Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Feminism: is 'the patriarchy' unfalsifiable?

sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 7:29:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It seems to me that current discourse on feminism could stand improvement, and is subject to similar criticisms to those Popper levelled at the theories of Freud, Marx and religion. That is, namely that the concept of the 'patriarchy' is too broad; an all encompassing paradigm which any empirical case could somehow be fit into and used as proof for. Furthermore, that anyone who denies or criticises theories of its existence are said to be using underhanded techniques of subjugation, just as someone who denies Freud's theory is actually repressing it's truth, and is therefore evidence for Freud's accuracy.

Accusing someone of being prejudiced is quite a serious and emotionally loaded accusation, so by using such a vague unprovable theory as a central idea, feminists might often make the discourse more emotional and polarised in nature than it needs to be. Could the concept of 'patriarchy' not be dissected into more precise and provable theories?

Also, why is it called feminism rather than something like 'gender equality'? Why should it have a gender-biased name?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 4:36:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 7:29:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
It seems to me that current discourse on feminism could stand improvement, and is subject to similar criticisms to those Popper levelled at the theories of Freud, Marx and religion.

I think everyone would be better off forgettig the open society and it's enemies lol.

That is, namely that the concept of the 'patriarchy' is too broad; an all encompassing paradigm which any empirical case could somehow be fit into and used as proof for. Furthermore, that anyone who denies or criticises theories of its existence are said to be using underhanded techniques of subjugation, just as someone who denies Freud's theory is actually repressing it's truth, and is therefore evidence for Freud's accuracy.

Accusing someone of being prejudiced is quite a serious and emotionally loaded accusation, so by using such a vague unprovable theory as a central idea, feminists might often make the discourse more emotional and polarised in nature than it needs to be. Could the concept of 'patriarchy' not be dissected into more precise and provable theories?

Also, why is it called feminism rather than something like 'gender equality'? Why should it have a gender-biased name?

This site never really surprise me anymore when it comes to it's discussions on feminism.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 10:49:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 7:29:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
It seems to me that current discourse on feminism could stand improvement, and is subject to similar criticisms to those Popper levelled at the theories of Freud, Marx and religion. That is, namely that the concept of the 'patriarchy' is too broad; an all encompassing paradigm which any empirical case could somehow be fit into and used as proof for. Furthermore, that anyone who denies or criticises theories of its existence are said to be using underhanded techniques of subjugation, just as someone who denies Freud's theory is actually repressing it's truth, and is therefore evidence for Freud's accuracy.

Accusing someone of being prejudiced is quite a serious and emotionally loaded accusation, so by using such a vague unprovable theory as a central idea, feminists might often make the discourse more emotional and polarised in nature than it needs to be. Could the concept of 'patriarchy' not be dissected into more precise and provable theories?

Also, why is it called feminism rather than something like 'gender equality'? Why should it have a gender-biased name?

Feminism isn't really just one ideology or argument. There's lots of different philosophies within the term "feminism", and lots of disagreements. Personally, I've never seen feminism as being about equality, but rather about rights for women. I agree that defining it in terms of equality makes no sense, but of course plenty of people disagree.

The idea of the patriarchy only applies to a subset of feminism (radical feminism, I think).

Anyway, to be honest, I don't know all the names for all the different approaches to feminism. I'm not that interested in that sort of cataloguing. But, yeah, no doubt there are some feminists somewhere who are arguing about a patriarchy in an unfalsifiable way.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 11:02:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 4:36:15 PM, Noumena wrote:
I think everyone would be better off forgettig the open society and it's enemies lol.

What does 'the open society and it's enemies' mean?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 12:23:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 11:02:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 2/23/2014 4:36:15 PM, Noumena wrote:
I think everyone would be better off forgettig the open society and it's enemies lol.

What does 'the open society and it's enemies' mean?

Some book that everyone should probs forget about.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 12:43:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 12:23:35 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/23/2014 11:02:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 2/23/2014 4:36:15 PM, Noumena wrote:
I think everyone would be better off forgettig the open society and it's enemies lol.

What does 'the open society and it's enemies' mean?

Some book that everyone should probs forget about.

