Patriarchy is a Giant Unfalsifiable Flying Spaghetti Monster!

[cybercoma]

Btw, all anyone has to do to show that I am wrong about this thread is to offer a testable prediction of Patriarchy that isn't also offered by Matriarchy.

It's ridiculously simple and you won't even acknowledge it because you're living in a fantasy world. Patriarchy is one of many social theories explaining observed inequalities in societies, just like dialectical materialism is another, or ratoinalization theory is another. These are heuristic tools for understand complex social relationships and the organization of all social life.

You want to boil patriarchy down to nonsensical talking points about tumblr posters and Twitter SJWs, when there's decades of literature on the topic. Then when I point that fact out to you, that there's a ton of literature about this to which you never refer, you say I'm shutting down debate. What I'm doing is telling you to get a damn clue and go educate yourself.

All you're doing in post after post in this section of the forum is playing a stupid little game of Socratic inquiry where you don't give a flying f--- about actually learning. You've already made up your mind. And besides, it's not feminists jobs to teach you anything. Go enlighten yourself if you're actually interested. It's abundantly clear from your posts that you're not. You're only interested in attacking feminists and those who are fighting for equality and ridiculously calling it Men's Rights. Rather than actually making meaningful progress for men in areas where they need help, you and the entire MRA Army have made it your business to perpetuate and secure male advantage, rather than equality. But then let me guess, you'll just ask the same idiotic question about "why is saying the most qualified person for the job securing male advantage?" To which I'll tell you for the umpteenth time to go read the f'ing guide on microaggression that was posted several times already. It explains it. The answers to your questions have already been posted. So if they're honest questions then go read the materials and find your answers. But you're not fooling anybody with your stupid little schtick.

[-1=e^ipi]

This is just stupid.

Yes, sexism is pretty stupid.

You don't get a seat at the table because you're not a woman. It's pretty easy to understand.

Wow sexism.

You can be an ally, but you don't get to define feminism or have any say whatsoever in what it is or what it stands for and neither do I.

More sexism.

Your insistence on actually having a say in what feminism is and your insolent tantrums over being called out on it time and time again demonstrate male privilege perfectly.

Do you realize you are basically making the concept of male privilege unfalsifiable because anything you observe only strengthens your belief in male privilege?

They can't even have their own movement for equality without men trying to define that for them too.

Congrats. You are a bigot.

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

[-1=e^ipi]

It's ridiculously simple and you won't even acknowledge it because you're living in a fantasy world. Patriarchy is one of many social theories explaining observed inequalities in societies, just like dialectical materialism is another, or ratoinalization theory is another. These are heuristic tools for understand complex social relationships and the organization of all social life.

And you still haven't provided a falsifiable prediction of patriarchy theory that predicts something different from matriarchy theory. This is like arguing with a creationist and the creationist just goes 'of course god exists'.

All you're doing in post after post in this section of the forum is playing a stupid little game of Socratic inquiry

Why is Socratic inquiry stupid?

where you don't give a flying f--- about actually learning.

I hate to inform you of this, but you do not possess the ability to read people's minds. Why not try to address the points I bring up rather than try to insert some hidden motive? You are committing the appeal to motive fallacy.

You've already made up your mind.

Projection much?

You're only interested in attacking feminists and those who are fighting for equality and ridiculously calling it Men's Rights.

More appeal to motive. The fallacy continues. And you aren't even correct about my motive.

you and the entire MRA Army

I'm part of the MRA Army now? Wow, I had no idea.

To which I'll tell you for the umpteenth time to go read the f'ing guide on microaggression that was posted several times already. It explains it.

The guide is about trying to insert hidden motives where their are none, just like what you are doing here. When I say that I think the most qualified person should get the job, that is what I mean.

But you're not fooling anybody with your stupid little schtick.

If you can't defeat a position or argument, pretend that it doesn't exist? Is that how you keep your dogma alive?

[Michael Hardner]

I don't understand this tactic of starting with a broad definition, then using it to try to cast doubt on ideas that are have been widely accepted for years, and - as Cyber points out - have a large body of study behind them. I don't know a lot about deconstructionism but it seems like that to me: an academic exercise that amounts to nothing more than gender-word-Sudoku.

Society collectively looks at problems to solve. It does it in an inexact way, it's true, but good ideas do take hold. One such idea is the one that people should have freedom. Looking at changes that feminist consciousness has brought to our society in the last fifty years, the progress we have made towards that is undeniable, even if you believe that it is incomplete.

There's no mathematical formula, though, to 'prove' the social utility of these ideas so I guess the theory may be unfalsifiable. True theories can also be unfalsifiable, aren't they. Is that okay ?

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't understand this tactic of starting with a broad definition

But I look at specific traits that apply to all the definition such as the fact that Patriarchy is singular.

then using it to try to cast doubt on ideas that are have been widely accepted for years

At one point in time it was widely accepted that the Earth was flat. Should Galileo not have casted doubt on this idea because it was widely accepted?

Society collectively looks at problems to solve.

And you also have situations where solving a certain problem becomes people's reason d'etre, so once the problem is solved people will pretend the problem hasn't been solved and perceive anyone that disagrees with them as evidence that the problem hasn't been solved. Some people like cybercoma obtain great self-worth by pretending it's the 1950s and that he is the noble white knight protecting all the oppressed women from the hordes of misogynists.

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

[Michael Hardner]

But I look at specific traits that apply to all the definition such as the fact that Patriarchy is singular.

