Serious PC thread

[Federberg]

This is some funny levels of gaslighting. I called you a creep. I mean, you are. The above isn't really helping your case. Please show me where in any post did I come off as being angry, outraged, or out of control, because this is akin to arguing with a toddler.

gaslighting? Jeepers, you're textbook aren't you?

I know you like to come out firing, with your faux outrage and clumsy sarcasm, but seriously

On the one hand you seem to acknowledge the capacity for evil of both genders but then you rather naively underestimate the difference in the harms perpetrated by the genders and the consequences. What percentage of men perpetrate sexual violence? Look at the data, if I recall correctly it's about 1%. But sure.. indict the patriarchy Who is most likely to come to the aid of anyone being attacked? Men. We all acknowledge (I think) that women and men express their evil in different ways, that makes sense given our physical differences. Women do it by social destruction. And it's common. Go on social media platforms and it doesn't take long to find women trashing their partners for both trivial and substantial things. Go to family court and see the number of cases where women claim their husbands are abusive and a danger to their children (but don't pursue the accusations in criminal court). We know why this is done. To win. Those are FALSE accusations in the vast majority of cases. For the sole objective of gaining custody. There are no adverse consequences for these actions generally. In fact the courts, out of an abundance of caution will sever ties between fathers and their children, with zero supporting evidence (and I won't even talk about how harmful it is for the development of children). Why do I bring this up? Because this is the patriarchy we live in. Where the bias is so deep, so reflexive that people don't even pay attention. Johnny Depp's career was destroyed by Amber Heard's allegations of DV. A court of law later determined that she defamed him. But the court of public opinion still has a large section that still believes, because even the taint of the accusation is enough to destroy a career. I bring all these things up, to show that it's very difficult to claim that there is a systemic bias against women in society. Not in the West. If anything it goes the other way. Which is the whole debate in a nut shell. You can perform your fake outrage over a valid point that in the era of identity politics and social media the privilege of being the victim is a powerful advantage. No one out there is looking at a woman or man who has genuinely been assaulted as damaged goods. That's a bygone era. The fear of coming forward, the fear of being ostracised because you're a genuine victim has been consigned to the dustbin of history. And you know what? I'm glad for that. Any genuine victim should be embraced, and supported. The trouble is that there are many wicked people out there who exploit the system of support, who leverage the power conferred by identity politics, and weaponise falsehoods. If you can't even admit that, then you're not giving agency to the very gender you're pretending to advocate for. Genuine belief in equality, comes with objectivity and a dispassionate view of the facts. Not all this crass emotion. Sorry!

 

[brokenshoelace]

gaslighting? Jeepers, you're textbook aren't you?

I know you like to come out firing, with your faux outrage and clumsy sarcasm, but seriously

On the one hand you seem to acknowledge the capacity for evil of both genders but then you rather naively underestimate the difference in the harms perpetrated by the genders and the consequences. What percentage of men perpetrate sexual violence? Look at the data, if I recall correctly it's about 1%. But sure.. indict the patriarchy Who is most likely to come to the aid of anyone being attacked? Men. We all acknowledge (I think) that women and men express their evil in different ways, that makes sense given our physical differences. Women do it by social destruction. And it's common. Go on social media platforms and it doesn't take long to find women trashing their partners for both trivial and substantial things. Go to family court and see the number of cases where women claim their husbands are abusive and a danger to their children (but don't pursue the accusations in criminal court). We know why this is done. To win. Those are FALSE accusations in the vast majority of cases. For the sole objective of gaining custody. There are no adverse consequences for these actions generally. In fact the courts, out of an abundance of caution will sever ties between fathers and their children, with zero supporting evidence (and I won't even talk about how harmful it is for the development of children). Why do I bring this up? Because this is the patriarchy we live in. Where the bias is so deep, so reflexive that people don't even pay attention. Johnny Depp's career was destroyed by Amber Heard's allegations of DV. A court of law later determined that she defamed him. But the court of public opinion still has a large section that still believes, because even the taint of the accusation is enough to destroy a career. I bring all these things up, to show that it's very difficult to claim that there is a systemic bias against women in society. Not in the West. If anything it goes the other way. Which is the whole debate in a nut shell. You can perform your fake outrage over a valid point that in the era of identity politics and social media the privilege of being the victim is a powerful advantage. No one out there is looking at a woman or man who has genuinely been assaulted as damaged goods. That's a bygone era. The fear of coming forward, the fear of being ostracised because you're a genuine victim has been consigned to the dustbin of history. And you know what? I'm glad for that. Any genuine victim should be embraced, and supported. The trouble is that there are many wicked people out there who exploit the system of support, who leverage the power conferred by identity politics, and weaponise falsehoods. If you can't even admit that, then you're not giving agency to the very gender you're pretending to advocate for. Genuine belief in equality, comes with objectivity and a dispassionate view of the facts. Not all this crass emotion. Sorry!