Do you think the falsifiability of a theory is not at all an important issue? Or just dislike Popper specifically?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 3:47:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 12:43:38 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 2/24/2014 12:23:35 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/23/2014 11:02:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 2/23/2014 4:36:15 PM, Noumena wrote:
I think everyone would be better off forgettig the open society and it's enemies lol.

What does 'the open society and it's enemies' mean?

Some book that everyone should probs forget about.

Do you think the falsifiability of a theory is not at all an important issue?

Meh.

Or just dislike Popper specifically?

I dislike most people.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:39:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Fool: The general use of the term patriarchy, by feminists is any social system whose authority is ----primarily---- males.
That is one which consist of "more" male authority. (If I'm not getting what I want,)

Like most feminist ideology it's always all kinds of many things, or nothing in particular, for the purpose of avoiding the possibility of objective measurement, research and or being held accountable in any way.

Is not an accident, but rather a strategy to avoid being held accountable, in any way.

So whenever there is an obvious wrongdoing, by feminists, it can always be pawned off, on the other "mysterious isolated" but never to be found feminists, so that there are never any accountability nor responsibility. For the causes of one's ideology.

Despite the fact that they are all derivatives of the same fundamentalist regime.

But whenever a wrongdoing can be attributed to men, in any way, it can always be said to be a general result of the mysterious and many faceted, subconscious, but never any facet, patriarchy, which can only be esoterically known to certain feminist.

Nonetheless the actions, claims and the convictions are all always in the objective sense. Despite the fact that "feminist theory", which is no particular theory at all but rather an endless catalog of opinions.

For example:

Noumena:".This site never really surprise me anymore when it comes to it's discussions on feminism
".Some book that everyone should probs forget about.
"Meh.
".I dislike most people.

The Fool: And that "virtually" all feminist philosophy is subjectivist, postmodernist, and/or non-rational. In other words, it's mostly ideology, as opposed to the love or seeking wisdom, truth or knowledge.

Ask Noumena the neutered. He loves "Ideology".

The Fool: For logic to a feminist, is like water to the wicked witch of the West. It burns!!!!!!

Feminists generally claim that their hatred is not towards men and boys, but they hate the patriarchy.

But this has much reasoning as Noumena's philosophizing.
There is none.
For even my monkey is a better philosopher.

Ma Monkey: For what is a patriarchy without men?

But what is a system, whose authority is primarily males if there exists no males?

In other words, there cannot be a "true and existing entity", that the Term patriarchy is used to refer to in a context which no males sex exists?

And so it follows by necessity, that the necessary component of a patriarchy is men. That is if there is no men, there is no patriarchy.

For example:
If A and B are in the set C;
C=(A,B)

[then] if H is predicated on C, H predicates A and B.

HC=H(A,B)=(HA,HB)

Let men =A and let authority=B
And let hate = H

<(8O)

Therefore it follows [by necessity] that if X hates the patriarchy than X hates men in patriarchy.

And by corollary follows that the only men who have the possibility of not being "hated" by one who hates "the mysterious patriarchy." Are those who do not exist. The spirited away type.

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 3:36:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 7:29:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
It seems to me that current discourse on feminism could stand improvement, and is subject to similar criticisms to those Popper levelled at the theories of Freud, Marx and religion. That is, namely that the concept of the 'patriarchy' is too broad; an all encompassing paradigm which any empirical case could somehow be fit into and used as proof for. Furthermore, that anyone who denies or criticises theories of its existence are said to be using underhanded techniques of subjugation, just as someone who denies Freud's theory is actually repressing it's truth, and is therefore evidence for Freud's accuracy.

Accusing someone of being prejudiced is quite a serious and emotionally loaded accusation, so by using such a vague unprovable theory as a central idea, feminists might often make the discourse more emotional and polarised in nature than it needs to be. Could the concept of 'patriarchy' not be dissected into more precise and provable theories?


You seem to not know that what a real patriarchy is, and what a feminist patriarchy is are two different things.

A real patriarchy is what you seemed to imply. A very broad term that simply means that the body involved is ruled mainly by men.

A feminist patriarchy is a real patriarchy, but with the addition that the males subjugate and/or abuse the females, stripping the rights (and the clothes) off of the women, as women are treated as a lesser being.

