On Science and Postnormalism

In my opinion, writing is mankind's greatest achievement.  The ability to write things down, to record our thoughts and researches for future generations to read and learn from is a thing of wondrous beauty.  It has enabled the arts and sciences, civilisation and humanity itself to reach pinnacles otherwise impossible to reach.  Bernard of Chartres was correct when he likened us to dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants.

If writing is mankind's greatest achievement, then, science is his greatest endeavour.  We have, through millennia of research, divined the existence of the atom, its structure and how its power may be harnessed; we have bottled lightning, walked upon the face of the moon, cured smallpox and myriad other ills, discovered how to cure the body by cutting into it, built machines that can carry great loads or travel across oceans and skies, found methods of cleaning water to make it safe to drink and are on our way to discovering the deepest wonders of the universe.  Each of us has benefited from this; not only can we expect to live longer than our forebears, but we enjoy a life of such luxury and plenty that previous generations could not imagine.  We can can travel in flying machines to all corners of the globe, and hold a conversation with someone on another continent as clearly and as easily as if they were in the next room.

How have we done this?  By century upon century if trial and error.  By someone noticing something and saying "That's funny..." and then having the curiosity and patience to find out why it was funny and what was going on.  By men and women of great intellect spending many patient years trying things out, making mistakes and achieving great results.  By these people formulating theories about why things happen the way they do, and when those theories are disproved, coming up with new theories.  An endless process of continuous revision, improvement, updating and above all testing, proving and disproving.

Scientific theories are developed that explain why things work the way they do, and - most importantly - make predictions about the results of experiments and phenomena before they occur, allowing the theory to be tested.  Of course, any theory must be falsifiable to be called a theory; you can prove it wrong if it is wrong - but of course, you cannot prove it right.  The closest you can come to that is to fail to prove it wrong.  And of course, before any scientific paper is published, it is subject to peer review - a process by which all other scientists working in the same field review the research, its methodology and findings, and even attempt to replicate those findings.  Damned fine icing on the cake, this last; stops time, money, resources and effort being wasted on blind alleys.

What a wonder and a glory is science!  Bernard was indeed right: nanos gigantum humeris insidentes.

But there is a cancer eating away at the heart of the endeavour.  There are those that seek to invert its principles.  There are dwarfs who wish to kill the giants.

Two such dwarfs go by the names of Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz - long may their names be reviled.  What these poisonous homunculi thought up was a concept they called 'Postnormal science'.  The essence of this was that for cases where "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent", they suggest that there must be an "extended peer community" consisting of all those affected by an issue who are prepared to enter into dialogue on it.  Regardless if those entering the dialogue know anything about the subject - they must be included within the peer review process.

Clearly, this makes no sense.  How can anyone who is not a peer - i.e. not a scientist operating in the same field of research - possibly able to provide meaningful insight?  I mean, could you have anything sensible to say on, for example, the altered expression of sialylated glycoproteins in breast cancer using hydrazide chemistry?  I know I couldn't.  Couldn't even tell you what it means.  But our dwarfs would claim that anyone with breast tissue - which is all of us - should be included within the peer review process, and our opinions should count equally as much as those who are experts in the field.

Insanity.

Now, the excrescence of Postnormalism was originally defecated onto the protesting face of science in regard to climate change. I shall not speak of this subject here - largely because I am ignorant of the science involved, but also because it is such an enormous subject that it is beyond the scope of this blog to comment upon.  The thought was that the consequences of man-made runaway climate change would be so catastrophic if true, that it would be best to corrupt the science behind any research to always show the result that it was true. To subjugate science to a political aim, in other words.  Lysenkoism at its very best.

This has spread to claiming that, when there is no proof either way, a 'consensus' of opinion is all that is required.  Let me reiterate that: under postnormal science, a scientific theory does not have to make predictions that are accurate, it does not have to disprove any alternative theories, it does not even have to be falsifiable (and therefore does not even need to be a theory).  All that need happen is that enough people - preferably scientists, but not necessarily, and not necessarily operating in the same field - have to say that they think the 'theory' is right (or wrong) and Presto Changeo!  The science is in, let there be no more debate.

And it is not just climate change that has seen this happen.  The theory of evolution is now open to challenge by those who like the idea of intelligent design.  The origins of the universe likewise.  In every field, the voluble, the ignorant and the obnoxious demand to have their voices heard, and for their ignorance to be assigned equal weight as another's knowledge.

It has reached the point that the website of Popular Science has even had to close all comments to all further articles. The ignorant and the foolish are so keen to spread their postmodern nihilism, to shit their foolish uninformed opinions into the ears of others, that the drawbridges are having to be drawn up.  Should this continue, science will become once again the preserve of the few, understood and mistrusted by the many who will prefer superstition and guesswork to reason and empirical evidence.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the age of the Endarkenment.

A Brief Note on Racism

Just lately I have heard the words 'racism is power combined with prejudice', although the word 'privilege' is sometimes used in place of 'power'.  Often, it is expressed thus:

Racism=Power+Prejudice

as though making it look like an equation will somehow make it more convincing.  Certainly, it seems to be repeated like a mantra, as though many repetitions will turn a trite soundbite into a truism.

There is, of course, one problem with this little phrase:  it's a load of old bollocks.  Let me explain why.

I could invoke the dictionary definitions of racism at this point, which define it as being discrimination against a person on the basis of their race.  I'm not going to do that, though, as it is often the sign of a weak argument, not to mention being a logical fallacy of the argumentum ad verecundiam sort. No, no.  I shall leave such floundering to those that can manage no better.

Let us instead take a look at the thinking behind this sentence.

The idea is that to be racist, one must be in a position of power over the one against whom one is discriminating.  I have actually seen the belief expressed that it is 'impossible for black people to be racist', although this has had to be hastily amended to 'impossible for black people to be racist against white people', and then to 'impossible for black people to be racist against white people in Western countries' when it is pointed out who wields the power in countries such as Zimbabwe and South Africa.

But this whole idea, this way of thinking, is utterly flawed.  Let us presume that we are talking about the UK.  If a white person espouses opinions to the effect that all people who are not white are inferior and should be treated as such, that white person would be called racist, and their ideals held to be vile and execrable.

That's fine - I can get right behind that.

But if a black, Asian, etc person were to say the same thing about white people, that apparently would be fine and dandy.  Because white people, you see, have the power.  All of them, without exception. Yes.

You can see where the wheels are starting to come off this argument already, can't you?  If all white people are in a position of power, why are so many of them poor and disregarded by successive governments?

Well, now we must look at just what we mean by 'power'.  Being the majority, perhaps?  No, that won't work - no-one would have said that black South Africans under Apartheid had power, despite being the majority by a very long way.

Does it mean being in government?  Well it could; again, looking at South Africa under Apartheid, the government was drawn pretty much exclusively from the white population.  By definition, then, black South Africans now all have power.  All of them.  Even those that live in the townships and can barely scratch a living.

Seems pretty flimsy to me.

Is it perhaps a combination of the two?  Being of the demographic that forms the majority and forms most or all of the government?  It might do. It might well do.  But that's the norm in most countries, isn't it - that the indigenous population forms its own government?  I thought that this was a good thing?  Power to the people and all that.

Perhaps 'power' means being socially dominant?  Isn't that the same thing as being the majority?  Cultural dominance - same thing again.  Oh dear.  We have attempted to grasp what power means in this context, and it's like trying to grasp smoke.  It evaporates like faerie gold at sunrise.

Maybe it means not being subject to the same laws as other demographics within the overall population?  Yes, that might be it!  It would fit the word 'privilege' well too.  I think that we are onto something here.  A person who is part of a group, race or sub-culture - within a larger population - that is accorded greater rights and less responsibility than everyone else.  A group that is not required to observe certain laws that nevertheless pertain to the rest of the population.  A group that cannot be called racist or be prosecuted for racism when they actively discriminate against other races in that population?

Sounds like power to me.  The kind of power that a man on the street might have.