Almost as textbook as asking someone if they're on their period...You don't have much of a leg to stand on so let's stick to the actual argument cause this is tedious.

Where did you get the 1% number exactly? Now, we'll both agree that we can never fully know the percentage of men who commit sex crimes for a wide variety of reasons but here are a few sources that show you a much higher number (now yeah, you'll debate the accuracy, and perhaps that's fair, but to think it's actually 1% means you really are way too emotionally engage in this to have any meaningful objective opinion):

The Frequency of Sexual Perpetration in College Men: A Systematic Review of Reported Prevalence Rates From 2000 to 2017 - PubMed

On average, 29% of college males report engaging in behaviors defined as sexual perpetration; however, there was a strong influence of measurement strategy on reported rates.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

SART Toolkit Section 7.2 - National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)

What We Know About People Who Commit Sexual Assault The majority of information related to sexual assault comes from victims. Multiple national surveys have documented the number of people who report being sexually assaulted as well as the impact of that assault. These national surveys of victim...

www.nsvrc.org

Over one-third of men report perpetrating sexual assault when hooked up to a fake lie detector – Atlas of Science

Across studies, approximately 15-20% of women report that, since adolescence, they have experienced one or more nonconsensual sexual acts perpetrated by a man through use of incapacitation, threats of physical harm, or physical force; researchers often label these acts, which are illegal in most...

atlasofscience.org

As for the "nobody sees women victims of SA/rape as damaged goods." Wow, I mean what a narrow view points. You think that's the only issue with the internalized shame that sexual assault victims feel? That people might see them as damaged goods? Have you read anything about psychology at any point in your life?

And using a few celebrity examples hardly tells the whole story as these are unique situations in terms of repercussions/media coverage/etc... due to fame. For your average Joe, a sexual assault allegation doesn't do shit. Never mind actual self admitting sex offender celebrities like Louis CK and Kevin Spacey who now have resumed their careers...or those who found themselves the President of the United States.

 

[Federberg]

Almost as textbook as asking someone if they're on their period...You don't have much of a leg to stand on so let's stick to the actual argument cause this is tedious.

Where did you get the 1% number exactly? Now, we'll both agree that we can never fully know the percentage of men who commit sex crimes for a wide variety of reasons but here are a few sources that show you a much higher number (now yeah, you'll debate the accuracy, and perhaps that's fair, but to think it's actually 1% means you really are way too emotionally engage in this to have any meaningful objective opinion):

The Frequency of Sexual Perpetration in College Men: A Systematic Review of Reported Prevalence Rates From 2000 to 2017 - PubMed

On average, 29% of college males report engaging in behaviors defined as sexual perpetration; however, there was a strong influence of measurement strategy on reported rates.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

SART Toolkit Section 7.2 - National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)

What We Know About People Who Commit Sexual Assault The majority of information related to sexual assault comes from victims. Multiple national surveys have documented the number of people who report being sexually assaulted as well as the impact of that assault. These national surveys of victim...

www.nsvrc.org

Over one-third of men report perpetrating sexual assault when hooked up to a fake lie detector – Atlas of Science

Across studies, approximately 15-20% of women report that, since adolescence, they have experienced one or more nonconsensual sexual acts perpetrated by a man through use of incapacitation, threats of physical harm, or physical force; researchers often label these acts, which are illegal in most...

atlasofscience.org

As for the "nobody sees women victims of SA/rape as damaged goods." Wow, I mean what a narrow view points. You think that's the only issue with the internalized shame that sexual assault victims feel? That people might see them as damaged goods? Have you read anything about psychology at any point in your life?