Also, why is it called feminism rather than something like 'gender equality'? Why should it have a gender-biased name?

I don't know, but I totally agree. Equality feminism should be officially referred to as gender equality, and radical feminism/misandry should be feminism.

P.S. Also, misandry is a real word. I don't know why spell-check doesn't think it is.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 6:09:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 3:36:14 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/23/2014 7:29:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
It seems to me that current discourse on feminism could stand improvement, and is subject to similar criticisms to those Popper levelled at the theories of Freud, Marx and religion. That is, namely that the concept of the 'patriarchy' is too broad; an all encompassing paradigm which any empirical case could somehow be fit into and used as proof for. Furthermore, that anyone who denies or criticises theories of its existence are said to be using underhanded techniques of subjugation, just as someone who denies Freud's theory is actually repressing it's truth, and is therefore evidence for Freud's accuracy.

Accusing someone of being prejudiced is quite a serious and emotionally loaded accusation, so by using such a vague unprovable theory as a central idea, feminists might often make the discourse more emotional and polarised in nature than it needs to be. Could the concept of 'patriarchy' not be dissected into more precise and provable theories?


You seem to not know that what a real patriarchy is, and what a feminist patriarchy is are two different things.

A real patriarchy is what you seemed to imply. A very broad term that simply means that the body involved is ruled mainly by men.

A feminist patriarchy is a real patriarchy, but with the addition that the males subjugate and/or abuse the females, stripping the rights (and the clothes) off of the women, as women are treated as a lesser being.

Also, why is it called feminism rather than something like 'gender equality'? Why should it have a gender-biased name?

I don't know, but I totally agree. Equality feminism should be officially referred to as gender equality, and radical feminism/misandry should be feminism.

P.S. Also, misandry is a real word. I don't know why spell-check doesn't think it is.

It's a word but is generally used only by guys in response to getting their feelings hurt by feminists.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 6:15:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:39:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: The general use of the term patriarchy, by feminists is any social system whose authority is ----primarily---- males.
That is one which consist of "more" male authority. (If I'm not getting what I want,)

Like most feminist ideology it's always all kinds of many things, or nothing in particular, for the purpose of avoiding the possibility of objective measurement, research and or being held accountable in any way.

Is not an accident, but rather a strategy to avoid being held accountable, in any way.

So whenever there is an obvious wrongdoing, by feminists, it can always be pawned off, on the other "mysterious isolated" but never to be found feminists, so that there are never any accountability nor responsibility. For the causes of one's ideology.

Despite the fact that they are all derivatives of the same fundamentalist regime.

But whenever a wrongdoing can be attributed to men, in any way, it can always be said to be a general result of the mysterious and many faceted, subconscious, but never any facet, patriarchy, which can only be esoterically known to certain feminist.

Nonetheless the actions, claims and the convictions are all always in the objective sense. Despite the fact that "feminist theory", which is no particular theory at all but rather an endless catalog of opinions.

Not an arg but ok

For example:

Noumena:".This site never really surprise me anymore when it comes to it's discussions on feminism
".Some book that everyone should probs forget about.
"Meh.
".I dislike most people.

I like being quoted.

The Fool: And that "virtually" all feminist philosophy is subjectivist, postmodernist, and/or non-rational. In other words, it's mostly ideology, as opposed to the love or seeking wisdom, truth or knowledge.

I don't see you reading much feminist philosophy.

Ask Noumena the neutered. He loves "Ideology".

Well I've been buffing up on Althusser....


The Fool: For logic to a feminist, is like water to the wicked witch of the West. It burns!!!!!!

That's def an arg


Feminists generally claim that their hatred is not towards men and boys, but they hate the patriarchy.

But this has much reasoning as Noumena's philosophizing.
There is none.
For even my monkey is a better philosopher.

Also definitely an arg. You should write a book.


Ma Monkey: For what is a patriarchy without men?

But what is a system, whose authority is primarily males if there exists no males?

In other words, there cannot be a "true and existing entity", that the Term patriarchy is used to refer to in a context which no males sex exists?

And so it follows by necessity, that the necessary component of a patriarchy is men. That is if there is no men, there is no patriarchy.

For example:
If A and B are in the set C;
C=(A,B)

[then] if H is predicated on C, H predicates A and B.