I think you have to do more than that if you want to convince people. Certainly people on here haven't been convinced by your points. You can claim that they're closed-minded, or make comments about them personally but these are people you would have to convince for your ideas to take hold.

So far, a number of people on here seem to think you're a gadfly word-wizard, or worse.

At one point in time it was widely accepted that the Earth was flat. Should Galileo not have casted doubt on this idea because it was widely accepted?

That's not an unfalsifiable theory though.

And you also have situations where solving a certain problem becomes people's reason d'etre, so once the problem is solved people will pretend the problem hasn't been solved and perceive anyone that disagrees with them as evidence that the problem hasn't been solved.

I agree that social ideas do follow trajectories as you describe, but in the marketplace of ideas some will be bought and some will stay on the shelf. Women's rights are still a thing that people care about, so society doesn't seem to think gender equality has been 'solved', by a longshot.

Some people like cybercoma obtain great self-worth by pretending it's the 1950s and that he is the noble white knight protecting all the oppressed women from the hordes of misogynists.

This is the false choice that staunch liberals and conservatives love to fight about: we haven't made any progress at all vs. we have achieved equality. It's easier to have a moral pie fight than dig into the details, unfortunately.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think you have to do more than that if you want to convince people.

Some people are too emotionally invested in an argument to ever be convinced. There are countless examples on these forums (such as individuals refusing to acknowledge the basics of photosynthesis and cellular respiration).

You can claim that they're closed-minded, or make comments about them personally but these are people you would have to convince for your ideas to take hold.

My ideas are unlikely to take hold since few people care much about internal consistency, falsifiability, etc. Much easier to just believe in whatever makes you feel good and gives you a false sense of moral superiority. That is unfortunately the way of the word.

So far, a number of people on here seem to think you're a gadfly word-wizard, or worse.

Am I the only one who thinks it is a bit weird that being called a wizard is suppose to be negative?

That's not an unfalsifiable theory though.

So what are you saying? That people shouldn't cast doubt on unfalsifiable theories? So since traditionally most people weren't atheist, atheists should not create doubt about the existence of god?

Women's rights are still a thing that people care about, so society doesn't seem to think gender equality has been 'solved', by a longshot.

1. Just because society overall thinks something does not mean it is correct.

2. I don't think all women's issues have been solved. But I also don't think it's the 1950s. When you have a society where over 60% of university graduates are female, men have a lower life expectancy and higher suicide rate, millennial women out-earning millennial men in urban areas, etc. the 'women are oppressed, males are privileged' narrative starts to get absurd.

[Michael Hardner]

Some people are too emotionally invested in an argument to ever be convinced. There are countless examples on these forums (such as individuals refusing to acknowledge the basics of photosynthesis and cellular respiration).

That would be a result of these being human beings doing the talking. Anybody who doesn't admit emotion in their own arguments fails right out of the gate, IMO.

My ideas are unlikely to take hold since few people care much about internal consistency, falsifiability, etc. Much easier to just believe in whatever makes you feel good and gives you a false sense of moral superiority. That is unfortunately the way of the word.

You've already admitted these ideas can't be "proven" right or wrong haven't you ? As such, you can't really claim that people aren't buying your proof, given that it comes from yet another invested emotional human being.

Am I the only one who thinks it is a bit weird that being called a wizard is suppose to be negative?

Wizards are amazing. But I don't know any. Maybe it's hard to get friends when you're a wizard.

So what are you saying? That people shouldn't cast doubt on unfalsifiable theories?

No, no, no... gab away... that's what this board is for. But when you fail to convince people of fringey theories, don't be sad... and don't think that your unemotional argument failed to convince emotional people.

So since traditionally most people weren't atheist, atheists should not create doubt about the existence of god?

No. You tried to jump from a social argument to a scientific argument and I pointed that out.

1. Just because society overall thinks something does not mean it is correct.

The term 'correct' is a subjective one. A nation will argue about what is 'correct' and that is the matter.

2. I don't think all women's issues have been solved. But I also don't think it's the 1950s. When you have a society where over 60% of university graduates are female, men have a lower life expectancy and higher suicide rate, millennial women out-earning millennial men in urban areas...

These sound like things that society overall thinks about, or at least should.

[Black Dog]

Am I the only one who thinks it is a bit weird that being called a wizard is suppose to be negative?

Says the guy who uses "social justice warrior" as a pejorative.

[-1=e^ipi]

Says the guy who uses "social justice warrior" as a pejorative.

Social justice is Orwellian. Social justice is not justice. Rather than argue the merits of a position people often just play a word association game to associate justice with their position. By calling it social justice, the SJWs reduce the chance that people will question it.

[Black Dog]

Social justice is Orwellian. Social justice is not justice. Rather than argue the merits of a position people often just play a word association game to associate justice with their position. By calling it social justice, the SJWs reduce the chance that people will question it.

I don't think you could have missed the point more if you tried.

[-1=e^ipi]

SJW use the term social justice, so the term makes sense. I do not use the term wizard nor do I write abra-kadabra or whatever, so why call me one?

[Black Dog]

SJW use the term social justice, so the term makes sense. I do not use the term wizard nor do I write abra-kadabra or whatever, so why call me one?

Same reason you call other people "warriors," d'oy.

[-1=e^ipi]

Same reason you call other people "warriors," d'oy.

I didn't come up with the term.

[Black Dog]

I didn't come up with the term.

And I'm pretty sure "SJWs" didn't invent the term either, it was folks like you who use it ad nauseam.