So, if a member of one race can discriminate against people of another race and not face censure of any sort, that person can be said to have power.  Which combined with their prejudice, makes them racist.

So if we examine the original equation-like argument above:

If you say that black people cannot be racist against white people, you are saying that black (or insert any non-caucasian race here) people are exempted from the laws, mores and manners of society with regard to discrimination.  Which means that black people have power.  Which, if one them exhibited prejudice, would by your very own argument make him racist.

If, on the other hand, you say that only white people can be racist, you are saying that they cannot escape censure for discrimination, which would mean that they lacked power.  Which would mean that they were not being racist.  Which would mean that they could not be accused of any wrongdoing.  Which would mean that they had power.  Oh dear.  What a very circular argument.

All of which is to say - the argument that racism equals power plus prejudice is bullshit.  Racism really is discriminating against people on the basis of their race.  Their race, mind - not religion (but that's a subject for another time).  Just that.  Doesn't matter what the make-up of the population is, if you discriminate against someone solely on the basis of their race, you're a racist.


Oh, before we go, two other things.

Firstly, isn't it racist to refer to black people as though they were a single homogeneous race?  You know, given that only 100,000 people originally left Africa to form the population of the rest of the world, and everybody else stayed in Africa.  Which is why there is far greater genetic diversity within Africa than outside it, and that there is therefore no such thing as 'the black race'.  There are a lot of ethnically and culturally diverse peoples in Africa - lumping them all in together is orientalism, and arguably racist.

Secondly, please do bear in mind also that, if you wish to say that any ethnic minority or minorities within a country cannot ever be considered racist; if those minorities should be better represented in government to a degree disproportionate to their size within the general population; if you wish to grant any those minority groups greater power and control over the country - you are arguing in favour of Apartheid in South Africa. Doesn't matter if you are talking about the UK - you are saying that the principles of Apartheid are sound.

It also means that if you claim that 'black people can't be racist' - you are arguing in favour of Apartheid.  Either that, or you are saying that Apartheid wasn't racist.

Just saying.

In absentia Dei, Ratione.

So I've just had an entertaining little debate on the joy that is twatter on the subject of religion, with a Christian and a Muslim on the opposite side. And it got me thinking.

It's not uncommon for atheists to trot out the argument that wars and murders have been carried out in the name of religion. Now, this is not a good reason to be an atheist.  The lack of evidence for god, that is a reason to be an atheist. The fact that of all the explanations for the existence of the universe, "God did it" is the least feasible - that's a good reason not to believe in god. But the shitty stuff done in His name - sorry, no. That's not a good reason. It's just sulking.

The crux of this argument was that the religious sorts were claiming that it was unfair to blame a religion for the nastier things done in its name. When it was pointed out by others (not me) that war and murder on religious grounds has been commonplace, and that no such thing has been done in the name of atheism, they began to flounder. The Muslim dropped out of the conversation, after asserting that Soviet purges were carried out for the purposes of spreading atheism, but the Christian chappy struggled on for a bit. 

His final point was that if nothing bad has been done in the name of atheism, nothing good had been done in its name either.

And there, right there, we find the fundamental misunderstanding of the religious mind. Because, you see, many religious people view atheism as a subsitute for religion. And it's not. It is the absence of religion.

Let's say you are a Christian.  It's feasible that you would go out and do certain things - good or bad, laudable or execrable - in the name of Christianity.  But you wouldn't go out and do things in the name of not being a Muslim, of not being a Hindu.

So why then would an atheist do anything in the name of not believing in god?

De Profundis

I don’t like what’s happening these days.

We seem to be moving towards some kind of socialist state, yet a quick sift through Twitter and the like seems to indicate that the lefties believe this to be some kind of Tory/right wing move.

New laws are passed with a monotonous regularity that consolidate ever more power into the hands of the state.  The government seeks greater and greater influence over our everyday lives, greater powers to watch us and intercept our communications, and to dictate the mores and manners of society.  Offence is now given, not taken, under law and the use of rude words online can result in arrest.