HC=H(A,B)=(HA,HB)

Let men =A and let authority=B
And let hate = H

<(8O)

Therefore it follows [by necessity] that if X hates the patriarchy than X hates men in patriarchy.

And by corollary follows that the only men who have the possibility of not being "hated" by one who hates "the mysterious patriarchy." Are those who do not exist. The spirited away type.

Lol yer too much.

I can confidently say yer illiterate in regards to the actual claims of feminist philosophy.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 9:06:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 6:15:13 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/24/2014 5:39:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: The general use of the term patriarchy, by feminists is any social system whose authority is ----primarily---- males.
That is one which consist of "more" male authority. (If I'm not getting what I want,)

Like most feminist ideology it's always all kinds of many things, or nothing in particular, for the purpose of avoiding the possibility of objective measurement, research and or being held accountable in any way.

Is not an accident, but rather a strategy to avoid being held accountable, in any way.

So whenever there is an obvious wrongdoing, by feminists, it can always be pawned off, on the other "mysterious isolated" but never to be found feminists, so that there are never any accountability nor responsibility. For the causes of one's ideology.

Despite the fact that they are all derivatives of the same fundamentalist regime.

But whenever a wrongdoing can be attributed to men, in any way, it can always be said to be a general result of the mysterious and many faceted, subconscious, but never any facet, patriarchy, which can only be esoterically known to certain feminist.

Nonetheless the actions, claims and the convictions are all always in the objective sense. Despite the fact that "feminist theory", which is no particular theory at all but rather an endless catalog of opinions.

Not an arg but ok

The Fool: Which premise do you have a "counter example" for?
You know, what's your Refutation?
Opinion?
Bold assertions?

What is that garbage"
Move along Sir"".

For example:

Noumena:".This site never really surprise me anymore when it comes to it's discussions on feminism
".Some book that everyone should probs forget about.
"Meh.
".I dislike most people.

I like being quoted.

The Fool: And you love to ruffle jimmies, For you said so yourself. Self willingly even, self-indulgently perhaps.

<(8D)
But at least you put a condom on it. I guess that counts for something.

<(8P)

The Fool: And that "virtually" all feminist philosophy is subjectivist, postmodernist, and/or non-rational. In other words, it's mostly ideology, as opposed to the love or seeking wisdom, truth or knowledge.

I don't see you reading much feminist philosophy.

The Fool: I'm sure you don't see many things, like the word "virtually" perhaps.

Are you denying, that claim, most hesitant one?
Mr., half, and half?
Sir huff and puff?
Mr. yada yada nada?

I swear your smooth, in twinkle toed shoes.. Even.

<(89)

For you claim to see arguments, when they haven't been given, and seem quite troubled, with simple demonstrations.

But perhaps I speak falsely, like yourself even. Perhaps, like yourself, I, like you, try to blur lines, to my own self, and what somebody should at least recognized by their first course in philosophy.

Or perhaps it's a matter of communication, Perhaps your using the word "argument" and "philosophy" in the colloquial sense...
still..
Perhaps not, either way, more than your opinion is needed.
I mean what are you expecting..?


Ask Noumena the neutered. He loves "Ideology".

Well I've been buffing up on Althusser....
The Fool: Yes you've explained before, that you are quite the Jimmy ruffler. .

<(8O)

The Fool: For logic to a feminist, is like water to the wicked witch of the West. It burns!!!!!!

That's def an arg

The Fool: You must have learned the ability to recognize arguments, from clown bear himself.
Sir,..
Dear sir".
I'm going to have to ask you to move along"
<(8D)


Feminists "generally" claim that their hatred is not towards men and boys, but they hate the patriarchy. (which is followed by direct evidence, in the video)


But this has much reasoning as Noumena's philosophizing.
There is none.
For even my monkey is a better philosopher.

Also definitely an arg. You should write a book.

The Fool: And you are definitely something, You should write a joke.
<(XD)

You know, spice it up a little.
<(86)

Now move along".

Therefore it follows [by necessity] that if X hates the patriarchy than X hates men in patriarchy.

And by corollary follows that the only men who have the possibility of not being "hated" by one who hates "the mysterious patriarchy." Are those who do not exist. The spirited away type.