And using a few celebrity examples hardly tells the whole story as these are unique situations in terms of repercussions/media coverage/etc... due to fame. For your average Joe, a sexual assault allegation doesn't do shit. Never mind actual self admitting sex offender celebrities like Louis CK and Kevin Spacey who now have resumed their careers...or those who found themselves the President of the United States.

lol! A sexual assault allegation doesn't do shit? People have committed suicide mate. Yup! Sure it doesn't do shit It blows my mind that on the one hand you rightly point out the psychological impact of violation, but trivialise the violation of a false accusation. You don't even see your obvious bias. In some way's it's amusing, but there's nothing funny about real human tragedy. No one is diminishing the impact on genuine victims, but it's not trivialising to point out that support systems are much much stronger than they've ever been. This is a good thing, while not solving the problem. It would be optimal if there weren't predators in the first place. You keep providing research, which I and I believe others have pointed out are somewhat tainted by campus politics. Any number of academics have lamented the current state of research. And that's without even challenging some of the definitions used on university campuses. The terms abuse and assault have been devalued almost as much as the words racist or misogynist have been in this era. That's the sad truth.

By the way your refusal to acknowledge the relevance of so called celebrity cases as an example is amusing. It's not the celebrity or the case itself. The point was to demonstrate how even being cleared of false allegations doesn't provide safety in the patriarchy. The taint is permanent. But sure... obfuscate and intentionally deflect away from the point. Anyway... I'm bored now. In summary... your patriarchy claim is lazy bullshit. There's nothing systemically holding women back in this era. Not in the West...

 

[mrzz]

Among violent crime, statistically, sexual assault/rape is BY FAR the most likely to go either a) unreported, b) unsolved and c) unpunished.

We're really beating around the bush here.

You know what is the second? Again statistically...

Domestic violence.

The third is homicide.

With the first 2, the victims are, overwhelmingly, women.

And what? Those are a few statements, probably valid. But what do they prove, or lead to?

Obviously women will, on average, be on the victim side of the violence spectrum. They are on average physically weaker, and on average less aggressive. People who commit those crimes belong in jail. All societies should evolve away from that reality. This is something we both agree on. But you don't need the patriarchy to understand it.

Also, unreporting crime happens accross the board. You need assumptions to say crime A is the most unreported one (how do you know, if it is unreported? You could make some smart inferences but in general is just assumptions).

But, ok, let us say that crime against women is historically undereported (surely not now in most western societies), but again, it is not because of the "patriarchy". In the past it was harder to report? Yes. Societal change is always hard, and (this is the most important part) rapists would cover for rapists. Wanabee rapists would cover for rapists, like thieves cover for fellow thieves. Also, rape and sexual assault usually have no other witnesses. It is a shity fact, but a lot of times is one person's word against the other. Put it all together and you get the picture. This is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more reasonable than assuming a patriarchy made by all males that covers for everyone, be it organically, or with secret meetings and white robes, as most people think.

And, even being more reasonable, I would not go out and say "I am positive that this is how the world functions", because there is not enough evidence for that. On the other hand, most progressives simmply assume the patriarchy is a real entity, just like other people believe in the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments. Those differences will only be settled with violence, but that is another story.

Maybe you are underestimating the strenght of the phrase "on average, men are more aggressive and more prone to violence". This is a big deal. It means that us men are more likely to behave like beasts. This, again, is a big deal. But it does not mean that all men, or even the majority of men, or even still the men in power (nowadays, at least), are complicit with violence and rape.

 

[Murat B.]

Let's get our priorities straight Canada...

 

[Kieran]

Let's get our priorities straight Canada...

Yeah this shit drives me nuts. It’s not only that it’s dishonest language, it’s clumsy as fuck to say!

 

[brokenshoelace]

And what? Those are a few statements, probably valid. But what do they prove, or lead to?

Obviously women will, on average, be on the victim side of the violence spectrum. They are on average physically weaker, and on average less aggressive. People who commit those crimes belong in jail. All societies should evolve away from that reality. This is something we both agree on. But you don't need the patriarchy to understand it.

Also, unreporting crime happens accross the board. You need assumptions to say crime A is the most unreported one (how do you know, if it is unreported? You could make some smart inferences but in general is just assumptions).

But, ok, let us say that crime against women is historically undereported (surely not now in most western societies), but again, it is not because of the "patriarchy". In the past it was harder to report? Yes. Societal change is always hard, and (this is the most important part) rapists would cover for rapists. Wanabee rapists would cover for rapists, like thieves cover for fellow thieves. Also, rape and sexual assault usually have no other witnesses. It is a shity fact, but a lot of times is one person's word against the other. Put it all together and you get the picture. This is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more reasonable than assuming a patriarchy made by all males that covers for everyone, be it organically, or with secret meetings and white robes, as most people think.

