Hey Veeky Forums, Is Patriarchy theory unfalsifiable?

Less women apply then men, because there are less women stem majors. Which is their choice. But they are more likely to get hired than male candidates to the same job.

I think there should be laws against people who dont understand math or stats from posting argumentative statements on the internet. Across the years I dont know how much time ive spebt making posts like this.

The status quo doesn't exist. There's literally nothing stopping women from choosing roles women are less likely to choose, in fact in STEM there are women only internships and women have proven to be twice as likely to find employment.

Those unfair power balances don't exist.

>"men must be head of the household" or "men should act like X and women should act like Y"
>gender is one of the many spooks enshrined in mass consciousness.
Those expectations you're referring to don't need to effect people. It just so happens women are more social, more likely to be collectivist and thus more likely to care therefore more likely to be effected. This isn't sexism, this is women being prejudiced about themselves, blaming this on men or on anything men built is entirely dishonest.

For instance, men aren't immune to the "STEM graduates are unhygienic, asocial, boring, autistic and pedantic" stereotype, they simply don't care and view job security or benefits to society or having a real education as more important.

Again, this isn't sexism. The fact men don't care about stereotypes should be applauded, not condemned as "patriarchy" when this very ambivalence is what brings them ahead.

>Less women apply then men
So you see the problem.

>The status quo doesn't exist.

>muh racism
>muh sexism
>muh oppression

How is this sort of whining any different than tumblr shit again? Boo fucking hoo.

They're still twice as likely to gain employment despite their numbers. Just because fewer of them choose STEM doesn't mean shit.

Would you see people force women to apply for STEM and thus deny them their right to choose their own life path?

No I don't see a problem.

*the status quo is unimportant and shouldn't guide your life decisions... Unless you're a collectivist woman.

Again, existential bad faith.

>laws and hiring literally stacked against men
>but women are oppressed because they apply less to jobs they have less majors in
I see the problem alright

Not all feminists are SCUM Manifesto tier.

It may of course be very difference in your country, but in mine (Sweden) all the Feminists defended the Scum Manifesto when it aired here and trivialized its author trying to murder someone as a joke.

leading feminists*

But all modern activist feminists absolutely are or are their apologists. If you're a feminist and your idea of feminism stops short at equality before the law, you are now a neoconservative. The label "feminist" doesn't work for you anymore.

The fact that it wasn't denounced entirely is evidence enough.

>Hey Veeky Forums, Is Patriarchy theory unfalsifiable?
Yes. That's the reason it is not a scientific theory.

>gender is one of the many spooks enshrined in mass consciousness.

>spooks
Isn't that another word for a black person?
>enshrined
I just dislike buzzwords.
>mass consciousness
Without mass consciousness would gender not be enshrined by the spooks? I think I lost the point.

They also seem to think that the SCUM manifesto is comparable to American Psycho.
Anyone who got an idea how a fictional book is comparable to an ideological manifesto?

> Women are more likely to get hired in stem jobs
[citation needed]

>win child custody
Maybe if you still live in the 1970s. And yet it was an "advantage" women got due to the stereotype of women being more apt for child rearing (i.e. Tender Years Act).

>the status quo is unimportant and shouldn't guide your life decisions
>But don't denounce it or anything because I get angry!

How is haplessly succumbing to bondage going out for ya?

washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/

Its the 2010s and women win custody 83% of the time lol.

>WOMEN ARE NOT INFERIOR SOLDIERS TO MINE, IN SPITE OF STATISTICS LETS GO HAVE THEM SERVE IN RIFLEMEN ROLES
>WOMEN SHOULD STILL ALWAYS WIN CUSTODY BECAUSE OF LE TRADITIONAL GENDER ROLES

fuck modern feminism

I don't think he gets angry because you denounce it, I think he gets angry because people have a habit of requiring to legal action to change shit while doing that as well as ((according to him)) having no falsifiable arguments while doing so as well as throwing buzzwords at others.