Lol yer too much.

The Fool: That's what she said.

<(8P)

Move..----->>
Go that away--->


I can confidently say yer illiterate in regards to the actual claims of feminist philosophy.

The Fool: but it's been demonstrated, time and time again, that you say many things confidently. However they are most particularly false things. And what is it say about someone puts no effort into demonstrating, when they are speaking truly. I mean it's been a lo-o-ong time now.

A perhaps you can, for once, in the open, let another in on the justification, you gave to yourself, in your mind, for yourself, to assure yourself, that I do not have even the ability to read, Actual, claims by feminist philosophy?

Was it the fact that, I didn't actually refer to claims of feminist philosophers?(Read carefully)

Or was it the fact that I gave a video, with evidence, regarding exactly what "rationally argued"?
<(86)
(as opposed to colloquial argument".just in case".. you never know..)

Do you not agree that my argument follows?

And that it ------->necessarily follows<--------..whether you agree or not.

Perhaps is too much formalities..

Here I'll give you extra-Extra special version, on the hill:

Feminists ----"generally"--- (as in not everyone) claim that their hatred is not towards men and boys, but they hate the patriarchy. (In the last video, Can't miss it)

If A hates B, and B necessary consist of C. Then it follows that A hates C.

Tip for next time:
Remember, all you need to do a show "ONE" counterexample to refute an argument.

Did you know "that" before?...Perhaps..Well now you know.

If in the future, you happen to discover a counter example, to an "actual" argument of mine, Or even a support for any of your claims, even if it's only one. I'll be glad to change my belief according to the new information. But until then my friend.. I'll have to say most politely And I think most fairly.. Move along!!!!!
<(8O)

I hope you feel more special now, then you did before, or at least ideologically so. Its love-hate thing.

Against the Ideologist.

I swear your smooth".
<(XD)

Hint:
It's in the shoes"
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 1:08:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 7:29:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
It seems to me that current discourse on feminism could stand improvement, and is subject to similar criticisms to those Popper levelled at the theories of Freud, Marx and religion. That is, namely that the concept of the 'patriarchy' is too broad; an all encompassing paradigm which any empirical case could somehow be fit into and used as proof for. Furthermore, that anyone who denies or criticises theories of its existence are said to be using underhanded techniques of subjugation, just as someone who denies Freud's theory is actually repressing it's truth, and is therefore evidence for Freud's accuracy.

Accusing someone of being prejudiced is quite a serious and emotionally loaded accusation, so by using such a vague unprovable theory as a central idea, feminists might often make the discourse more emotional and polarised in nature than it needs to be. Could the concept of 'patriarchy' not be dissected into more precise and provable theories?

Also, why is it called feminism rather than something like 'gender equality'? Why should it have a gender-biased name?

I agree with AnDoctuir's assessment of what you're saying here, and would suggest that you might perhaps enlighten yourself about the nature of patriarchy and our society's sexist, androcratic power structure by exploring the more extensive concept of kyriarchy, developed by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 3:31:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 1:08:39 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/23/2014 7:29:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
It seems to me that current discourse on feminism could stand improvement, and is subject to similar criticisms to those Popper levelled at the theories of Freud, Marx and religion. That is, namely that the concept of the 'patriarchy' is too broad; an all encompassing paradigm which any empirical case could somehow be fit into and used as proof for. Furthermore, that anyone who denies or criticises theories of its existence are said to be using underhanded techniques of subjugation, just as someone who denies Freud's theory is actually repressing it's truth, and is therefore evidence for Freud's accuracy.

Accusing someone of being prejudiced is quite a serious and emotionally loaded accusation, so by using such a vague unprovable theory as a central idea, feminists might often make the discourse more emotional and polarised in nature than it needs to be. Could the concept of 'patriarchy' not be dissected into more precise and provable theories?

Also, why is it called feminism rather than something like 'gender equality'? Why should it have a gender-biased name?

I agree with AnDoctuir's assessment of what you're saying here, and would suggest that you might perhaps enlighten yourself about the nature of patriarchy and our society's sexist, androcratic power structure by exploring the more extensive concept of kyriarchy, developed by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza.