We are seeing the EU become ever more powerful as the sovereignty of the member states is eroded by the very politicians who are meant to protect it, and all the while the will of the electorate is willfully and deliberately ignored. Power is being passed into the hands of unelected bureaucrats and we are told that this is a ‘good thing’.

Meanwhile, war crimes are committed by our leaders and anyone who speaks of them is imprisoned. Green energy policies are introduced that will put energy prices up so high that they will soon be unaffordable. Gas burning power stations are being shut down while hippies protest against the idea (let alone the practice) of fracking for gas that we begin to lack the stations to burn, whilst a network of inefficient windmills are subsidised and provisioned with diesel generators as back up that will produce energy at a cost six times as much as that of the power stations being closed down.

We are told that there is the threat of Islamic terrorism, largely a result of the aforementioned war crimes, but we are approaching a state of dhimmitude at home because the authorities don’t want to upset Muslims and refuse to deport known terrorists.

The news is censored and only certain crimes are reported, and there is bias in what are supposed to be trusted and impartial outlets.  Even well-known individuals working for those outlets find themselves persona non grata if they express views or opinions that have not been officially sanctioned by the political commissars so firmly entrenched within the broadcasting corporations.

Our freedoms are being increasingly curtailed to ostensibly protect us from the very terrorists created by our government, terrorists who are then pandered and fawned to by the government. Access to the Internet and impartial information is being restricted in ways that were supposed to be impossible – the very reason for the initial creation of the Internet in the first place. Anyone caught telling you what the government is doing goes to jail for a very long time. Our every word is monitored, recorded and watched, our associations and friendships analysed and sifted.

And we are lied to. Lied to by the media, and by governments who lie so casually and so transparently that they must know we are not fooled. And all they do is lie about lying.

Can someone please answer me – what is happening and why?


This post was first published at kneejerk.

The Problem with Capitalism

Now folks, before we get started, I'm going to come right out and say it:  I am a capitalist.  I like capitalism.  Capitalism is a force for good in the world.

Of course, it doesn't currently have that reputation, and we'll come to that.  There are reasons - good reasons - for it.

See, now, a lot of people out there feel that capitalism is to blame for the world's woes.  They imagine that if the world were run on fairer principles - socialism being the main contender - then people would have a far better lot in life.

I disagree; socialism, by despising wealth, seeks not to create wealth but to destroy it.  Sure, it'd put everyone on an even footing - we'd all be in the most abject form of poverty.  Name a single Eastern Bloc country that fared well under socialism.  China has only started to thrive as its ruling elite embraced capitalism, albeit to a controlled extent.  And if Russia has suffered under capitalism (and nowhere near as much as it suffered under communism) then it is because they have the worst sort of nepotistic crony-capitalism.

But all of this is an argument for another day.  What I'd like to concentrate on here is why capitalism has such a bad rap here in the West, where we enjoy a far higher standard of living as a result of...well, it's not due to socialism.

Anyway - I read an article today that summed much of it up.  In brief, the article points out - quite rightly - that modern economics is based on the idea that the sole purpose of any business (and here they are referring to publicly floated companies, but the principles seem to be applied by most companies of every sort) is to maximise short-term profit.

Just that.  Short-term profit.  To take value from the customer and give it to the shareholder.  (I had a similar argument with one of my contemporaries during my university days, and it was like beating my head against the wall).  Nevermind that the customer might be so royally pissed off that he never buys from you again and tells everyone he knows to avoid you.  As long as you get that short-term profit, you're golden.  That these short-term profits are bad profits never once enters the equation.

This way of thinking is dinned into economics and business students all over the western world.  And the problem it creates is that that is how people see companies under capitalism - existing solely for short-term profit, with no morality or ethics applied.  It also means that, by focusing only on short-term profits, your long-term profitability is screwed.

Some people have realised this, and apply a more long-term view to their activities, with the result that, by creating a more touchy-feely aspect to their business, they (hope to, at least) increase their long-term profitability by not only winning new customers but also - and vitally - by retaining their old customers.  Sound business sense, of course - but clearly not practised anything like widely enough.