Women choosing their career field is a problem? Are you implying women's choices are wrong?

>I think I lost the point.

washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/
m.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract
techcrunch.com/2014/03/13/study-men-and-women-twice-as-likely-to-hire-a-man-for-a-math-based-job/

You know when you are so assured of yourself you actually asked for citations, then were given them? Makes you feel dumb, huh?

Excuse me? I'm openly recommending to denounce it, ignore it and rise above it.

Literally what?

>ignore it and rise above it.
>Come on! Embrace subjugation!

That's a cute exaggerations, but this is Veeky Forumstory so fuck off and remember the Russian serfs. That's subjugation.

Being told you're unhygienic if you're a STEM graduate is nothing.

>That's a cute exaggeration
That's pretty much what you say, though. You are championing stoic subjugation and act revolted to social change, god knows why. Probably because you fetishize authority, to make up for your small penis.

>They're still twice as likely to gain employment despite their numbers. Just because fewer of them choose STEM doesn't mean shit.
Yes, it does. They're clearly not choosing to go that way en masse for a reason.

>Would you see people force women to apply for STEM and thus deny them their right to choose their own life path?
No, I would abolish capitalism and the state therein hopefully dismantling hierarchy and the cultural manifestations of it with it.

>*the status quo is unimportant and shouldn't guide your life decisions
Yes. And the most important decision is choosing to destroy it.
>... Unless you're a collectivist woman.
Laying it on a bit too thick, son.

>Isn't that another word for a black person?
In America I understand it is but in this usage it's basically another word for "social construct".

>Without mass consciousness would gender not be enshrined by the spooks? I think I lost the point.
Mass consciousness AKA society is the greatest spook of all you see.

>You know when you are so assured of yourself you actually asked for citations
I asked for citations since I lacked them. All I get is an article I can only read an abstract for, which is, well, lazy at best.

Upboated, my good gentlesir. If your next post is any more enlightened I may even have to gild you. I tip my fedora to you.

No, I'm not saying we should have more women in STEM. Ultimately as gender is a spook that kind of dick(or lack of)measuring is irrelevant.

I'm saying there must be a reason that women are disproportionately uninterested in STEM. And no
>the reason is less of them choose to do it
Is not an answer. That's just a reworded statement of the situation.

>hierarchy is a cultural manifestation which stems from The State

Other way around, dick head. Do you really think hierarchy isn't a natural part of human societies, no matter how primitive?

Congrats on missing the point.

Not an argument, and my position is clearly relying on Sartre who spent his entire married life arguing against this bullshit.

Also, you've clearly lost an argument when you need to bring my penis into this.

>Yes, it does. They're clearly not choosing to go that way en masse for a reason.
Because women choose careers based on prejudices and stereotypes, the fact that men don't isn't sexism, classism or even a result of capitalism. It's entirely their fault. It's entirely the responsibility of the individual to make their own life choices. Denying them that responsibility is denying them power and agency, that is true oppression.

>No, I would abolish capitalism and the state therein hopefully dismantling hierarchy and the cultural manifestations of it with it.
And it would fail, as all excursions from capitalism have historically shown. If you are rational, you at least somewhat accept empiricism and therefore you must adhere to evidence. History is staring you in the face.

>Yes. And the most important decision is choosing to destroy it.
My point is it doesn't need to exist outside of your head, with that in mind you have complete power over it.

If women want empowerment, they need to start with themselves.

>Laying it on a bit too thick, son.
Deal.

I'm sick of getting shit from sociology grads that's entirely prejudices about about a STEM graduate, then being told it's my prejudice that prevents women from STEM? Holy fuck what? Projection 101.

No, feminists target STEM because of the stereotypes. They're motivated by hatred and bigotry.

>and my position is clearly relying on Sartre
Oh yes I see you namedropped him thrice now. Real solid groundwork you're laying here.

>modern feminism is second wave feminism

You very clearly know nothing about feminism besides what your ledditfag friends on /r/tumblrinaction have told you.

