All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 9, 2014 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
19:13
Feminists advocate mind rape
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So a strong independent black woman who don't need no man called Isabella Sharp left me a wonderful comment on my I Need Feminism Because I Have Brain Damage video.
She bravely called me out on my misogynist comments and my terrible, terrible opinions.
And I'd like to share that comment with you and we can talk about it.
And if you're watching Isabella, please remain calm.
Isabella begins with this scathing attack.
You are so brave, hiding behind your laptop, making non-points against feminism.
Let's start off with one of your stupider arguments, shall we?
Don't rape is implicitly implied in the law against it.
Alright, Isabella, calm down.
Calm down.
I see where you're going with this.
You think that do rape is actually implied in the law against rape, don't you?
That's exactly what you think.
But go on.
Let's hear your wonderful rebuttal.
Now see here, honey.
Snap, snap.
There is also a law against murder, and that happens a lot, too.
What the fuck, Isabella?
That is not a response.
That is just proving my point.
That yes, even though there is a law against it, it will still happen.
Because there is no way to persuade criminals not to be criminals.
They already know it's wrong.
They already know it's wrong, and whatever reasons are compelling them to commit the crime are overriding that sense of right and wrong.
Women are taught don't get raped as a young woman because we've already taught the men don't rape by telling them you'll go to jail if you do it.
Don't get drunk.
Boys can, you can't.
You'll get blamed for being raped because you are drunk.
No, it's not that you will be blamed for being raped.
That will be a significant contributing cause because most rapes are crimes of opportunity.
If you don't want to be the victim of a crime of opportunity, there are steps you can take to prevent it.
We'll address the rest of this nonsense though.
Don't walk down the street alone at night, even though men can because it will be your fault if you get raped.
No, again, same fucking principle, you stupid woman.
Anyone walking alone at night suffers from a higher risk of being assaulted, attacked, stabbed, raped in any way because they're on their own and it's dark.
That's just the nature of the situation.
That's just the way things are.
What can we do about it, Isabella?
What are you suggesting?
A curfew?
You know, when it gets dark, no one's allowed outside of the house just in case.
And then we'll have the feminist Gestapo patrolling the streets, rounding up any miscreants, and I assume putting them to death.
Also, what is with this?
Why was she walking alone?
Stupid women obviously wanted to be raped.
Listen, bitch, that's a fucking straw man.
I didn't say that.
Nobody else said that.
Nobody thinks anyone wants to be raped because that, logically, would not be rape, would it?
You fucking muppet.
But either way, right?
No, don't put words in my mouth and don't put words in anyone else's mouth.
It's not about who wants this or who don't want this.
It's about how you can practically stop it.
Okay, how you can take practical steps to stop it happening to you.
Because at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what the reason was.
What matters is whether it happened or not.
And you, as a woman, I am sure, do not want to be raped.
So it's not about placing blame.
It could be you, it could be the rapist, it could be a monkey.
Whatever.
It doesn't matter what the reason is.
What matters is preventing it from happening.
Anything that stops a rape from happening is a good thing.
Isabella then continues her rampage of stupid to say just because one woman who has been preconditioned by the patriarchal gender role ideals and stereotypes present in our society to view other successful women as a threat says she wouldn't work for a female CEO doesn't mean that all women agree with her and that it's okay to say it.
Right.
Okay, let's have a look at what you've just fucking said there, you retard.
What I had said was, there was a woman in the previous video who said, I would rather not work for a female boss because they're bitches.
Let's analyse this, Isabella, right?
Are you saying that that woman is incapable of making her own observations?
Are you saying that?
Because that is what she has done.
It's not about whether she's conditioned for gender roles.
It's about how her CEO is acting.
And if she is acting like a prick, then she's a prick.
And if this woman has experienced multiple ones, and it seems to be a trend that women in power tend to be pricks, then that's just what her opinion is.
It's not about whether they've been preconditioned.
You have to be preconditioned to pretend these people are not pricks.
Do you understand?
It's and the arrogance that you should just turn around and say, well, this woman's opinion isn't valid because she's been brainwashed.
And the irony of you saying that other people have been conditioned is shocking.
It's offensive, Isabella, how unbelievably brainwashed you clearly are to say that this woman's opinion doesn't matter, but yours does.
And yet, you're not the one with direct experience of female bosses being bitches, are you?
Anyway.
And this as well.
It doesn't mean all women agree with her.
And yet, feminists would presume to speak for all women at every turn.
Every fucking time.
Fuck you.
It's always, oh, well, women should do this.
Women should do that.
What do you mean?
All women should do is fuck you.
You do not speak for all women.
And then, the crowning piece of shit on my fucking breakfast.
It's not okay to say it.
Fuck you.
Do you understand?
You don't get to tell other people what it's okay for them to say.
You are not the feminist Gestapo.
You fucking fascists.
Do you understand how you come across?
Right?
And then, bear in mind, this is not a specific CEO, but a company with a female CEO.
So?
Yes, that's the point.
