The Patriachy -

[Manwithn0n0men]

The concept of the Patriachy in Social and Political Sciences is a conspiracy theory that has been disproven numerous times.

Why do people act like you are insane when you tell them that?

 

[Some JERK]

Challenging the existence of their main excuse for not succeeding in life means that you have the nerve to think that they're somehow responsible for their failures.

 

[Harnessed Carcass]

So let's say I build up an ego and personal value based around being a victim of said Patriarchy* and someone who can't even spell the word explain to you that the elements on which you built your foundation is inaccurate and misleading in modern times

 

[No Exit]

Because they were told that the patriarchy exists and there's a whole bunch of evidence for it if you skew the optics. It's a lot easier to believe you failed if it's someone else's fault rather than your own, especially if there's evidence to support it.
Also, all their friends believe it and it's "fact" at this point and to disagree is to become a social pariah.

 

[Orange Rhymer]

Challenging the existence of their main excuse for not succeeding in life means that you have the nerve to think that they're somehow responsible for their failures.

B-B-B-but my EQUALITY.... I mean EQUITY.... I mean Rape by Meritocracy...
(professor, I need more phrases).

 

[Exorbital Columnations]

The idea of the patriarchy is hilarious because it inevitably causes some women to give up all personal responsibility and agency to men.

 

[Harnessed Carcass]

B-B-B-but my EQUALITY.... I mean EQUITY.... I mean Rape by Meritocracy...
(professor, I need more phrases).

Nowadays, we call that "second-hand rape" I believe. Might be out of date as i've been offline for a few hours.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Since Dynastia isn't here anymore, I guess it falls to me to play Devil's Advocate for the Feminists:
"Patriarchy" doesn't mean "all the men get together in back rooms and scheme about how to oppress women", it refers to a set of assumptions on a cultural and structural level that benefit men and disadvantage women. For example, men are socially allowed to be far more blunt, aggressive, and demeaning in the public sphere than women. When a male superior puts heavy pressure on his subordinates, he's seen as being 'tough' or 'no-nonsense': when a woman does the same, she's a bitch. When a man is highly promiscuous, he's seen as a "stud" or "player" and his social capital rises, whereas a highly promiscuous woman is seen as a "slut" and her social capital falls.
Just because people abuse the term doesn't mean it's technical definition is wrong. "Nanotech" is often claimed to be a miracle-worker, but just because the tech can't literally bend reality doesn't mean nanomechanics is suddenly fiction.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

"Patriarchy" doesn't mean "all the men get together in back rooms and scheme about how to oppress women", it refers to a set of assumptions on a cultural and structural level that benefit men and disadvantage women. For example, men are socially allowed to be far more blunt, aggressive, and demeaning in the public sphere than women. When a male superior puts heavy pressure on his subordinates, he's seen as being 'tough' or 'no-nonsense': when a woman does the same, she's a bitch. When a man is highly promiscuous, he's seen as a "stud" or "player" and his social capital rises, whereas a highly promiscuous woman is seen as a "slut" and her social capital falls.

I'm not going to try to prove or disprove anything here because I honestly don't care, I just have always hated those examples. Even if true, the focus should be on making men act more like women in those regards (since being aggressive in public or putting heavy pressure on your subordinates is something no one should do) rather than "raising women up" to act like aggressive rapists and factory line bosses.

All I'm saying is, the way people want to fix those things is reversed. We shouldn't be encouraging that kind of behavior in women, we should be tearing men down for acting un-Christian in those regards. Skewed priority. It's the "don't tone-policy me" thing. Everyone should be tone-policed, not no one.

 

[Some JERK]

I'm not going to try to prove or disprove anything here because I honestly don't care, I just have always hated those examples. Even if true, the focus should be on making men act more like women in those regards (since being aggressive in public or putting heavy pressure on your subordinates is something no one should do) rather than "raising women up" to act like aggressive rapists and factory line bosses.

All I'm saying is, the way people want to fix those things is reversed. We shouldn't be encouraging that kind of behavior in women, we should be tearing men down for acting un-Christian in those regards. Skewed priority. It's the "don't tone-policy me" thing. Everyone should be tone-policed, not no one.

A lot of people complaining about certain behaviors don't really want it to stop, they just want to get their turn to exhibit the behavior.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

I'm not going to try to prove or disprove anything here because I honestly don't care, I just have always hated those examples. Even if true, the focus should be on making men act more like women in those regards (since being aggressive in public or putting heavy pressure on your subordinates is something no one should do) rather than "raising women up" to act like aggressive rapists and factory line bosses.

All I'm saying is, the way people want to fix those things is reversed. We shouldn't be encouraging that kind of behavior in women, we should be tearing men down for acting un-Christian in those regards. Skewed priority. It's the "don't tone-policy me" thing. Everyone should be tone-policed, not no one.

I'm not arguing for one reason or another to address the problem, I'm arguing that the problem is there. You can't address a problem if it isn't even being acknowledged.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

I'm not arguing for one reason or another to address the problem, I'm arguing that the problem is there. You can't address a problem if it isn't even being acknowledged.

Oh, sorry my good dude. I was just looking for an excuse to complain and found this thread.

Oh the irony!

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

Since Dynastia isn't here anymore, I guess it falls to me to play Devil's Advocate for the Feminists:
"Patriarchy" doesn't mean "all the men get together in back rooms and scheme about how to oppress women", it refers to a set of assumptions on a cultural and structural level that benefit men and disadvantage women. For example, men are socially allowed to be far more blunt, aggressive, and demeaning in the public sphere than women. When a male superior puts heavy pressure on his subordinates, he's seen as being 'tough' or 'no-nonsense': when a woman does the same, she's a bitch. When a man is highly promiscuous, he's seen as a "stud" or "player" and his social capital rises, whereas a highly promiscuous woman is seen as a "slut" and her social capital falls.