>president is black
>next president will be a woman
>MUH WHITE PRIVILEGE MUH PATRIARCHY

>Is there actually a way to refute the theory that men have built systems of power to oppress women

No, actually. Studies have shown that men do not have any inherent biases towards other men. Men aren't interested in helping other men merely because they are other men, thus the idea that men have created a system to help men is ludicrous. Men are much more interested in helping themselves.

Women in the other hand, according to studies, show inherent gender bias towards other women without any valid reason. Favoring other women merely based on their sex and nothing else.

apa.org/monitor/dec04/women.aspx
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

It is quite interesting having grown up in a world where feminism is treated as some sort of a deity almost and having been told that "boys clubs" are the only reason why women are a minority in the business world.

The reason why questionable feminist ideas are accepted, and lunatic feminist ideas are tolerated is largely our reverence of feminism and the sympathy both sexes have for women. Take for example the popular idea that the objectification of women in media causes the objectification of women in real life. Several popular feminists believe that this creates "cultural norms" that allow female oppression. This is of course quite false, as it has been proven several times that people can differentiate between fiction and real life but the theory is still treated as something respectable and it has influenced major companies. If consuming media that has objectified women made you objectify women in real life, we would be suffering from an epidemic of rapes and harassment due to pornography which is consumed by nearly all males. At best porno is just a way to get off at worse it gives men unrealistic ideas of how sex should be which get corrected when they actually have sex for the first time.

>apa.org/monitor/dec04/women.aspx

The most interesting bit in my opinion was

To explore why their study found the opposite pattern, Rudman and Goodwin evaluated several possible reasons. They found:

Women's high self-esteem and female identity, on average, bolstered their automatic liking for women, whereas men's liking for men did not rely on high self-esteem or masculine identity. In other words, women can be characterized as thinking "if I am good and I am female, females are good," whereas men can be characterized as thinking "even if I am good and I am male, men are not necessarily good."

> It's entirely their fault. It's entirely the responsibility of the individual to make their own life choices.
I agree, and the first step in accepting that freedom is rejecting spooks that limit your life.

>And it would fail, as all excursions from capitalism have historically shown
If you gave up on something any time it doesn't work out rather than trying to resolve why it didn't work out then you're going to live a very limited life.

>If women want empowerment, they need to start with themselves.
Yes, that's what I'm trying to communicate.
Patriarchy is at it's heart a social construct, if it's consciously rejected enough then eventually it will cease to be.

>, then being told it's my prejudice that prevents women from STEM?
When did I say that?

>president is black
>constant accusations that he was born in another country, and right wing cartoons draw him like a chimpanzee
>next president will be a woman
>her opponent is a racist woman-hater who retweets neo-Nazi memes

See
It's only a social construct for women. This makes it a conspiracy theory.

What's your understand of the word "patriarchy"?

Just put women on power and see how better society would be. That is perfectly falsifiable way to prove the point.

>If you replace men and patriarchy with Jews and ZOG, if you replace women with "white race", most statements about the patriarchy look absurdly like something from storm front.
Word replacement is a fallacy, especially when it's used to radically change the meaning of something. "Men tend to be stronger than women" is factual, but "Mice tend to be more technologically advanced than humans" is not, even thouh I'm just changing words.

>
Which, of course, is provably bullshit when you realise how many equal opportunity laws were drafted in the 80s and 90s. Even if you claim history is still taking effect, how much effect is it really having on people 30 years old and younger who were born after these laws and civil rights movements?
Social norms take a long time to change, even after the concrete laws have changed.

>"Patriarchy" is literally just existential bad faith. It's about denying that you are in control of your own fate.
"Patriarchy" does not say you have no control of your own fate. It's just pointing out one thing that can influence your fate. You might as well say gravity and the need to eat are "existential bad faith" that "are about denying you are in control of your own fate". You can't just choose to float off into space or go a year without eating and not die. Even a 5 year old should be able to understand that.

Expectations don't need to effect people, but they do. People aren't magical objective rational robots.

>Feminism is exclusively about getting women an equal seat at the oppressor's table.

>Would you see people force women to apply for STEM and thus deny them their right to choose their own life path?
It's not about forcing them, it's about trying to provide equal opportunity.

If women were literally told their whole lives that it's wrong to go into STEM and that if they do they'll never find a husband and no one will want to hire a woman anyway, you'd still probably be making this "choose their own life path" nonsense. The truth is, there are influences around us all the time, and it's not like we're born knowing what we want to do with our life.

"not pretending social norms don't exist" = "SCUM Manifesto tier"?

A slave might choose to remain a slave rather than risk certain death trying to escape. Does that mean he really wants to be a slave?

> It's entirely the responsibility of the individual to make their own life choices. Denying them that responsibility is denying them power and agency, that is true oppression.
So I suppose you also think laws against murder are "denying the victims agency" and "oppressing them"? We don't live in a vacuum, everything we do is subject to influences, so people are denied agency no matter what. The objective is to try to balance out those influences.

>And it would fail, as all excursions from capitalism have historically shown. If you are rational, you at least somewhat accept empiricism and therefore you must adhere to evidence. History is staring you in the face.
Capitalism is only a few hundred years old. It seems silly to assume we've already found the ultimate economic system that will never be replaced.

Not necessarily. Lack of patriarchy does not imply matriarchy. Ideally people should be chosen based on their ability, with gender not playing a role at all.

> risk certain death
What women risk by applying to STEM except the need to learn it, and that is somewhat hard thing to do... but not really that hard in the end?

Saying "it's against the law, so problem solved" is the most juvenile approach to societal issues. Gays have equal marriage rights in the U.S now, does that mean they face no prejudice or persecution? Do you think in 10 or even 30 years there will be no homophobia?

I'm talking about slavery, not women in STEM. With STEM, it's more a matter of social norms discouraging it. The slavery example is to point out that just because someone "chooses" to do something, doesn't mean it's what they WANT to do, and giving someone more opportunities doesn't mean you're trying to deny their agency or anything.

You ass, everything would be equally fucked, just in the opposite direction. The 'women are morally pure' meme was Victorian era bullshit.

t. third-wave feminist

>This is of course quite false, as it has been proven several times that people can differentiate between fiction and real life
Yes, and why do you think you have product placements in fictionnal universes (ex movies)? Or even ads in general? Of course most people will now that the sexy warrior chicks in their videogames are not real, but continuously seeing powerful women as sexualized can influence you at some point?

I think we shouldn't forget that images have impacts on our lives.

> people can differentiate between fiction and real life

please cite some of those feminists

>I take everything literally: the post

>This country
Which fucking country?!:

It's not a problem because by denying their choice you are implying they have no agency and that they are being brainwashed by "society". If they don't want to, don't force them.

And who's forcing them? Is telling women that it's perfectly acceptable for women to go into STEM "forcing" them to do anything? If you think that's "forcing", you must believe women are some kind of spineless beings incapable of independent though or something.

I don't know, would the disenfranchisement of women in 1900 be proof that the political system in 1900 was built to oppress women?

Probably because cartoons always fucking overdo your physical traits, have you ever seen a caricature of a black man done by another black man? It's the exact same shit

>Trump is a racist woman hater neonazi!
:^)

>women are more social, more likely to be collectivist
interesting, may I please see some evidence?

It's a social systems theory and relies on a lot of ideas about unconscious bias, so of course it's unfalsifiable; Marxist and Freudian thought are the same way, they're theories. Does that mean it doesn't have a few points (not all women want to be mothers) or is always wrong? No, but there are people who treat feminist thought on patriarchy like a quasi-religion, the same way others have an unshakable faith in Marxist theory or, vice vera, capitalism.

>I know some black people who are racist, therefore it's okay to be racist!
>i can't refute their criticisms of Trump, so I'll respond with a meme!
:^)