First, a crash course in falsifiability. (You can skip to the next paragraph if you already know what falsifiability is.) Falsifiability is a concept used in the sciences to be able to draw a line between useful, empirical theories and those that only seek to perpetuate themselves. Theories, that is to say explanations of sets of facts, must be sensitive to new information. In other words, it must be such that it is open to be disconfirmed, to have the potential to be proven false. Thus, a theory that can never be disconfirmed in principle is a bad, useless theory because it is not capable of ever being proven wrong. A theory like evolution, for example, is falsifiable; although it's based on facts of mutation, speciation, changes in allele frequencies, genetic drift, and so on, if we started to notice evidence that rabbits existed in the Precambrian era or DNA analysis disconfirming the assertion of common decent then that would severely undermine the theory (this is how you genuinely tackle such a theory and not the phantasmagorical and unlettered gobbledegook expressed in Gottservant's million 'gotcha' threads).
So what is feminist patriarchy? It's supposed to be a social system that promotes an imbalance among the sexes favoring men and oppressing women to varying degrees; they may be institutional or merely cultural such as traditions of elitism and its privileges that affect the way we interact interpersonally or even how we raise our young and affect their thinking.
When I ask whether patriarchy is falsifiable perhaps I'm not asking whether the above definition is falsifiable but rather its application by contemporary feminists. For example, take an issue often invoked by feminists: the gender pay gap. The gender pay gap is that, in America, women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Now, this alone is true; however, one cannot conclude that a mere disparity necessarily entails discrimination. Discrimination is one of many possibilities for that disparity. After all, that men are incarcerated disproportionately to women does not prove that it is simply out of animus or oppression toward men, rather than men actually committing more crime. Likewise, when it comes to the pay gap, there are several factors to account for. Economists have actually looked into this recently and have realized several things. One is that you cannot simply take median wages of men and women and simplistically draw inferences from such a gap. One must look to their human capital and compare like with like. Another issue to take note of is decisions made by the sexes. Women are more risk averse in the occupational choices they make. Men by contrast take up more dangerous and physically-demanding jobs which are riskier but pay more. Even when comparing similar occupations, like nursing, men are more likely to work overtime and graveyard shifts. Women are also more likely to go for maternity leave even when the husbands are themselves willing to be stay-at-home dads (e.g., Sheryl Sandberg is a good, albeit ironic, example). But when you present this to many feminists they say this is yet more proof of the patriarchy at play. How so? Because these decision and choice differences are accountable by sexist social stratification (i.e., the patriarchy). Often when debating religion, a religious apologist is tempted to invoke what is known in philosophic circles as the "god of the gaps," invoking supernatural agency as a placeholder for scientific ignorance, making God an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. I feel patriarchy, as used by contemporary feminists, is a "sexism of the gaps." Unless we decide to finally tackle these human ecological questions empirically, we will be doomed to perpetuating this narrative through armchair, a priori conjecturing at the risk of genuine discovery.
Thoughts? Has anyone else noticed a similar trend? Conversely, does anyone have objections to the above?
So what is feminist patriarchy? It's supposed to be a social system that promotes an imbalance among the sexes favoring men and oppressing women to varying degrees; they may be institutional or merely cultural such as traditions of elitism and its privileges that affect the way we interact interpersonally or even how we raise our young and affect their thinking.
When I ask whether patriarchy is falsifiable perhaps I'm not asking whether the above definition is falsifiable but rather its application by contemporary feminists. For example, take an issue often invoked by feminists: the gender pay gap. The gender pay gap is that, in America, women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Now, this alone is true; however, one cannot conclude that a mere disparity necessarily entails discrimination. Discrimination is one of many possibilities for that disparity. After all, that men are incarcerated disproportionately to women does not prove that it is simply out of animus or oppression toward men, rather than men actually committing more crime. Likewise, when it comes to the pay gap, there are several factors to account for. Economists have actually looked into this recently and have realized several things. One is that you cannot simply take median wages of men and women and simplistically draw inferences from such a gap. One must look to their human capital and compare like with like. Another issue to take note of is decisions made by the sexes. Women are more risk averse in the occupational choices they make. Men by contrast take up more dangerous and physically-demanding jobs which are riskier but pay more. Even when comparing similar occupations, like nursing, men are more likely to work overtime and graveyard shifts. Women are also more likely to go for maternity leave even when the husbands are themselves willing to be stay-at-home dads (e.g., Sheryl Sandberg is a good, albeit ironic, example). But when you present this to many feminists they say this is yet more proof of the patriarchy at play. How so? Because these decision and choice differences are accountable by sexist social stratification (i.e., the patriarchy). Often when debating religion, a religious apologist is tempted to invoke what is known in philosophic circles as the "god of the gaps," invoking supernatural agency as a placeholder for scientific ignorance, making God an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. I feel patriarchy, as used by contemporary feminists, is a "sexism of the gaps." Unless we decide to finally tackle these human ecological questions empirically, we will be doomed to perpetuating this narrative through armchair, a priori conjecturing at the risk of genuine discovery.
Thoughts? Has anyone else noticed a similar trend? Conversely, does anyone have objections to the above?
Last edited:
