Patriarchy is a Giant Unfalsifiable Flying Spaghetti Monster!

[-1=e^ipi]

In the spirit of promoting dialogue about gender issues, I thought I would create another thread that I've wanted to create for a while, but haven't gotten around to creating.

So in this thread, I want to describe the feminist concept of patriarchy.

First let's begin with the dictionary definition.

Noun.

A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.

• a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
• a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.

These definitions don't sound like they describe Western society today, yet Feminists claim that we live in a Patriarchy. So what is the feminist definition of Patriarchy?

Feminist theory defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women.^%5B32%5D It often includes any social mechanism that evokes male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations.^%5B33%5D


So Patriarchy is oppressive to both men and women? But if so then the definition seems relatively gender neutral while the term Patriarchy is not gender neutral. So if our society is oppressive to both men and women then couldn't you just as easily describe our society as a Matriarchy? The equivalent definition for Matriarchy would be:

An unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women.^%5B32%5D It often includes any social mechanism that evokes female dominance over men.


So we just need 1 case of a social mechanism that evokes female dominance over men to satisfy the definition of Matriarchy? Well one example would be the social expectation where males pay for dates. So the definition of Matriarchy is satisfied so we must live in a Matriarchy.

But if the definitions of both Patriarchy and Matriarchy are satisfied, then do we live in both a Matriarchy and a Patriarchy at the same time? Why should we describe our society as a Patriarchy rather than a Matriarchy? And if the definitions are relatively gender neutral, then why not use a gender neutral term like Traditionalism instead?

To this I turn to the scientific philosopher Karl Popper. In science a theory is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable.

Falsifiability is very important in science because it means you can test predictions and either verify or falsify a theory to obtain a better understanding of reality. Without falsifiability, how can we exclude absurd hypothesis from our set of scientific beliefs such as the idea that a giant flying spaghetti monster created everything? Is the feminist theory of patriarchy falsifiable? What testable predictions does it make that cannot also be explained by Matriarchy?

If there are no testable predictions, then I have to conclude that Patriarchy, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is unfalsifiable.


Ramen.

Edited July 1, 2015 by -1=e^ipi
deketed superfluous image

[Moonlight Graham]

It's impossible to falsify or prove a social theory like patriarchy or matriarchy. You can try to operationalize those concepts (I have no idea how that would be done) but they still aren't going to be falsifiable like in hard science.

I also think it's pretty obvious that the line "Feminist theory defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women." is a bit ridiculous (how does it oppress men?) so I don't know why you spend so much time trying to disprove that part of the theory.

If you disagree with the concept of patriarchy in our society, how about you try to argue against the core of the concept: that men mostly dominate over women throughout most of the world.

[cybercoma]

how does [patriarchy] oppress men?

I'll give you an example from bell hooks, “The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem.”

[WestCoastRunner]

I'll give you an example from bell hooks, The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem.[/quote

What is bell hooks?

[kimmy]

So we just need 1 case of a social mechanism that evokes female dominance over men to satisfy the definition of Matriarchy?

Well one example would be the social expectation where males pay for dates.

So the definition of Matriarchy is satisfied so we must live in a Matriarchy.

Entertaining stuff!

-k

[-1=e^ipi]

Who deleted my image of the flying spaghetti monster and why? It's completely relevant to the thread topic.

Not to mention all the links and indentation are now messed up.

[cybercoma]

I'll give you an example from bell hooks, The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem.

What is bell hooks?

Not what, but who.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_hooks

[cybercoma]

Who deleted my image of the flying spaghetti monster and why? It's completely relevant to the thread topic.

Not to mention all the links and indentation are now messed up.

Charles Anthony is the only one who can edit people's posts.

Oh and Greg, I suppose. But I think Greg is actually dead and Charles and Michael are having some sort of Weekend at Bernie's deal here.

Edited July 1, 2015 by cybercoma

[Moonlight Graham]

I'll give you an example from bell hooks, “The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem.”

You don't have to "kill off the emotional parts of yourself" to dominate other people. All politics, every last hair of it, is about people (individuals/groups/organizations) trying to seek power or dominate over others to achieve influence. Feminism is about women seeking power, to sway the power scale more towards their favour.

[WestCoastRunner]

Not what, but who.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_hooks

Thanks!

[-1=e^ipi]

It's impossible to falsify or prove a social theory like patriarchy or matriarchy. You can try to operationalize those concepts (I have no idea how that would be done) but they still aren't going to be falsifiable like in hard science.

But in social sciences, theories make testable predictions and are falsified all the time be it economics, psychology or sociology.

is a bit ridiculous (how does it oppress men?)

Traditionalist gender roles can oppress men in all sorts of ways (example: war drafts that only affect men).

If you disagree with the concept of patriarchy in our society, how about you try to argue against the core of the concept: that men mostly dominate over women throughout most of the world.

Oh this reminds me of two other issues that I have with 'patriarchy'; the assumption singularity and the assumption of societal homogeneity.

Why is patriarchy singular rather than plural? There are many different patriarchal societies that developed independently from each other, so shouldn't the patriarchal society that originated in Korea and the patriarchal society that originated in Germany be separate patriarchies? If Canada is a multicultural society, then shouldn't it contain multiple patriarchies (at least one for each culture)?