Steve Denning over at Forbes has expressed it far better than I can, so I shall wind up my spiel here.  I shall just leave you with a quote from Fred Reicheld, quoted in the linked article:

”Whenever a customer feels misled, mistreated, ignored or coerced, then profits from that customer are bad. Bad profits come from unfair or misleading pricing. Bad profits arise when companies save money by delivering a lousy customer experience. Bad profits are about extracting value from customers, not creating value. When sales reps push overpriced or inappropriate products onto trusting customers, the reps are generating bad profits. When complex pricing schemes dupe customers into paying more than necessary to meet their needs, those pricing schemes are contributing to bad profits.”

Hurrah for common sense.

The NHS Organ Grab

What are the three largest employers in the world?

Well, there is the army of the People's Republic of China.  It serves a country that holds vast territory, has extensive borders and a population of a billion people.

Then there is the Indian National Railway.  Public transportation and infrastructure for a country that holds vast territory and has a population of a billion people.

Then in third place there is the NHS.  It looks after the health - supposedly - of a medium sized island nation with a population of around 62.7 million people at the time of writing.

There's something wrong with this picture, isn't there?

Don't get me wrong.  For all of my libertarian principles, I quite like the NHS.  Not for what it is, but for what it could be.

I have had to make use of their services on occasion.  I don't mind paying taxes for an efficient healthcare system that is free of charge at point of use.  The trouble is that the NHS is not efficient; if the money spent on management were instead to be spent on front line staff and material, then it could be much better than it is.

But what makes things worse is that politics has crept into our national healthcare provider, as well as complaisance.

Smokers face the greatest discrimination, followed by the obese.  If you are in either - or both - of these groups, then the NHS will look down its nose at you.  They may even refuse to treat you - and it won't be long before they refuse to treat any illness caused by smoking.  Smoker?  Need new lungs?  Forget it.

And this is part of what bothers me about the proposal to create a system whereby, upon your death, your organs will be harvested unless you have specifically opted-out of the scheme.

Keep the noise down, sir.  You're distracting the surgeon.

I appreciate that there is a shortage of donors.  I also appreciate that those who are vocal in their opposition will make sure that they opt-out.  I understand - I really do.

Things is, there are four very good reasons why I don't like this in the slightest.

Firstly, as I have said, if you are a smoker, there is a good chance that you will be turned down as an organ recipient.  As an organ donor, however, you will be acceptable;  Professor James Neuberger, associate medical director at NHS Blood and Organ Transplant has said on record that "...organs from people who smoked and drank regularly could also still be used despite their lifestyles."

So we could be faced with a system in which many of us could be considered fit to donate but not fit to receive.  Regardless of the fact that the annual tax revenue on tobacco is several times the annual NHS budget, your lifestyle choice makes you a second class citizen.

Secondly, as the linked article states in the headline, those who do not opt out will get preferential treatment. Quelle surprise, there, but it's the fundamental lack of respect for the wishes of those concerned that bothers me.

So, if your lifestyle is less than healthy, we'll take but we won't give.  And if you opt-out of giving, you are less likely to receive.

Thirdly, I have little confidence that those who opt-out will have their wishes respected.  Just what mechanism will be in place to ensure that, when a patient dies (especially if it's in A&E following an accident) that they won't automatically be turned into Soylent Green have their organs removed?  Wouldn't be the first time.

Finally, I really do not like the precedent it sets.  If your body is the property of the state when you die, then it doesn't take much for that to be extended to the state owning your body whilst you are alive.  And if that seems far-fetched, consider Stalinist Russia, modern day China, or even Britain at the beginning of the Twentieth Century; how many men were conscripted and sent to be shot, shelled and gassed in the trenches of the First World War?

It is hideously ironic that many people would embrace this sort of statist vassaldom as being progess.

Harvested from Anonymong.  Well, he didn't opt-out, did he?

'The Patriarchy' and Progressivist Ideology

Well, I heard something interesting the other day that got me thinking.  A rare event, admittedly, but it does happen.  These thoughts are not original, but they have, at least, occurred to me.