I'll just point out here that not one defender of feminism has here given a substantive response, and all who've agreed with my criticism have given at least some form of rationality behind their doing so; which certainly reflects something about my statement that current discourse on feminism is too emotional.

Also that if you were so concerned about power structures you should try to convince me by argument rather than intimidation by calling me an idiot.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 10:08:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 1:08:39 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/23/2014 7:29:29 AM, sdavio wrote:
It seems to me that current discourse on feminism could stand improvement, and is subject to similar criticisms to those Popper levelled at the theories of Freud, Marx and religion. That is, namely that the concept of the 'patriarchy' is too broad; an all encompassing paradigm which any empirical case could somehow be fit into and used as proof for. Furthermore, that anyone who denies or criticises theories of its existence are said to be using underhanded techniques of subjugation, just as someone who denies Freud's theory is actually repressing it's truth, and is therefore evidence for Freud's accuracy.

Accusing someone of being prejudiced is quite a serious and emotionally loaded accusation, so by using such a vague unprovable theory as a central idea, feminists might often make the discourse more emotional and polarised in nature than it needs to be. Could the concept of 'patriarchy' not be dissected into more precise and provable theories?

Also, why is it called feminism rather than something like 'gender equality'? Why should it have a gender-biased name?

I agree with AnDoctuir's assessment of what you're saying here, and would suggest that you might perhaps enlighten yourself about the nature of patriarchy and our society's sexist, androcratic power structure by exploring the more extensive concept of kyriarchy, developed by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza.

The Fool: Yet another ideological entity created, and fabricated the ground up by the Feminist Inquisition...
It's like asking somebody to explore the Bible, to better understand why there justified to persecute homosexuals.

Do you not understand that there is no criteria to be a feminist other than to claim to be a feminist, And that this is all post hoc, that is after the that fact created identities to match the demand of the poorly created one in the past. It's a synonymous with reinterpreting the Bible, every time It does not fit with the facts..

How could you stand yourself, When you are a complete moral hypocrite To even yourself.

Do you disagree?

Say no to Ideo.

Against the Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 3:36:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think we can all agree that penis is not the cause of all of humanity's problems, contrary to what an accumulation of feminist literature may suggest.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 3:51:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 3:36:17 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I think we can all agree that penis is not the cause of all of humanity's problems, contrary to what an accumulation of feminist literature may suggest.

It is, however, ridiculous to deny that which is right before your eyes.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 3:58:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Fool doesn't seem to realise that he's biased against all knowledge in his crusade against ideology. It's all straw men with him.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 4:14:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes it is, because whenever you point out a unique 'advantage' men have (ie. more male CEOs, more prominent athletes, bigger presence in government, etc.) the patriarchy is blamed, but whenever you point out a unique 'problem' men face (ie. the draft, cancer funding, higher jail time, more death penalties, less frequent custody, permanent alimony, poorer school test results, etc.) the patriarchy is blamed. Oddly, however, feminists don't seem to care about male 'problems' or any 'advantages' females might have, because the idea behind modern feminism is to focus on solving all gender problems by focusing on only one gender. If it doesn't directly relate to women, they don't care.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 2:37:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 3:36:17 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I think we can all agree that penis is not the cause of all of humanity's problems, contrary to what an accumulation of feminist literature may suggest.

The Fool: Oh come on, Newton's Principia is a Rape manual..

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 3:28:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 10:08:22 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

... the Feminist Inquisition...

Hmm, here's a constructive suggestion for you (well, as constructive as your typical post), perhaps, simply for the sake of accuracy, you should change your screen name to The_Dumb_A**_on_the_hill.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 6:25:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 3:51:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/28/2014 3:36:17 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I think we can all agree that penis is not the cause of all of humanity's problems, contrary to what an accumulation of feminist literature may suggest.

It is, however, ridiculous to deny that which is right before your eyes.

That was a joke, but in all seriousness I take a generally existentialist view of gender, which is why I will not support an attempt to reconcile femininity with masculinity; I don't think that opposition needs to exist. You could call that feminism, but that doesn't seem to convey precisely what I mean. I know Noumena disagrees with me on this to some extent, and he's generally right about things, so meh. The identity of the male gender is not one I am completely comfortable with, and who needs to be compared to such a standard anyway.

