There are tons of women who enjoy the damsel in distress trope and think it’s harmless fun.

There are also tons of women who think it perpetuates sexist stereotypes against women.

Both groups of women’s opinions are equally valid.

Does this not prove that the statement is independent?

  • woop_woop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 days ago

    The answer is that people of any demographic are not homogeneous and will have different beliefs and values. Your question is too high level to go any deeper than that. The rest of the nonsense you’re couching it behind is useless. People are people. Sonder.

    • jannaultheal@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yes but I still think it goes deeper than that. Are there any axioms that can decide the statement about damsels in distress, just like how axioms can be added to ZFC that decide CH, like V=L and proper forcing axioms as I pointed out?

      • solrize@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Really no, any logic in the real world that has anything to say about damsels in distress is going to be inconsistent, just like the real world is. Therefore it proves everything and has no indepdendent statements. Also, it will have second-order quantifiers so it won’t have that kind of proof theory. If you treat damsels in distress problems as something like knight-knave puzzles from logic, then sure, you can treat them mathematically. But that’s not so interesting.

        There is an excellent book you might like, " Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse" by Torkel Franzén, that discusses various forms fo what you’re trying to do, and explains why it doesn’t make much sense in the end. It’s available from the usual places including pdf’s on the internet. Book review: https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/200703/rev-raatikainen.pdf

        • jannaultheal@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          If they’re all inconsistent then the real world is inconsistent and therefore the real world doesn’t exist since inconsistent systems don’t have models. But all the women who think that the damsel in distress trope is harmless fun/perpetuates sexist stereotypes do exist, and they are models so I don’t think the theory is inconsistent.

          • solrize@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            14 hours ago

            No the real world operates by physics which is consistent, but above that are artificial constructs like damsels in distress, that are inconsistent. There’s no world in which those things all work as advertised. We just get by anyway.