And, even being more reasonable, I would not go out and say "I am positive that this is how the world functions", because there is not enough evidence for that. On the other hand, most progressives simmply assume the patriarchy is a real entity, just like other people believe in the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments. Those differences will only be settled with violence, but that is another story.

Maybe you are underestimating the strenght of the phrase "on average, men are more aggressive and more prone to violence". This is a big deal. It means that us men are more likely to behave like beasts. This, again, is a big deal. But it does not mean that all men, or even the majority of men, or even still the men in power (nowadays, at least), are complicit with violence and rape.

I thought it was obvious. You said people get away with crime all the time. I'm saying the most common crimes people get away with, typically happen against women. How is that not relevant to a discussion regarding a potentially patriarchal society, in which safety of women is surely a key factor when assessing.

The reasons you mention for this, I agree with. I explicitly mention that they go unsolved (which obviously entails the factors you alluded to which contribute to those crimes going unsolved).

Now, those crimes are not always (or even mostly) unsolved because of patriarchy. But are you seriously pretending that would be rapists/sexual assaulters could not or would not take advantage of that fact to commit those acts when they have a pretty good chance of going unpunished by the law for one reason or another? So if a given man feels he has a free reign to commit sex crimes against women because he feels he could get away with it, that's not patriarchal? Does it get more patriarchal than "I'm stronger than you so I'll force myself upon you and get away with it?"

Yes yes yes yes for the 1000000000th time, not all men. And for the 1000000000th men can be victims too. I never claimed otherwise and it's so boring to read every post amounting to this same claim that I never made.

It is odd timing to mention men in power though, in light of the Epstein stuff.

 

[brokenshoelace]

lol! A sexual assault allegation doesn't do shit? People have committed suicide mate. Yup! Sure it doesn't do shit It blows my mind that on the one hand you rightly point out the psychological impact of violation, but trivialise the violation of a false accusation. You don't even see your obvious bias. In some way's it's amusing, but there's nothing funny about real human tragedy. No one is diminishing the impact on genuine victims, but it's not trivialising to point out that support systems are much much stronger than they've ever been. This is a good thing, while not solving the problem. It would be optimal if there weren't predators in the first place. You keep providing research, which I and I believe others have pointed out are somewhat tainted by campus politics. Any number of academics have lamented the current state of research. And that's without even challenging some of the definitions used on university campuses. The terms abuse and assault have been devalued almost as much as the words racist or misogynist have been in this era. That's the sad truth.

By the way your refusal to acknowledge the relevance of so called celebrity cases as an example is amusing. It's not the celebrity or the case itself. The point was to demonstrate how even being cleared of false allegations doesn't provide safety in the patriarchy. The taint is permanent. But sure... obfuscate and intentionally deflect away from the point. Anyway... I'm bored now. In summary... your patriarchy claim is lazy bullshit. There's nothing systemically holding women back in this era. Not in the West...

"no one is diminishing the impact on genuine victims" but I'll mention the very few cases of people committing suicide because of false accusations while responding with women going on OF and making money in response to a post about real victims because... and claim that the name of the game is victimization, legit or otherwise. But no you're right.

Keep the act up mate. A few more posts and you'll sound even more divorced.

 

[Kieran]

One thing I’ll say on the topic of patriarchy and rape, the fact that women can make false allegations against men and be taken seriously, is actually a reflection of how things have improved for women in the west, to an extent. Used to be there was such a thing as conjugal rights, which led to wives being raped as a matter of marital duty, and a husbands rights. Women are cultural leaders now, more than they ever were, for good or ill. They have far more control over their destinies.

But of course, the treatment of women in cultures that are still violently patriarchal due to their religion and customs, is a hellish tale.

 

[mrzz]

I thought it was obvious. You said people get away with crime all the time. I'm saying the most common crimes people get away with, typically happen against women. How is that not relevant to a discussion regarding a potentially patriarchal society, in which safety of women is surely a key factor when assessing.

The reasons you mention for this, I agree with. I explicitly mention that they go unsolved (which obviously entails the factors you alluded to which contribute to those crimes going unsolved).

Now, those crimes are not always (or even mostly) unsolved because of patriarchy. But are you seriously pretending that would be rapists/sexual assaulters could not or would not take advantage of that fact to commit those acts when they have a pretty good chance of going unpunished by the law for one reason or another? So if a given man feels he has a free reign to commit sex crimes against women because he feels he could get away with it, that's not patriarchal? Does it get more patriarchal than "I'm stronger than you so I'll force myself upon you and get away with it?"

Yes yes yes yes for the 1000000000th time, not all men. And for the 1000000000th men can be victims too. I never claimed otherwise and it's so boring to read every post amounting to this same claim that I never made.

It is odd timing to mention men in power though, in light of the Epstein stuff.

Regarding the bolded part: would be rapists would take advantage of anything. My point is that the thing that favors them the most is that the crime they commit so often has no other witnesses, and in the past was way harder to follow the evidence. Second thing is other people (ok, in general men) in position of power, if guilty of the same crimes, would usually cover for them (we already agreed on that, I know). Nowadays, most western countries do not have loopholes in the law for them to explore, but unfortunately there are places in the world were is "legal" to commit atrocities against women. In those places you can talk about what you mean by "patriarchy", but I would not use that word. A better term would be "misogynistic society/legal system".

Now, here is the crux of our debate, IMO: "So if a given man feels he has a free reign to commit sex crimes against women because he feels he could get away with it, that's not patriarchal? Does it get more patriarchal than "I'm stronger than you so I'll force myself upon you and get away with it?""

This is not by any means "patriarchal". Patriarchy, in its origin, would mean "rules of the father". The root "Pater" there makes the reference clear for speakers of a lot of different languages and it is hard not to think of "father" when reading or hearing this word. Modern, I would say even contemporary usage changed it to "rule of men". So, yes, when you say that "I'm stronger than you so I'll force myself upon you and get away with it?"" means patriarchy you are saying, by both old and new meanings of the word, that all men are like that. You are literally saying "rule of the father/man" = "rape and assault".

By the way, I know that you personally don't think that, just pointing out why this word is "triggering" (sorry, couldn't resist).

I get that it seems that we basically agree on a lot of stuff and I am only debating the terms. Apart from what we actually disagree on, the term here is extremely important, because it shapes the way you address the issue (violence against women), and therefore the ways you try to solve the problem.

 

[Murat B.]

Yeah this shit drives me nuts. It’s not only that it’s dishonest language, it’s clumsy as fuck to say!

Not only this but the police chief referred to the killer as "female". Because that is what he identified as. Now, female is a word that defines sex, not gender. Imagine if this person escaped unharmed. Would we be on the lookout for someone with a vagina? Anyone with a penis would be off the hook? This is just another example of PC language and how it can actually be dangerous. Just say, the killer is a trans woman if you must. But do not use the word female.

 

[Federberg]

You can’t make this shit up! A campaign for men’s health is offensive to women because it’s for men??

 

[Kieran]

You can’t make this shit up! A campaign for men’s health is offensive to women because it’s for men??

That’s kind of crazy, isn’t it? Dismissive of women? I bet she can’t even tell us what a woman is. Ragebait? Ragebait is when a woman can’t tell us what a woman is.

They want everything to be meaningful to them, and what’s meaningful to men, they take offence and yell, “me me ME!”.

Somewhere along the line men will wake up and stop making an effort. Kind of like Black Fatigue, but with feminists instead..

 

[Federberg]

Can’t wait to hear our friends on the left take up this challenge

 

[Kieran]

This is actually very simple, and yet the questioner pretends ignorance and asks a plainly stupid question, in order to promote woke racism:

 

[mrzz]

Can’t wait to hear our friends on the left take up this challenge

It was hard to swallow, but I actually listened to the video before commenting. Hard conversations are always good conversations.

The central point is a phrase the person says herself in the video: "we are responsible for our actions". So, yes, even if I accept that a pedophile is helpless to control what he desires (as most people are, each one with his own desires), he is still responsible for his actions.

Problem with her line of thinking is that she is differentiating pedophiles (the ones that feel the urge) from child molesters (the ones that commit the crime), but willfully ignoring the fact that most people DO NOT MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. I know that this is just a clip, but if you are serious about that reasoning, you cannot waste a chance to stress that difference, and you must take every precaution that your words will not be misinterpreted. So she either did not care enough not to be misunderstood, or she tought that this is not that important, or she knows exactly what she is doing. I do not know what is worse.

 

[Federberg]

It was hard to swallow, but I actually listened to the video before commenting. Hard conversations are always good conversations.

The central point is a phrase the person says herself in the video: "we are responsible for our actions". So, yes, even if I accept that a pedophile is helpless to control what he desires (as most people are, each one with his own desires), he is still responsible for his actions.

Problem with her line of thinking is that she is differentiating pedophiles (the ones that feel the urge) from child molesters (the ones that commit the crime), but willfully ignoring the fact that most people DO NOT MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. I know that this is just a clip, but if you are serious about that reasoning, you cannot waste a chance to stress that difference, and you must take every precaution that your words will not be misinterpreted. So she either did not care enough not to be misunderstood, or she tought that this is not that important, or she knows exactly what she is doing. I do not know what is worse.

exactly!

This is the end game a lot of us have been talking about. When they started telling us it was ok for men to use women's bathrooms, a lot of us were asked what would be next? Many speculated that this sort of depravity would be the next thing some of these idiots would advocate. And now we're here

 

[brokenshoelace]

Now, here is the crux of our debate, IMO: "So if a given man feels he has a free reign to commit sex crimes against women because he feels he could get away with it, that's not patriarchal? Does it get more patriarchal than "I'm stronger than you so I'll force myself upon you and get away with it?""

This is not by any means "patriarchal". Patriarchy, in its origin, would mean "rules of the father". The root "Pater" there makes the reference clear for speakers of a lot of different languages and it is hard not to think of "father" when reading or hearing this word. Modern, I would say even contemporary usage changed it to "rule of men". So, yes, when you say that "I'm stronger than you so I'll force myself upon you and get away with it?"" means patriarchy you are saying, by both old and new meanings of the word, that all men are like that. You are literally saying "rule of the father/man" = "rape and assault".

By the way, I know that you personally don't think that, just pointing out why this word is "triggering" (sorry, couldn't resist).

I get that it seems that we basically agree on a lot of stuff and I am only debating the terms. Apart from what we actually disagree on, the term here is extremely important, because it shapes the way you address the issue (violence against women), and therefore the ways you try to solve the problem.

But that's not what patriarchy means in social science. I get the origin of the word, but in modern social science patriarchy is a social system in which men as a class hold disproportionate structural power over women as a class, more or less. In that sense, rape, which is often a result of men being physically more powerful than women or, as you mentioned in a different post, being more aggressive by nature, is made "easier" by a system where male dominance and female vulnerability are normalized in ways that can make sexual violence easier to commit or harder to prosecute. Now you can disagree with the latter statement (we've gone over that already), but I'm just clarifying what patriarchy actually means nowadays.

Because otherwise, we can play semantics over everything (and it feels like that's what people are doing, a lot, over here and elsewhere). For example, I'm sure you've encountered the whole "homophobia = being afraid of homosexuals" therefore this or that action cannot be "homophobic" because it's not out of fear of homosexuals. It really just devalues the whole conversation.

 

[mrzz]

But that's not what patriarchy means in social science. I get the origin of the word, but in modern social science patriarchy is a social system in which men as a class hold disproportionate structural power over women as a class, more or less. In that sense, rape, which is often a result of men being physically more powerful than women or, as you mentioned in a different post, being more aggressive by nature, is made "easier" by a system where male dominance and female vulnerability are normalized in ways that can make sexual violence easier to commit or harder to prosecute. Now you can disagree with the latter statement (we've gone over that already), but I'm just clarifying what patriarchy actually means nowadays.

Because otherwise, we can play semantics over everything (and it feels like that's what people are doing, a lot, over here and elsewhere). For example, I'm sure you've encountered the whole "homophobia = being afraid of homosexuals" therefore this or that action cannot be "homophobic" because it's not out of fear of homosexuals. It really just devalues the whole conversation.

I do not want to discuss semantics, that's for sure (good point about homophobia, btw). I precisely wanted to adhere to what modern social science defines as patriarchy, so I referred to current dictionary definitions, which generally are up to date, but yes, I downplayed the difference of the academic term and the colloquial one.

Having said that, there is not much more in the current, academic, meaning of patriarchy, in the way that you concisely and correctly put, than what I wrote above. Hold disproportionate power is just a softened version of "rule", to put it shortly.

The academic meaning of patriarchy explicitly mentions a "social system". Now we go deeper and deeper in the crux of the argument, because that is exactly this "social system", or better, the assumption that world is organized this way, that should never be taken for granted. Modern "social sciences", and I know I am being offensive just by using the quotation marks, is not able to distinguish a thesis from an hypothesis. It simply vomits tons of circular references that orbit around an assumption, and that assumption is actually more than simply men hold disproportionate power, but (as you put it) they organically find ways to preserve that disproportionate share.

The parallel with pseudo-science is strong. You start from an arbitrary assumption (for example, that the earth is hollow), and then you start listing everything you believe that supports your "theory". Everything that challenges your theory is discarded from the get go.

What exposes pseudo-science is reality, but not completely, because in the end people chose what they want to believe.

It is then irrelevant that once society evolved, that once humanity evolved from primitive views that were common until the mid 19 century, that since then share of power (be political or economical, be it of single individuals or as a group) that women possess have increased dramatically. Very soon after humanity became enlightened enough to understand that women and men are intellectually equivalent, historically speaking the situation changed extremely fast. If there is a patriarchy, it is extremely incompetent.

So, yes, I am disputing the very notion given by modern social sciences, because nowadays it does not deserve the term "science" attached to it. I grew up surrounded by friends in those fields, so I know exactly how disparaging I sound.

But, back to our topic, I am not trying to deny the still existing challenges women, on average, face. My point is that this "canonical" approach to it is bound to fail, or better, it is simply harming the natural evolution, in the right direction, that society is processing as we speak. Yes, you can reply me with a thousand horrible statistics of what happens today. They are all true. But, whatever you get, it was ten times worse 100 years ago. The point is not where we are, is what is the trend. That trend is obvious, and was already obvious 50 years ago (at least in the west). The current biggest obstacle it faces are the wrong policies created by people who view the world through those glasses.

 

[Federberg]

I do not want to discuss semantics, that's for sure (good point about homophobia, btw). I precisely wanted to adhere to what modern social science defines as patriarchy, so I referred to current dictionary definitions, which generally are up to date, but yes, I downplayed the difference of the academic term and the colloquial one.

Having said that, there is not much more in the current, academic, meaning of patriarchy, in the way that you concisely and correctly put, than what I wrote above. Hold disproportionate power is just a softened version of "rule", to put it shortly.

The academic meaning of patriarchy explicitly mentions a "social system". Now we go deeper and deeper in the crux of the argument, because that is exactly this "social system", or better, the assumption that world is organized this way, that should never be taken for granted. Modern "social sciences", and I know I am being offensive just by using the quotation marks, is not able to distinguish a thesis from an hypothesis. It simply vomits tons of circular references that orbit around an assumption, and that assumption is actually more than simply men hold disproportionate power, but (as you put it) they organically find ways to preserve that disproportionate share.

The parallel with pseudo-science is strong. You start from an arbitrary assumption (for example, that the earth is hollow), and then you start listing everything you believe that supports your "theory". Everything that challenges your theory is discarded from the get go.

What exposes pseudo-science is reality, but not completely, because in the end people chose what they want to believe.

It is then irrelevant that once society evolved, that once humanity evolved from primitive views that were common until the mid 19 century, that since then share of power (be political or economical, be it of single individuals or as a group) that women possess have increased dramatically. Very soon after humanity became enlightened enough to understand that women and men are intellectually equivalent, historically speaking the situation changed extremely fast. If there is a patriarchy, it is extremely incompetent.

So, yes, I am disputing the very notion given by modern social sciences, because nowadays it does not deserve the term "science" attached to it. I grew up surrounded by friends in those fields, so I know exactly how disparaging I sound.

But, back to our topic, I am not trying to deny the still existing challenges women, on average, face. My point is that this "canonical" approach to it is bound to fail, or better, it is simply harming the natural evolution, in the right direction, that society is processing as we speak. Yes, you can reply me with a thousand horrible statistics of what happens today. They are all true. But, whatever you get, it was ten times worse 100 years ago. The point is not where we are, is what is the trend. That trend is obvious, and was already obvious 50 years ago (at least in the west). The current biggest obstacle it faces are the wrong policies created by people who view the world through those glasses.

I'm not even sure they're true mate. A lot of research coming out of universities today are pure trash. The peer review system has broken down significantly, which is why most of the really good stuff is based on incremental improvements rather than truly ground breaking research. And I'm talking hard sciences. The social "sciences" are much much worse.