Patriarchy implies a sort of homogeneity due to its singularity. Yet our society is very diverse so how individuals are affected by gender roles will depend on where they live. You might have baby boomer men favoured over baby boomer women in Alabama for employment, yet have millennial women favoured over millennial men in Toronto. You could even have a case where two next-door neighbours experience vastly different levels of gender roles because one lives in a lesbian-atheist household and the other lives in a Sunni-Islamist household and is not allowed to leave the house without wearing a burka.

Edited July 1, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

I'll give you an example from bell hooks, “The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem.”

And feminists perpetuate this by labeling traditionalism as patriarchy thereby associating male with undesirable (via Patriarchy) and female with desirable (via Feminism). This can slowly chip away at the self-esteem of males, leading to higher suicide rates.

Edited July 1, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

Feminism is about women seeking power, to sway the power scale more towards their favour.

I'll also let bell hooks respond to this remark, "Feminism is not simply a struggle to end male chauvinism or a movement to ensure women have equal rights with men. It is a commitment to eradicating the ideology of domination that permeates Western culture on various levels–sex, race, class to name a few–and a commitment to reorganizing society so that the self-development of people can take precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires."

Why do I keep quoting bell hooks and other feminists? Because it's their movement, so you should be looking into their answers. They can speak for themselves and it's not up to me to speak for them. If you want to know more about what feminists think, then read the feminist authors who developed the theories and fought for equal rights. Don't read tumblr blogs and second hand interpretations. Read the original authors who champion feminism to find out what it stands for.

[cybercoma]

And feminists perpetuate this by labeling traditionalism as patriarchy thereby associating male with undesirable (via Patriarchy) and female with desirable (via Feminism). This can slowly chip away at the self-esteem of males, leading to higher suicide rates.

What's traditionalism? Who labelled it patriarchy? What were her words exactly and what larger body of work did it come from?

You do an awful lot of speaking for feminists here, while putting them down, as opposed to actually citing their words and works.

Of course, speaking for them in strawmen and arguing against those is a lot easier, so it's understandable why you would do that.

Edited July 1, 2015 by cybercoma

[WestCoastRunner]

Feminism is about women seeking power, to sway the power scale more towards their favour.

Say what?

[cybercoma]

.

Edited July 1, 2015 by cybercoma

[WestCoastRunner]

And feminists perpetuate this by labeling traditionalism as patriarchy thereby associating male with undesirable (via Patriarchy) and female with desirable (via Feminism). This can slowly chip away at the self-esteem of males, leading to higher suicide rates.

Ok, so individuals fighting for equal rights for women are the cause of higher suicide rates among men? Is that what you are saying?

[cybercoma]

Ok, so individuals fighting for equal rights for women are the cause of higher suicide rates among men? Is that what you are saying?

Didn't you know? White cishet men are so fragile that if they can't oppress people they'll kill themselves. So you should just allow yourself to be dominated, otherwise you're a murderer....or something.

[WestCoastRunner]

Didn't you know? White cishet men are so fragile that if they can't oppress people they'll kill themselves. So you should just allow yourself to be dominated, otherwise you're a murderer....or something.

Something along the lines of women should dummy down to nab a husband.

[-1=e^ipi]

Ok, so individuals fighting for equal rights for women are the cause of higher suicide rates among men? Is that what you are saying?

No, there are many causes, including traditionalism and arguably evolutionary psychology. But continually associating female with desirable and male with undesirable only strengthens this.

[-1=e^ipi]

White cishet men are so fragile that if they can't oppress people they'll kill themselves.

1. Your statement ignores the fact that all males, not just cisgendered males have a higher suicide rate. So your comment is dismissive of sexual minorities and is therefore a micro-aggression.

2. Males of all races have a higher suicide rate. So your comment is dismissive of the issues of non-white males.

3. Your portrayal of white cisgendered males as people that desire oppression devalues them, which can cause higher suicide rates.

Edited July 1, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[WestCoastRunner]

No, there are many causes, including traditionalism and arguably evolutionary psychology. But continually associating female with desirable and male with undesirable only strengthens this.

What is completely wrong is associating individuals fighting for women's rights with a direct impact on male suicides, which is what you are doing.

[WestCoastRunner]

1. Your statement ignores the fact that all males, not just cisgendered males have a higher suicide rate. So your comment is dismissive of sexual minorities and is therefore a micro-aggression.

2. Males of all races have a higher suicide rate. So your comment is dismissive of the issues of non-white males.

3. Your portrayal of white cisgendered males as people that desire oppression devalues them, which can cause higher suicide rates.

What does males of all races having a higher suicide rate have to do with feminists?

[-1=e^ipi]

What is completely wrong is associating individuals fighting for women's rights with a direct impact on male suicides, which is what you are doing.

Where did I say direct impact? Devaluing of a group of people over time causing lower self-esteem and therefore a higher suicide rate is more of an indirect effect. Also, the gender suicide-gap has been increasing in recent years.

[-1=e^ipi]

What does males of all races having a higher suicide rate have to do with feminists?

1. It's a gendered issue, and feminism is related to gendered issues.

2. If you read the conversation above you will see that the context was with how the usage of Feminism and Patriarchy associates female with desirable and male with undesirable.

Edited July 1, 2015 by -1=e^ipi