Now, the world is in many ways a sorry place, and people have been trying for millenia - with moderate success - to improve it.  In this day and age, people are determined to force change and improvement upon the world and its peoples, and drag it kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.

Trouble is, many of their well-intentioned efforts are either doomed to failure or are actively counter-productive.  This is nearly always due to an abject failure to analyse the root causes of a problem, instead focusing upon the superficial effects.  This in turn is frequently the result of adherence to a progressivist ideology that, by its very nature, cannot recognise those root causes as to do so would completely negate the fundamental beliefs of that ideology. Allow me to give an example, and a damnably poisonous one at that: Patriarchy Theory.

Patriarchy Theory insists that the world is ruled by men, and that women are forced to occupy a subordinate role in all matters.  And numerous examples can be cited for this - let us examine a couple of these:

Women Forbidden to Work

In a number of countries and cultures, women stay at home while the men go out to work and earn a living.  Times being what they are, many women also wish to go out to work, but in some countries - Afghanistan, for example - to do so is all but forbidden, and if a woman is married, her husband may refuse to permit it.

By what right does he permit or otherwise her going to work?  Patriarchy!  Men putting women down and holding them back, doubtless feeling threatened and afraid that they will be shown up as useless incompetent fools.  Bloody Patriarchy!

...except that might not be the story.  Or not the whole of it, certainly.

In many societies, Islamic ones in particular, a husband and father is the head of his household (outside of the home anyway - often once a couple walks into the house, his wife is in charge).  As such, there are obligations laid upon him which he must fulfill.  Foremost of these is that he must provide for his wife and children.

Now, let's say our husband and father is living in an Afghan town, and to house, feed and clothe himself, his wife and their - shall we say four? - children, he is working two jobs.  He has no choice in this - it is his duty as both a husband and father.

Of course, the obvious question is then 'why not allow his wife to go out to work, thus relieving him of the need for two jobs, so that he can work just one?'.

A good question.  A fine question.  The answer is so obvious - of course he should permit his wife to work. Duh!

Except, of course, that this isn't the West.  A man has a duty to support his family; to force his wife to work to provide for them as well is considered a sign that he is a failure as a husband, as a father and as a man.  It would be a badge of the deepest shame to him.

But this is a shallow reason.  There are others.

In most Islamic societies, if a woman is allowed by her husband to go out to work, it is not because he needs her to work, but because he doesn't need her to.  She may go and earn her own money - and it is just that.  Her money.  She is not required to share it with anyone and certainly not required to contribute to the family finances.  Indeed, to do so would be shameful.  Besides, it's her money.

Fine if you are clearly wealthy, if the kids have left home, all of that.  But in the situation of our chap working two jobs, he will be faced with the problem of the children - who will look after them when both parents are at work?  Friends, perhaps, or family - but the chances are it will cost money for them to be looked after.  And it won't be, cannot be, his wife who pays for it.  So he will have to work a third job simply to allow his wife to get a job of her own.

So clearly, the division of labour makes sense - one parent at work, the other taking care of the family at home.

Consider also, that when a country's economy is in poor shape, every job held by a woman for her own enrichment is taking a job from a man needing to provide for his family.

So we can begin to see why perhaps a husband might wish his wife to remain in the home, and why in some cultures the idea of women holding down jobs doesn't sit too well.

[ASIDE:  When did looking after your children become slavery?  When did going out to work for someone else become freedom?]

However, husbands forcing their wives to stay at home is far from the most egregious example of The Patriarchy (TM)...

Sex Selective Abortion

A nasty one, this.

There are a number of cultures around the world wherein it is considered far preferable to have a son than a daughter.  As a result, this has led to a situation in certain countries where many female foetuses are terminated, so that only sons shall be born.  This is widely known and rightly much deplored.

And why does this happen?  Patriarchy!  Who would want an inferior girl child when you could have a superior boy child?  It's The Patriarchy I tells ya!

