is patriarchy a pseudoscience theory? why is taugh in universities?

File: 1375636985106.jpg (111KB, 500x369px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 500x369px

>>7214160
>why is taugh in universities?

Football players need BS classes to take.

It's philosophy. Of course it must be bullshit.

>>7214160
>OP confirmed as a retarded /pol/ user who never went to university.

>>7214174
>ad hominen
>use of the retarded word and call me a pol tard
>doesn't explain why I'm wrong or brings any arguments to the thread
ok buddy.

>>7214182
>retarded /pol/ user
>pol tard
>confirmed for illiterate

>lol I have no idea what I'm talking about let me ask a retarded question.
>Why no one want to waste their time in telling me why I am retard??
kek

>>7214160
>why is taugh in universities?
Because universities know they can get money for a worthless degree from idiots with no practical idea of what to do with a college education.
Duh.

>>7214191
>green text
>meme arrows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>lol u tk hm 2 teh bar
>two objects with zero distance between them make contact at precisely 3 points

>>7214191
It was an honest question m8.
not everyone is a white boy in harvard.

>>7214194
ok.
how bout the scientific comunity?

>>7214196
>meme text
>green arrows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>well memed friend

its taught to appease feminist they would complain if we didnt let them do this

>>7214174
this
>>7214182
>saying that because he used fallacy he is wrong
bro you just used the fallacy fallacy, learn your rhetoric you uneducated swine.

>>7214232
this is somewhat true

You see OP, research universities, at least in the united states, exist to help create a profit for stakeholders in the university. this includes the government, private corporations, and citizens for the state (to a small extent). The parts of academia that make the big bucks are the STEM research labs, but those are fucking expensive. more expensive than corporations and tax dollars alone provide. to make up for this they hire STEM students in the labs, and they use tuition money to pay for it. The liberal arts majors literally help pay for the STEM grad school programs. in return they get a useless degree

>>7214174
Narcistic /b/ tier poster detected.
Hey, buddy! Wake up, you are not special!

>>7214265
I thought they paid for all the useless administration. Why does my research prof have to spend all month writing grants then?

File: benschmidt.org_Degrees.png (182KB, 1904x742px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1904x742px

>>7214769
>I thought they paid for all the useless administration. Why does my research prof have to spend all month writing grants then?

All the bloat comes from the business schools, but business schools don't trigger conservatives like the tiny sliver of academia that is the humanities.

>>7214174
>confirmed for never stepping foot in a canadian university, any university in cali and any uni in ny

>>7214160
If they are allowed to be happy in their little fantasy bubbles at least they won't have any reason to destroy anything worthwhile which other people may happen to do.

>>7214160
not really

a lot of the symptoms of patriarchy are supported by empirical evidence to some degree, and some of it is just theory which can't really be proven true or false

>>7214774
I went to USC and let me assure you, the SJWs are an insignificant minority of the student body and the frats and rich kids who run the school do not give a fuck about them and only throw them the occasional bone to mollify their incessant shrieking.

>>7215531
Pretty much true.

My two cents about why people so harshly reject the idea about the patriarchy is that the way that feminism is discussed is in a way that is more or less designed to piss people off. It's sort of hard to have a productive conversation when you're told that all of your viewpoints are wrong because you're over privileged. Similarly, the use of the term "patriarchy" sort of implies that all men are consciously part of a plan to oppress women, which is easy to reject before hearing what it actually means. But ultimately, there are a lot of measurable differences in the life experiences of men and women, and that makes bringing up concepts like the "patriarchy" valid, even if the nomenclature tries to catch flies with vinegar, which is why I think most men reject the ideas.

>Why is it taught in universities?
Because there is truth to it, and it's part of an active field of research being done at universities.

>>7215531
Some of the symptoms are built into human nature even. Good luck changing that with political means...

Bros will be bros. People will keep treating their friends better than people they don't know and men will keep befriending other men more than women and in a different way.

I don't see what kind of politics would change that, except maybe chemicals in the food of young boys or super powerful brainwashing or other morally outrageous experiments which most relatively sane feminists would not approve of.

