I am currently reading 'God Is Not Great' by the late, great, Christopher Hitchens.

There is a portion in the book where he talks about concepts and ideas that are unfalsifiable, in that in order for them to be legitimately scientific there has to be the possibility of proving the concept false. Wikipedia explains it better:

(Karl) Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

This got me thinking about feminism. Feminists have worked a long time to put their theories into a position where proving it false becomes an impossibility. They've done this through circular logic, tautological contradictions, goalpost moving, and strawmen construction. An example would be that if you question the existence of patriarchy, it becomes that you're falling victim or are somehow sympathetic to patriarchy. In this way, you are unable to question the existence or the nuances of their position without coming across as a sympathizer, and therefore an enemy.

Even the great Carl Jung falls fowl of this when he says that patriarchy is a stunted form of masculinity; such a statement implies that only the masculine can perpetrate said patriarchy, which is demonstrably false. It also implies negative connotations.

The term patriarchy necessarily means "rule of the father" and it could be argued that by applying the term to society as a whole, that the modern day usage of patriarchy is one very big straw man.

All of which got me to thinking; let us assume patriarchy exists. Let us assume that there is most definitely a system of rule of fathers and rule of men. What is so bad about that? What evidence is there that without it, our world would be any better than it currently is? If we instead had a matriarchal society, what evidence is there that we'd be more peaceful, have less war, and be less oppressive as a species?

Indeed the often vaunted claims of matriarchal societies from antiquity (the Amazonian's for instance) backfires on feminists using it to make the claim that women are strong and independent. Because those societies were just as bloody, just as chaotic, and just as violent and oppressive as patriarchal societies.

So what exact kind of society do feminists have in mind as their end-game?

Just a few things I've been mulling on. Would be interested to hear your thoughts.