Yes but for those structural things to occur their needs to be actions by leadership to create those structures for that intended purpose

and thats been proven to have literally never happened.

Also many of those structures were developed by women for the benefit of women for their own social capital makes the idea of "Patriachy" as a political/social concept further nonsensical

 

[Some JERK]

Since Dynastia isn't here anymore, I guess it falls to me to play Devil's Advocate for the Feminists:
"Patriarchy" doesn't mean "all the men get together in back rooms and scheme about how to oppress women", it refers to a set of assumptions on a cultural and structural level that benefit men and disadvantage women.

There are plenty of assumptions on a cultural and structural level that benefit women and disadvantage men, and the MRA-types who use that as an excuse for why their lives are shit are just as pathetic as women who blame the 'patriarchy' for their shortcomings.

 

[Exorbital Columnations]

I'm not going to try to prove or disprove anything here because I honestly don't care, I just have always hated those examples. Even if true, the focus should be on making men act more like women in those regards (since being aggressive in public or putting heavy pressure on your subordinates is something no one should do) rather than "raising women up" to act like aggressive rapists and factory line bosses.

All I'm saying is, the way people want to fix those things is reversed. We shouldn't be encouraging that kind of behavior in women, we should be tearing men down for acting un-Christian in those regards. Skewed priority. It's the "don't tone-policy me" thing. Everyone should be tone-policed, not no one.

Or we could just acknowledge that men and women are different and go about our merry ways.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

Or we could just acknowledge that men and women are different and go about our merry ways.

We have a duty to follow the example of Christ, all of us.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Yes but for those structural things to occur there needs to be action by the leadership to create those structures for that intended purpose.
And that's been proven to have literally never happened.

First, D- on literacy there.
Second, that's not true at all. Structural and cultural inequalities and flaws can emerge organically and without any intention to create inequality. For example, there is an innate assumption that older people tend to be more intelligent and experienced, when there is only a weak correlation between age and intelligence/life experience. A 70-year old who's lived in one town his entire life is likely to know less about the world than a 25-year old who's spent most of their life traveling between countries, for example. But despite this, people are more likely to listen to the advice of someone who is noticeably older than them than the advice of someone of a similar age unless there is a serious counteracting factor (like the younger person being seen as an expert in the field of the question when the older person isn't, or the question being about "new" things) in play.
Likewise, men are more likely to hire men and vice versa, not out of any deliberate program, but because of simple in-group bias: people are more likely to be well-disposed towards those who are more physically and culturally similar to them than otherwise.

Unconscious biases exist, and confronting them is an important part of our mental toolbox to becoming more moral people.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

First, D- on literacy there.
Second, that's not true at all. Structural and cultural inequalities and flaws can emerge organically and without any intention to create inequality.

Except Patriachy theory implicitly expresses intent in their literature

no intent means their conspiracy theory doesn't exist on the terms they invented

Unconscious biases exist, and confronting them is an important part of our mental toolbox to becoming more moral people.

And Patriachy theory [again in the literature] is stating these are explicitly conscious biases

And if I miss a credible source arguing otherwise i'd be willing to read it.[/QUOTE]

 

[Coke Pope]

You can't prove that Patriarchy is not real, but you can't prove is real either.
The concept of Patriachy is a pseudoscientific idea in sociology and political 'science' that is 'not even wrong'. It is simply a non-sequitur, you cannot prove it but you can't also disprove it (thus, you assume that it is pseudoscientific by default).
You cannot disprove the idea of a Patriarchy because you cannot disprove delusions.
If a man that smokes meth and sleeps 2 hours a day tells you he is Jesus incarnate, how do you test that? How can you trust or untrust him? How do you convince him that he is not Jesus? He is no lying, he is not telling the truth either, he is 'not even wrong'.
Irrational beliefs are not subjected to scientific inquiry by definition and most feminist theory is a bunch of pseudointelectual garbage.

Most feminists that will tell you that the Patriarchy exists and that it is a very real thingy will either appeal to emotion, use anecdotal evidence (the weakest type of evidence) or misrepresent history. But don't tell that to feminists because they will seethe, they really don't like when you try to destroy their victim mentality.
Pic related.

/seriouspost

 

[Idiotron]

Influential people and groups keep repeating it so a lot of people think that it's true.
If your president says it and then the TV anchor says it and then your teacher says it then most will stop questioning it.
Also, anything repeated over and over again becomes the truth.

Until the 1960's, cigarettes were considered healthy. You could smoke in workplaces, schools, hospitals, nurseries etc. Why? Because people were being told by doctors and the media that it's healthy.
Most people are incapable of doing research and forming their own opinions.

The whole "vaccines cause autism" thing has been debunked in the mid 80's and idiots re still using that argument because it's being repeated over and over.
"We only use 10% of our brains". How many times have you heard that? Completely false but nobody bothers to check.

This just needs to be debunked until everyone is as familiar with the counter-arguments to patriarchy as they are with the concept of patriarchy itself.
Just like the atheist movement from the previous decade. Hardly anyone treats Christianity seriously anymore because so many people destroyed it. There need to be people like Hitchens who just go everywhere and embarrass anyone who spreads around the concept of patriarchy (the Western kind to be specific).