>>7214160
>is patriarchy a pseudoscience theory?
yes
>why is taugh in universities?
politics

>>7215583
>My two cents about why people so harshly reject the idea about the patriarchy is that the way that feminism is discussed is in a way that is more or less designed to piss people off. It's sort of hard to have a productive conversation when you're told that all of your viewpoints are wrong because you're over privileged.
I think that this is intentional. It's to replicate the feeling unintelligent women get when they try to participate in a discussion about a serious subject. You just get completely shut down and told your opinion is worthless because of factors that are out of your control by the time you begin the discussion.

The feeling you get when a feminist tells you that your opinion is invalid because you're a privileged white male is no different than the feeling a feminist gets when you tell her that the theory of everything she came up with while stoned last night is invalid because she doesn't understand elementary physics.

>>7215622
The difference, of course, being that elementary physics aren't based on your personal opinions

>>7215583
I fail to see the truth of it in the modern world unless we're talking about Saudi Arabia or something. If anything women seem to me to be mildly privileged and protected, while men are relatively expendable. (Which may make biological sense, since you don't need many men around to successfully breed with the women and keep the population stable.) I also find the logic often self-contradictory: Feminists will insist that feminism makes everything better for everyone while simultaneously claiming that there is a patriarchy that systematically benefits men specifically. These are mutually exclusive statements, which is it?

You also constantly hear people complaining that we need more women in STEM and other higher paying/prestigious jobs but you don't hear about pushes for more female construction workers or ditch diggers because women don't want those jobs. I can't help but get the impression that the entire movement is, consciously or not, women pushing to get more of what they want without actually giving a shit about the principles they claim to be living by. They don't care about equality beyond the extent that that principle helps them get into comfy positions for themselves.

The movement also often seems to conflate equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is worth striving for since it levels the playing field for people to make the choices they want. Equality of outcome ignores people's choices, but mandates diversity quotas in an authoritarian way with no regard for people's actual wants. Furthermore the feminist culture is very hostile in that people who publicly express even skepticism of feminist thinking in an honest way are viewed with derision. Questions and criticisms are not permitted, though these things are necessary for any theory or what have you to improve.

Overall it's a fuckfest that is mostly detrimental. I'm in favor if well-thought out egalitarian policies. Feminism does not offer this.

>>7215651
Oh, big error on my part:

This

>Feminists will insist that feminism makes everything better for everyone while simultaneously claiming that there is a patriarchy that systematically benefits men specifically. These are mutually exclusive statements, which is it?

Should be:

>Feminists will insist that there is a system of patriarchy that systematically benefits men, while simultaneously claiming that patriarchy is harmful to everyone, men included, which is nonsensical.

>>7214769
>I thought they paid for all the useless administration.
you thought right

>>7215583
>>7215622
yeah, it seems like the current wave of feminists were taught a lot about power dynamics, framing, and identifying patterns of discrimination, but little to nothing about practical activism, meaningful engagement, strategic and tactical planning, or effective communication

so we're left with a wave of feminists who can point out injustice and inequality but can't manage to do anything productive to help fix it

>>7214160
Patriarchy isn't so much a "theory" as it is a concept.

What I mean by that is that it's more of a vague statement that men are dominant over women in society, than it is something that has specific testable predictions.

But, the statement that men are dominant over women is true, and supported by empirical evidence. Men hold virtually all the positions of power in society, control most of the wealth, etc. Experimental tests of bias and discrimination show that people are biased toward men and rate them more highly than women, even when all other factors are controlled for.

Women are responsible for the bulk of unpaid domestic labour, which has economic value that isn't compensated. Liberal feminists have traditionally said that the best way to change this is to get women out of the house and into highly-paid fields. That of course, is good. But industries also tend to pay less as women come to saturate them, because "women's work" is inherently thought to be easier than "men's work," so whatever a woman does is post-hoc rated as "not as valuable." That's why radical feminists have said "equal pay for equal work" is a start, but perhaps we need to look at how our values shape what's considered "equal work."

Patriarchy is not a conspiracy theory that says that men are gathering at night when all the women are asleep to develop novel ways to oppress them. It's a product, rather, of social relations and conscious or unconscious societal values.

>>7215641
Even men can become pissed at you if you make them feel stupid. It is not rational - it is emotional.

And even though they are wrong they can still make you miserable if they decide they don't like you.