"One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman", said Simone de Beauvoir.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 11:36:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
My question is: why feminism in the first place? I understand feminism as an attempt by the female sex to instigate equality in every realm of life. If that is the case, why does feminism exist? How can feminism be called an ideology when it only preaches one desire, one point? An ideal is a way someone views life, and is something much more encompassing than what feminism calls for. How do you apply feminism, as an ideal, to the working conditions of the poor? What is a "feminist's" position with the government and how it influences the economy? What is their view on social security? What is their view on . . . etc. If feminism doesn't have concrete positioning for any of these, how is it an ideology?

The feminist movement can be compared with the civil rights movement of the 60s. They were in the same dilemma: lower wages, mistreated, etc. Honestly, if feminism exists, then why doesn't "negroism" exist, or something like it? The point is, for women, liberalism as an ideology serves as their panacea as it already covers the concept of feminism in its entirety (i.e, liberalism stands for equality) and signifies much much more as well.

Equality (dictionary definition): the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.

Equal (dictionary definition): like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.

Liberalism calls for the above two definitions. Therefore, Liberalism > Feminism, assuming that feminism prioritizes gender equality.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 11:49:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 6:25:06 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/28/2014 3:51:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/28/2014 3:36:17 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I think we can all agree that penis is not the cause of all of humanity's problems, contrary to what an accumulation of feminist literature may suggest.

It is, however, ridiculous to deny that which is right before your eyes.

That was a joke, but in all seriousness I take a generally existentialist view of gender, which is why I will not support an attempt to reconcile femininity with masculinity; I don't think that opposition needs to exist. You could call that feminism, but that doesn't seem to convey precisely what I mean. I know Noumena disagrees with me on this to some extent, and he's generally right about things, so meh. The identity of the male gender is not one I am completely comfortable with, and who needs to be compared to such a standard anyway.

"One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman", said Simone de Beauvoir.

Ha ha ha fear me!
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 11:53:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 11:36:32 AM, ben2974 wrote:
My question is: why feminism in the first place? I understand feminism as an attempt by the female sex to instigate equality in every realm of life. If that is the case, why does feminism exist? How can feminism be called an ideology when it only preaches one desire, one point? An ideal is a way someone views life, and is something much more encompassing than what feminism calls for. How do you apply feminism, as an ideal, to the working conditions of the poor? What is a "feminist's" position with the government and how it influences the economy? What is their view on social security? What is their view on . . . etc. If feminism doesn't have concrete positioning for any of these, how is it an ideology?

Y'all ever heard of intersectionality?

The feminist movement can be compared with the civil rights movement of the 60s. They were in the same dilemma: lower wages, mistreated, etc. Honestly, if feminism exists, then why doesn't "negroism" exist, or something like it? The point is, for women, liberalism as an ideology serves as their panacea as it already covers the concept of feminism in its entirety (i.e, liberalism stands for equality) and signifies much much more as well.

Equality (dictionary definition): the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.

Equal (dictionary definition): like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.

Liberalism calls for the above two definitions. Therefore, Liberalism > Feminism, assuming that feminism prioritizes gender equality.

There are liberal feminists. There are non-liberal (Marxist, socialist, poststructuralist, radical etc.) feminists. Liberalism has no hold on feminism.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 1:13:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 11:53:35 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/1/2014 11:36:32 AM, ben2974 wrote:
My question is: why feminism in the first place? I understand feminism as an attempt by the female sex to instigate equality in every realm of life. If that is the case, why does feminism exist? How can feminism be called an ideology when it only preaches one desire, one point? An ideal is a way someone views life, and is something much more encompassing than what feminism calls for. How do you apply feminism, as an ideal, to the working conditions of the poor? What is a "feminist's" position with the government and how it influences the economy? What is their view on social security? What is their view on . . . etc. If feminism doesn't have concrete positioning for any of these, how is it an ideology?

Y'all ever heard of intersectionality?

The feminist movement can be compared with the civil rights movement of the 60s. They were in the same dilemma: lower wages, mistreated, etc. Honestly, if feminism exists, then why doesn't "negroism" exist, or something like it? The point is, for women, liberalism as an ideology serves as their panacea as it already covers the concept of feminism in its entirety (i.e, liberalism stands for equality) and signifies much much more as well.

