's when they are taken as fact/science or questioning becomes forbidden that they become dangerous. Then they become more akin to a religion than an actual ideology.

DanteLivra · 2021-12-07T13:16:41+00:00

This must be one of the best ones yet !

dr_pepper02 · 2021-12-09T13:07:07+00:00

Because deep down feminists know they benefit from it as well, they use it when it’s convenient to their cause and dismiss it when it does not advantage them.

Alternative_Swan4969 · 2021-12-07T18:50:27+00:00

it’s important to note most science comes from ideas, so we can’t necessarily discredit something because it’s an idea that’s not yet proven.

it’s hard to prove or disprove social concepts due to the complexity of human nature.

i agree the patriarchy should be tested but carefully. it would be extremely easy to observe or survey a group (even if it’s “controlled”) and come out with flawed answers. debate around sensitive topics like this need to be done with precision and accuracy

fndo84 · 2021-12-07T16:57:02+00:00

Many comments are adressing the statement on the last slide about "ideology not having place in politics ". The truth is that, politics being all activities related to making and enforcing decisions into groups, unfortunately in the current state of affairs, ideology is the most prominent mechanism to attract a critical mass in order to hijack the system we know as "democracy", as it relies on having the minimal numerical majority to enforce decisions to the whole society. If we want ideology not having place in politics, we'll need to substitute ideology itself as the way of making moral decisions in the society as a whole. Ideology is based on dogmas, that are based on what a group believes is just or unjust, and that perception of justice is generally based on the in-group bias that makes every tribe prone to benefit themselves and their allies over anyone they consider their opposition. Ideological visions are maintained appealing to the emotions, replicating the hegemonic discourse (the one that is held by the ones that have enough power to distribute it in mass), and convincing the masses that justice is being done when the agenda of the hegemonic ideology is pursued. This cycle is maintained and reinforced every time the Overton window is moved to the opossite side. If we want to end this cycle we need to shake the foundations of mortality, ditching the emotion-driven ideological fantasies (as defined by Žižek) and substitute them with more objective approaches on moral and justice (for example, Joshua Greenes 'deep pragmatism'). This seems like an 'impossible' task, but the advancement in hard sciences tend to debunk the ideology-based approaches to interpret reality (for example: critical constructivism for sex and gender matters will be debunked in the future thanks to the advancement of fields like sociobiology, behavioral endocrinology, neuroscience, etc..).

Forgetaboutthelonely · 2021-12-08T08:16:11+00:00

[permanently deleted]

ToughBadass · 2021-12-07T23:28:42+00:00

I'm currently majoring in Sociology and your critique has not been my experience. Feminist theory (gender-conflict theory), patriarchy, and male privilege are all examined through a highly critical lense. While I agree that the public discourse is adamant that these ideas not be critiqued, we shouldn't construe that with academia.

In an academic setting, even in an introductory class, male disadvantages are discussed and feminism is taught as one approach one uses when conducting research on gender inequality.

Gender-conflict theory is an attempt at measuring inequality between the genders and men typically garner more power than women as they have greater earning potential and face less barriers to entry in most fields relative to women.

This is not to say that men don't face some disadvantages relative to women, just that women generally face more. It's also useful to look at this analysis through a capitalist lense as that is the system we're studying, all the advantages that men have also often come with disadvantages because of how capitalism works.

pargofan · 2021-12-07T18:45:01+00:00

I'm not sure what's the point here.

Is male privilege exaggerated? Yes. Does that mean there's absolutely no male privilege? Of course not. There's female privilege too. But in general there's more male privilege than female privilege.

I thought the point of this forum was to describe instances of unfairness toward men being ignored by society such as forced child support or domestic abuse against men.

ThrowAway640KB · 2021-12-08T01:26:20+00:00

Beautiful. Very nicely done.

Title	Why is patriarchy never open for debate?
Author	TheTinMenBlog
Upvotes	254
Comments	103
Date	December 7, 2021 12:44 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/rayen5/why_is_patriarchy_never_open_for_debate/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/why-is-patriarchy-never-open-for-debate.1088174 https://theredarchive.com/post/1088174

Comments