No, it's neither pseudoscience or a theory. It's a sociological phenomenon.

>>7215696
>>they can still make you miserable

Not if you are a retard or an autist or a psychopath or have some strange brain damage. I don't know how being a retard would compute if you are good at science though. That would have to be a very strange type of brain damage, I guess.

>>7215692
Men do the work to get into those positions because they need respect and money to get... women. Men have to work to be considered of value to society at large, women don't: They are inherently imbued with value because of their unique ability to produce children. So we have this weird system where women are relatively protected while men are expected to work harder, resulting in a system that expects and encourages men to go out and do that work, because that success becomes the vehicle for the support of women. It's a weird circle of privileges.

>>7215622
>The feeling you get when a feminist tells you that your opinion is invalid because you're a privileged white male

The truth value of a statement isn't determined by who's making that statement. It's dumb to say "your opinion is wrong because you are X." It's an ad hominem of the circumstantial variety.

That doesn't mean we should be naive and not look at how one's position in society affects their views. It makes perfect sense to take into account one's privilege when discussing their societal views.

For example, a person who has never suffered from a mental illness and has never had any experience with it telling depressed people that they just need to "cheer up" and stop feeling sorry for themselves is an example of someone who's privilege of not having to deal with depression is a larger factor in what they're saying than any knowledge of what depression is or how it's coped with.

File: bait.jpg (269KB, 718x714px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 718x714px

>>7215651
>very hostile in that people who publicly express even skepticism of feminist thinking in an honest way are viewed with derision.
this is another gigantic problem, i'd partly blame this on platforms like twitter which radicalize movements by encouraging those with the most extreme and unreasonable views

idiots are bored to death with reasonable discussion and would rather hear "kill all men" and "women belong in the kitchen"

just look at pic related
cheap bait is easier than the truth

>>7215715
>That doesn't mean we should be naive and not look at how one's position in society affects their views.
> It makes perfect sense to take into account one's privilege when discussing their societal views.
one question: why should be be looking at what factors affect a person's views outside of a psychology classroom or an uzbeki cartoon forum

>>7215692
Which completely ignores the basis of these values in biology and evolution and how our biology (beyond male and female, it ignroes brain chemistry and connections) affects society. It also tends to paint society's run in accordance with our biology as 100% bad in all cases. Feminism tends to ignore the benefits of a societial setup which accepts biological differences and tries to essentially fit square pegs in round holes. Lowering of military, and utility (police, for example) standards for the sake of inclusiveness.

Further, feminism places blame on those who society treats the worst. While there are indeed some white men in power, the vast majority of the males of our species take the most dangerous jobs, as statistically reported by injuries and deaths at work, as well as having the least enjoyable lives, as shown by suicide rates, and being the most easily cast aside (homelessness and drug abuse rates). And it is not always white men in power. Arab men are in power in the middle east, Chinese men in china, Black men in Africa, Indian men in India, etc. A select few always weild power over the majority, be they white, brown, black, red or yellow. That our society actually has laws in place ensuring the equality of opportunity in education and hiring should be celebrated. Creating quotas for the hiring of females and minorities deminishes the accomplishments of those members of society (they were only hired to fill quotas), lowers the standards of quality of employment, and creates resentment from the rest of society (even though I got better grades than Jerome he got into college because he's black! fuck him).

By defining themselves as feminists, and their enemy as the patriarchy, they are forced to ignore the fact that women are protected by society, biology, and evolution, and refuse to make any concessions to this fact. They reactively blow and deemed slights out of proportion and ignore the fight for actual world wide equality.

>>7215715
>The truth value of a statement isn't determined by who's making that statement. It's dumb to say "your opinion is wrong because you are X." It's an ad hominem of the circumstantial variety.
You're missing the entire concept of privilege.

(Which, btw, is some bullshit racist garbage and I'm not defending, but at least I get it)

It's not "your opinion is wrong because you are X."

It's "You are X. The issue under discussion concerns Ys. No X is Y. It is not an issue that concerns Xs. As such all discussion on the issue should focus on the perspective of Y. Your opinion is from the perspective of X and as such unless you recognize that you will never be able to personally understand it as well as a Y your opinion is not relevant to the focus of the discussion."