Equality (dictionary definition): the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.

Equal (dictionary definition): like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.

Liberalism calls for the above two definitions. Therefore, Liberalism > Feminism, assuming that feminism prioritizes gender equality.

There are liberal feminists. There are non-liberal (Marxist, socialist, poststructuralist, radical etc.) feminists. Liberalism has no hold on feminism.

I still do not see how equality in its definitive sense is separate from feminism. It's true, I forgot that equality is something that other major ideologies examine, like socialism. Socialism engenders equality, albeit with different implications. So yeah, you can be a woman who might favor a particular ideology with its particular take on equality. Point is, each case of equality reflects the demands of a so-called feminist, simply because these REAL ideologies already take into account the problem that feminism tries to explore (i.e, equality, as defined by the definitions given above). Equality is equality. It's a concrete term. Equality with strings attached is not equality. 1 = 1. That is equal. Intersectionality or whatever the heck that is (it's true I never heard of that) looks like it tries to complicate this simple rule.

I go back to my example with the civil rights movement. Why does feminism exist and not something like "negroism?"

If i'm not understanding something let me know. This specific subject has bugged me for a while and it still doesn't make sense to me :/
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 2:13:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 3:28:27 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/28/2014 10:08:22 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 3/1/2014 3:28:27 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/28/2014 10:08:22 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

... the Feminist Inquisition...

The Fool: Oh come on that was awesome..
<(8D)
Is that not why, like a feminist, you selected for it out of the all the data and arguments you were presented with? Including the video.

Sir-Charleslb : Hmm, here's a constructive suggestion for you (well, as constructive as your typical post), perhaps, simply for the sake of accuracy, you should change your screen name to The_Dumb_A**_on_the_hill.

The Fool: That"s quite compacted and complicated for, such a dumb fool like myself. But have no fear, I have my foolish blade here..

Sir-Charleslb: "here's a constructive suggestion for you"
The Fool: Its not a construction, (I don"t play ideology)" It"s a description. A precise, accurate and honest description.

P1. A large part of feminism is the persecution of patriarchal men, particularly masculine hetero men. Right?

P2. And they are inquisitive, into the lives of men, and the dynamics between men and woman for the movement

C1 Therefore a large part of feminism consist of Feminist Inquisition..

Do you disagree?

Who cares" That"s the point of it being in logical form .

And you know it, and you know it..
<(89)

Sir-Charleslb: [... the Feminist Inquisition...] Was as constructive as your typical post"

The Fool: Really, not only was it, not construction but a true description, that you blatantly attempted to generalize as a construction towards my posts en masse..?!? Not an unfamiliar propaganda attempt.. You smear-jobber you. You screw jobber"Tisk, Tisk, I say, but then again I say many things, and take quite the risks on sticking with true things. Perhaps it is foolish of me, as it creates many enemies.
But my word is everything to me"" And unlike you, and your friends, I remain "sucker" free..
And you know it, and you know it..
<(8D)

Sir-Charleslb: "perhaps, simply for the sake of accuracy, you should change your screen name to The_Dumb_A**_on_the_hill."

The Fool: A great conclusion from a false premise.

Perhaps it was clever of you, creative, and even in-sightful, for knowing how to replace, a name, whose meaning is synonymous with a more vulgar one. Clever enough to looked in-side for help; the-sore-a-s-s of Andoctuir perhaps..

<(XD)

For you are definitely a come-back kid, in more ways than one.
Ma Monkey: "That"s what he said""
<(8D)

For You, sir-thinks-a-lot Charleslb must like having you"re a-s-s served by the very fact that you shamelessly copouted of refuting a clear and concise demonstration of your hypocrisy.

And besides, I quite enjoy handing it back to you, each and every time. So for the sake of entertaining threads and posts I ask you to be yourself, and come back, and come back again. So you can take it, and take it, again, and again, and yet again, and take as a complement..

Bring your friends even, the more the merrier, and I"ll bring my monkey.

Ma Monkey: And I"ll bring my balls, and we can all go bowling.

<(89)

Against The Ideologist
And you know it ..And you know it..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL