James Caruthers wrote:Dick Strawkins wrote:The schedule for the
FTB Cons Science (or something like that) event has just been posted by Lousy Canuck.
Friday, January 31
5:00pm
Welcome / Orientation
6:00pm
Intersectionality and Allies: Exiting the Secular Bubble
7:00pm
Evidence-Based Feminism
8:00pm
Artistic Secularism
8:00pm
Godless Fiends Fabric Arts Hour
9:00pm
Skeptics Open Up: Polyamory in the Skeptical Community
9:00pm
Growing Up Godless
10:00pm
Cthulhu's Minions: Evil Gods for Atheists
11:00pm
Elder Gods and the Women Who Love Them
Saturday, February 1
10:00am
When You Need a Hand, Not a Prayer: The State of the Secular Support Movement
11:00am
Between A Rock And...: Non-Binary Gender in Atheism
11:00am
Godless parenting
12:00pm
SW1. Community Building
1:00pm
SW2. Social Justice and Young Women of Color
2:00pm
SW3. Investigating Sexual Harassment: Ken (from popehat)
3:00pm
A conversation about science. PZ Myers and Aron Ra talk about creationism, debating, and random topics in popularizing science.
3:00pm
Atheism and Accessibility
4:00pm
Racism and the Zombie Apocalypse
5:00pm
Effective Use of Social Media with Conferences
6:00pm
Jewish Atheism: the Hows and Whys
WhenSat, February 1, 6pm – 7pm
more details» copy to my calendar
7:00pm
Godless Utopias
8:00pm
Trans* Representation in Video Games
9:00pm
Godless Perverts Story Hour, livestreamed from San Francisco
9:00pm
Fighting for Freethought in the Philippines (Meet the Filipino Freethinkers)
11:00pm
Hangouts Against Humanity
Sunday, February 2
» 1:00am
Hangouts Against Humanity
10:00am
Secular Asian Community discussion
11:00am
Mental Illness and Society
12:00pm
Philosophy for Everyone (panel)
1:00pm
Clinic Escort Stories
2:00pm
Bible Study (or Taking the Bible Seriously as Fiction: A Read-Along)
3:00pm
Veganism and Humanism
3:30pm
Counter-apologetics
5:30pm
Superbowl
6:00pm
Curtain Call
Showing events until 4/30.
It's like a fucking parody of itself. Especially from 5:00 to 12:00. Haha, hilarious. I can just imagine the sort of people who think "Veganism and Humanism" or "Evidence-based Feminism" is fascinating subject matter. By the by, the phrase "evidence-based feminism" sounds rather religious or cultish. If the belief is based on evidence, there's no need to call it "evidence-based." I often hear christians refer to "evidence-based belief in god" or "Christian science." Seems like a rather silly attempt to frame
all beliefs that the FTBloggers have as 100% based on fact. Which they would then claim means it is impossible for someone else to be correct in disagreeing with them, because all their views are totes logical and true.
Patriarchy theory in practice is an unfalsifiable hypothesis anyway, since all conditions of equality or inequality which do exist or could exist are taken as reinforcement that patriarchy is real, including contradictory evidence.
Heh. I was going to say the same thing. "Evidence-based Feminism"? As opposed to the feminism NOT based on evidence? Is that the kind of feminism other feminists should decry and denounce, kind of like how Protestants decry and denounce Catholics?
Patriarchy theory is their equivalent to deus ex machina. It's their answer to every single issue that befalls women. It's also their answer to issues that befall men, albeit in a secondary motive. "Patriarchy hurts men, TOO." But what is patriarchy? According to feminists*, it's a society where men rule the roost, but also a society where men seek to dominate women and minimize their importance. Which is apparently something that has, according to feminists*, existed since man's first common ancestor first started walking on two feet. (So 400,000 years, give or take.)
*Or should that be SOME feminists? Wouldn't want to risk lumping them with "evidence-based" feminists.
Of course, if that has been the purpose of the patriarchy, ruled by men for the benefit of men, for milennia, then it has seriously fucked up.
We can just browse through history to find not one, not two, but literally hundreds, thousands, of women with great power over men (and women) throughout the ages and not one person from this so-called male-dominated society, by men for men, did anything about it. For instance, Cleopatra, Nefertiti, Wu Zetian, Queen Anne, Sukda of Mandara, Veronica I, Catherine the Great, Anacaona of the Maguana, Lucrezia Borgia, Empress Liu, Kubaba, Sapho, Makeda (Queen of Sheba), Queen Elizabeth, Margaret fucking Thatcher etc, etc, etc, and that's just a fraction of the many women LEADERS in history.
For other women of influence, there's Marie Curie (obviously), Hellen Keller, Anne Frank, Emily Dickinson, ... Simone de Beauvoir. Wait, what? Our supposed male-dominated society allowed a feminist to grow in rank and influence, and even allowed her to write books to influence others? For something that has existed for the better part of 400,000 years, it sure is incompetent, and it sure hasn't learned from its mistakes since it apparently also allowed other feminists to follow suit. Feminists that were even more outspoken than de Beauvoir.
I mean, speaking contemporarily, whenever a social justice leaguer casually mentions the patriarchy as an all-encompassing dominating network, ruled by men FOR the benefit of men, all I think about is: what about Andrea Dworkin? What about Valerie Solanas? What about Robin Morgan? These were radical feminists that rose to prominence and actually became quite wealthy, and they had a great many followers under their wing as well. (Men and women alike.) The only one still alive of the three, Morgan, is considered a leader within the international feminist movement. Why the hell would a society that has its focus on male dominance and female subordination allow this to happen?
(And since we're on the subject, would a society like that truly let people like the FC(n) come to any sort of power [even if that power is on a "blogger's salary"]? [Which to be perfectly frank, "blogger's salary" and Benson shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence, the plagiarizing parasite.])
The answer is plain: it wouldn't. Because there is no patriarchy. The patriarchy is just a convenient excuse for them to confirm their own biases.