Of course it's mostly used by irrational feminists to shut down opposition, with the fallacy that anyone with Y perspective must have exactly the same views as the speaker being made implicit in the invocation of privilege. But it helps to understand, I don't think I explained it all that well, it's hard to put feminine concepts into a rational format understandable by men.

>>7215705
It's pretty strange to call a system in which women do unpaid and unrecognized labour in order to allow men more time to do paid and compensated labour, so that women only have access to resources and wealth through their husbands, and are subject to all of the vulnerabilities that come with an existence of having to ask their husbands for pin money and fearing becoming impoverished if they leave them "female privilege." In fact, it's a large reason why many women, especially those with children, are afraid to leave abusive relationships.

Also, being valued on qualities like what you do is better than being valued on qualities like attractiveness or docility, which are what women are more often valued for.

Also-- where have you read that men work positions in order to get women, rather than, you know, all the material and social rewards money affords?

>>7215736
>You are X. The issue under discussion concerns Ys. No X is Y. It is not an issue that concerns Xs
the sad thing is that this moronic reasoning encourages self-segregation and division instead of solidarity
it encourages people to see feminism as a no-boys-allowed misandrist club
it encourages people to see themselves as whites, blacks, women, men, jews, arabs, etc instead of as human beings
it encourages people to be insular and develop their attitudes toward other groups from crude stereotypes rather than dialogue

it practically takes a steaming shit on the efforts of the generations of activists that came before them

>>7215741
>where have you read that men work positions in order to get women, rather than, you know, all the material and social rewards money affords
not that anon, but were you born yesterday

>>7215734
>(even though I got better grades than Jerome he got into college because he's black! fuck him).
Fucking this.

Imo the state of politics since women voting has basically made a strong case for the so-called bigoted view that women can't put their emotions aside enough to make reasonable political calls.

>>7215741
>Also, being valued on qualities like what you do is better than being valued on qualities like attractiveness or docility, which are what women are more often valued for.

These are pipe dreams people tell themselves so that they can have something to fight for or feel good about. You are ignoring biology. Males will mate with any female but prefer those they fid physically attractive. Thinking anything different is deluding yourself so you can feel better. The same is true of females. Thinking anything different is deluding yourself so you can feel better. The qualities which are attractive to females, physical or mental strength, ability to provide for the future of her offsring are actively strived for by men. Wealth and power (in answer to your question below) are the greatest determinants for offspring survivablity. Men strive to show women they have these so women allow men to procreate with them. It is as true in birds (where plummage is a sign of fecundity) as it is in humans and is a basic biological truth. Fat acceptance is the worst offender. A group of females who males do not find attractive enough to mate with wish to change the minds of those males. Never does fat acceptance include obese males, because the reverse is simply unacceptable to these feminists. Why should they, the unattractive, have to lower their own standards of attractiveness?

>inb4 shallow
Accepting what biology has learned about the mating of almost every species on the planet is not shallowness. It is how our minds our wired genetically, and trying to say it is otherwise is idiocy.

>Also-- where have you read that men work positions in order to get women, rather than, you know, all the material and social rewards money affords?

>>7215730
>one question: why should be be looking at what factors affect a person's views outside of a psychology classroom or an uzbeki cartoon forum

Uh, because examining one's own cognitive bias is an important facet of critical thinking...?

>>7215736
I was stating what the concept of privilege used rationally is. People say all sorts of things on blogs or Tumblr or whatever, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any sort of serious academic sociological statement saying that "Group A has no right to speak about Issue B."

I'll probably be bowing out soon, as I've got things to do, and these "kitchen sink" feminist discussions never get to anything because they are always jumping from issue to issue and making broad statements about a wide range of topics, rather than seriously discussing a few. It's sort of like having a discussion on "liberalism," without narrowing it down to one of the fucktons on things under the category.
>>7215734
Of course, there exists behavioral sexual dymorphism. It's extent is exaggerated by society, which is shown by the fact that gender relations differ across time and space. Men are almost always dominant over women in any society, but the extent has varied wildly, and so have characteristics considered masculine or feminine.

Also, though men commit successful suicides more often, women attempt it more often. The reason for the difference isn't yet known, so saying that it's proof that men have it harder is a stretch. Women are also more likely to be impoverished than men.

Statistically speaking, it is more often white men in power. That doesn't mean that all white men have power over all women. It's a statistical statement. It's about averages.

TBC

>>7215762
>the sad thing is that this moronic reasoning encourages self-segregation and division instead of solidarity
Yeah, pretty much why the idea of privilege is complete fucking regressive garbage.

But understanding it, and calling it out for the racist sexist segregationist tripe it is, is still better than failing to understand it and just having a gut reaction to a misperception of the concept and further reinforcing the person's belief that everyone privileged is an asshole who won't even try to see things from their perspective. And most guys, at least most white guys do exactly that.

>>7215770
>I was stating what the concept of privilege used rationally is. People say all sorts of things on blogs or Tumblr or whatever, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any sort of serious academic sociological statement saying that "Group A has no right to speak about Issue B."
Fuck.

I was trying to explain that you don't understand it at all.

But apparently you're so convinced you already understand it you won't even try.

Please don't ever talk to feminists IRL, you will only encourage them and reinforce their misandry.

>>7215741
>Also-- where have you read that men work positions in order to get women, rather than, you know, all the material and social rewards money affords?

Where did you read that anon write "only women"?

My pet theory on why men hold political power in most societies is because only those societies flourished.

Whether the conditions of flourishing now are different from all the times of the past I'm not sure, but the onus to my mind would be on someone who thinks this the case to show it as such.

>>7215770
con't

>>7215734
Yes, in Africa, black men have power over black women. Because black people live in Africa. Surprise. You're beginning to conflate domestic macrosocial issues with worldwide. Scope conditions must be set for a serious discussion to work.

Even considering that, if you look at international relations, Western countries have power over developing countries through things such as the World Bank and IMF.

There are multiple dimensions of dominance. Rich over poor. Whites over minorities. Western nations over developing nations. Men over women. The set of poor men tend to have power over poor women. The set of rich white women tend to have more power than the set of poor black men. These are intersecting dimensions, but statistically speaking, men have power over women, etc.

Also, I don't think that a policy producing resentment is a good argument against it. Fincancial regulations produce resentment in corporations who don't want to be regulated. Who cares.
The talk about quotas is a bit misleading, as well, as the majority of work equity programmes are not quotas.
Even so, Western nations have used quotas that don't seem to upset people as much as quotas for disadvantaged people. The American Senate must have two representatives from each state. Oh god that's horrible. Why not let the "best person" get the job, regardless of what state they come from?

As for biological differences, we see differences in brain connections, but we have little understanding what they do. A lot of it is conjecture. Some researchers have found evidence that differences in brain connections in the sexes actually mitigate the differences produced by other parts of our brain's, so that they work more similarly. Also, we know that environment affects the organism, even on a physical level. A lot of physical brain differences could be conditioned responses to external stimuli over the organism's lifespan due to socialization.

TBC

>>7215801
Hormones affect behaviour, but normal differences in testosterone are not good predictors of aggression. Studies done on animals that manipulate testosterone often increase it to, like, 400 times the normal level, or remove it completely through castration. Even in monkeys, once a dominance structure was set, putting more testosterone in subordinate monkeys did not make them rise up the hierarchy. They only showed more aggression to monkeys already below them, but never to ones above them.

>>7215781
Then explain where I misunderstood you, instead of throwing up your hands and going "OMG YOU DON'T AGREE WITH SOMEONE CLEARLY YOU'RE SO IRRATIONAL AN ENTRENCHED IN YOUR VIEW LIKE OMG Y U SO DIFFICULT WAAAH MISANDRY"

>>7215801
>Yes, in Africa, black men have power over black women.
You left out:
>And men
To make your arguement feminist. Your forgetting that people in power are in power over both sexes. But you seem to only equate power with physical dominance, in which case yes, men are almost always more physically powerful than women. You ignore actual power. The power to have a person jailed on your word alone (whether it is true or false) the power to ruin someone's life because you feel like it. In our society, outside of the ruling class, real power is almost exclusively controlled by females. In the US, 70% of divorces are initiated by women, and 80% of divorce cases end with the woman having custody of the children. That is power. The recent rolling stone contraversy happened because a woman said she was raped. It never happened, yet the people were vilified. That is power. Except in your mind, women are always the victims, because they happen to be physically weaker, rather than actually seeing how the laws of our society affect the average person.