...of course, there are underlying social and cultural causes for this.  One is the dowry system - once employed in Europe too - which involves the parents of the bride paying their prospective son-in-law a big lump of cash to take their daughter off their hands (this is not to be confused with Bride-Price, where the husband-to-be pays his prospective in-laws; which is applied varies between cultures).

Another cause is that, traditionally, a son will often remain in the parental home, and his wife will move in with him; between them, they will support his parents in their dotage.  A daughter, however, will leave the parental home to live with her husband and his parents, leaving her own folks all alone.  In more modern households, a son will move out, but will contribute a third of his income to his parents; a daughter is not so obliged.  Should she remain at home all her life, her parents will be culturally obliged to look after her.

So perhaps that dowry payment, hefty as it is, doesn't seem all that unreasonable - give the young man some money as he will henceforth have the obligation of her upkeep.

Of course, she could go out and work and send some of her earnings to her parents, if her husband is amenable, if cultural factors will allow it without apportioning shame - but when times are hard, she will again be taking a job that a man might need to support his family.

So - there are some reasons for sex-selective abortion.  They are not nice reasons, and I will not attempt to justify them - but they are the reasons, like it or not.

Alright Corvid - just what has this to do with Patriarchy Theory?

Patriarchy (TM) Theory

See, the problem with Patriarchy Theory and its ilk is that it is an ideology.  Almost a religion.  It has its own belief system, its own priestesses, its own canon, and it requires only absolute faith.  It cannot be disproved, but it can be asserted with impunity and with no evidence, because the only proof it requires is the belief in the mind of the adherent that it is so.  It is an article of faith.

It is also,quite simply, a conspiracy theory.  Tin-foil hat stuff. 

You see, those that believe in the Theory will cite it as both explanation and proof.  Why are women forced to stay at home in some cultures?  Because: Patriarchy.  Why are female foetuses aborted?  Because: Patriarchy.  Men hate women, and that's all there is to it.  Misogyny.  Patriarchy.  Phallocratic slavery.

Except, as we have - and only very briefly - discussed above, there are underlying reasons for these things.  And there are underlying reasons for those, in turn.

Appeals to Patriarchy Theory as an explanation willfully ignore the true facts of the matter; and if those facts, those underlying causes, are not addressed, then meaningful change cannot possibly be effected.  Why, then, does this theory ignore the true causes?

The answer is complex and very involved.  In part, it is because a neat, pat answer is so very attractive.  It is also because an examination of the true root causes is convoluted and difficult.  Another reason is that it becomes obvious that the blame cannot be laid solely at the feet of men.  Furthermore, because it claims that there is a conspiracy that is hidden, it cannot be disproved.

And, of course, ideologues are incapable of rational dissection of an issue.  That is why they are ideologues.

Were the actual explanation, the true reasons for the lack of change to be stated, the result, of course, would be a reduction in the emotional impact of how terrible these situations are.  A loss of enthusiasm amongst the faithful would invariably occur.  The shrill and strident cries for Equality (meaning equality of outcome, of course) would diminish, and the Cause would lose momentum.  And the ideologues would find themselves bereft of all meaning in their lives.

And the rabbit hole, as ever, goes deeper.

Cultural conditioning, combined with the prospect of additional duties and obligations, can make feminism an unappealing prospect for many women in some developing nations.  There is the danger that they would outright reject the feminist credo, thus rendering the movement irrelevant in those cultures.  Better, then, to avoid having the Cause explicitly rejected for specific reasons by failing to recognise or state those reasons.

And maybe, just maybe, the Cause doesn't want to hear the opposing view because the opposing view is right.

But wait - still deeper we go...

The ultimate truth as to why feminism - among many other progressivist causes and movements - frequently fail to truly examine the issues against which they campaign, why they fail to seek reasons as to why things have evolved the way they have, why they are doomed to failure - is because they want to fail.

Feminism, the Green movement, the Racial Equality movements - all employ a lot of people.  These are billion dollar industries.  A lot of people make a comfortable living, and a few get very rich indeed.  To achieve success would be to obviate the need for the organisations responsible.

A grievance industry without a grievance isn't an industry anymore.