>as well, as the majority of work equity programmes are not quotas.

If 20% of your employees must be a minority or woman, that is in fact a quota. You cannot hire the "best person" for the job. You must hire a woman or minority.

>As for biological differences, we see differences in brain connections, but we have little understanding what they do.

Because humans are some how different from other animals right? We cannot study the sexes and their relationships in other species to try and gain information about our own. The biological differences between men and women in the human species are incrdibly similar to those in other mammal species. Differences in species can be (and has been) studied, and behavior can be (and has been) studied. But ignore decades of information because it does not conform to how you feel things should be.

>>7215827
>To make your arguement feminist. Your forgetting that people in power are in power over both sexes.

Yes, men have power over other men. I don't see how that's relevant, when, statistically speaking, men have more power than women. You haven't made a point here.

>But you seem to only equate power with physical dominance

Uh, no, nowhere did I do that.

>The power to have a person jailed on your word alone

You know that the vast majority of rape charges don't end with a conviction, right? Despite the fact that false allegations of rape are as low as false allegations of any crime (3-8%)?

>the power to ruin someone's life because you feel like it.

You mean, by raping someone?

>In the US, 70% of divorces are initiated by women

Using one's right to not have to be married to someone is totally exerting so much power over them. I mean, you're depriving them of their right to a wife!

>80% of divorce cases end with the woman having custody of the children.

Most parents decide custody issues between themselves, rather than going to the courts. Very few non-resident fathers see their children more than weekly or monthly. Maybe it has more to do with raising children being considered women's responsibility, and men not doing their share of domestic reproductive labour?

>That is power. The recent rolling stone contraversy happened because a woman said she was raped. It never happened, yet the people were vilified.

Oh yes, let's look at a single high-profile case, rather than the statistics that show that this sort of phenomenon is rare (availability heuristic-- a cognitive bias). Research on attitudes toward rape show that many people feel victims are responsible for it, including law enforcement, and that law enforcement often believe rape myths that women are usually lying. Rape is under-reported (comparing victimization surveys to allegations that go through legal channels), and of those that are reported, few get to convictions.

>>7215736
>It's "You are X. The issue under discussion concerns Ys. No X is Y. It is not an issue that concerns Xs. As such all discussion on the issue should focus on the perspective of Y. Your opinion is from the perspective of X and as such unless you recognize that you will never be able to personally understand it as well as a Y your opinion is not relevant to the focus of the discussion."

What happens when X shares an opinion with a Y? What does this say about the relationship of "understanding" to the relevance of opinions if someone with understanding and someone without produce the same opinion? If "understanding" does not impart any unique opinions so why does it determine who can speak and who cannot?

I'm not arguing so you don't have to respond, just thinking, but I have to point out: how is the formulation of the guy you quoted not just a compact version of what you posted?

>>7215861
It's funny you mention cognitive biases because your post/s indicate that you are arguing from a position quite biased yourself.

File: 1427173932006.gif (529KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 625x626px

>>7214160
i feel bad for not doing a career, but, seriouly that shit exist in NA?

>>7215827
>If 20% of your employees must be a minority or woman, that is in fact a quota.

Well duh. Saying what a quota is has little to do with my statement that most equity programmes are not quotas, and rather include things like job advertising in certain areas or something.

>Because humans are some how different from other animals right?

Uh, yeah.

All species are different from other species. That's what makes them species. You can extrapolate some similarities through animal testing, but not all

Which still has little to do with my point that, though we can look at scans and see brain activity in different areas of different brains, we usually don't know what that means or what those differences are doing, and use conjecture. I never said to ignore any evidence, that's a fiction you created. I said not to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence.

Yes, there are similarities between us an other mammal species, but you can't just look at a dog and extrapolate to a human and call it a day. I mean, most primates are polygamous, and so were humans for a large part of existence, but, surprise, in the Western world, monogamy is now somehow the norm.

Anyway, I'm gonna bow out now (for real), because these stupid kitchen sink discussions never get to anything substantial, because people think it's conducive to jump from rape to brain scans to employment and then back to rape, and nothing really gets talked about other than entry-level feminist and anti-feminist talking points. See ya.