Yet more evidence of how society has affected both men and women to view women that challenge the expectations of gender.
No, listen, it's really about a person who's just a prick.
I know that you can't see it, because this person might well be you, to be honest.
But seriously, you've got to get past this.
Not everything is because she's a woman.
It could be that she's just a dick.
Right?
And this is the best bit for me.
You are threatened.
Plain and simple.
Oh, am I?
Am I the CEO of a Fortune 500 company who's worried about losing his job to a female?
No, I'm not.
I'm not in any way affected by this.
I'm not even, I am not fussed in any way.
And honestly, right, you should meet some of the women in my life.
The problem that you have, right, is that you don't think women are very good.
The problem that I have is that I think women are far better than you are portraying them.
I expect a lot more.
In fact, believe it or not, I expect the same from a woman as I do from a man because I think they're equals.
And when you sit there saying, well, they shouldn't be expected as much, they're women, they're a bit crappy, which is precisely what you're actually saying when you defend these things.
That makes you a fucking misogynist.
That makes you a woman hater.
You think women are inferior, and so they need special treatment.
I do not think they're inferior, and I do not think they need special treatment.
Obviously, she goes on to say, little boys are not great at expressing themselves.
Now, this again is the fault of the patriarchy.
Men teach them that they're emasculine if they express emotions or cry, because that's what girls do.
And to be like a girl is to be lesser.
If they hit girls, your responsibility is an adult is to tell them that they're wrong, that it's okay to say what they feel, to have emotions and reveal them when they need to.
They are children.
They're shaped by how their parents and the surrounding adults teach them to act.
If you let them hit little girls to show that they like them, you are a terrible parent.
But I forgot, little girls just have to shut up and accept it because boys will be boys.
A meaningless expression that excuses inexcusable actions.
Are you really as stupid as you look?
I said, little boys are not great at expressing themselves.
That's a bad thing, apparently.
Because apparently if they express their emotions or cry, they're acting like girls.
From your word, Isabella.
You said that.
You then go on to say, but I forgot, little girls just have to shut up and accept it.
Do you hear yourself, Isabella?
You are saying that girls are taught to express their emotions and cry, and boys are taught not to act like that because that's girly.
And then you later on say, little girls just have to shut up and accept it because boys will be boys.
This is a direct contradiction, Isabella.
Which one is it?
It can't be both.
You can't have people who express themselves but never express themselves.
Don't be a fucking fool, Isabella.
This is my problem with you.
You don't even realize that you have made such a fundamental mistake.
You are just such an idiot.
That's my problem with you.
You are so dumb.
You are so convinced that you're right as well.
And yet, you are provably wrong from your own statements.
They contradict themselves, even if I knew nothing else about the situation.
And I have access to no other resources.
That paragraph is self-contradictory.
That renders it null.
It means nothing.
You may as well have not written it.
In fact, it would have been better had you not, because then you wouldn't look even more stupid than you are.
For fuck's sake.
But does it end there?
Does it fuck?
It gets better.
What's the next logical fallacy, Isabella?
Let's see it.
I'm not proud of knowing how to do something.
Now this is because women have been forced to cook for men and told that they should be naturally good at cooking for centuries.
Do you not know how to apply eyeliner in a perfectly straight line?
Revel in your stupidity.
Do you know what a false equivalency is, Isabella?
Do you?
I was talking about women who didn't know how to cook.
I think cooking is a universal skill.
Any adult should know it, because any adults may be called upon to cook for someone who is not themselves.
Should any adult know how to apply eyeliner in a perfectly straight line?
Is anyone going to go hungry if an adult doesn't know how to do this?
Is it important?
No, it's cosmetic.
It's not necessary.
It's entirely choice.
Eating is not a fucking choice.
Therefore, cooking is not a fucking choice.
Whether you think it is or is not a stereotype that women are supposed to be the ones who cook, I don't give a fuck whether women before your lifetime were taught that.
It doesn't matter.
Because it's not like the men were sat there on quilted pillows being fed grapes by harem girls while their poor suffering wife in her sackcloth and rags goes down to the kitchen and cooks him a giant suckling pig.
Alright?
It was poor people doing the best they could to get along.
The man had to go and do a shitty job in the fields, in the mines, wherever, and the woman had to maintain a good house and sew.
She is more naturally suited for the easier jobs than the harder jobs.
And that's just a cross that men have to bear.
Whenever you move house, Isabella, right?
You've got these big heavy objects.
Do you go, right, well, I'll move these, or do you ask one of your male friends to do it?
I know you're going to say that you do it, but bullshit.
Isabella rounds off this retarded diatribe with all on your own with your cats.
Oh shock horror, I don't have a male partner, and I am immediately rendered useless and miserable.
You sir are a royal fuckwit and an idiot to boot.
I recommend a heavy course of re-education and eating your own words.
I am not saying that without a male partner you are rendered useless and miserable.
I am saying you will be alone.
If you then know that renders you miserable and useless, that's your problem.
And that's what you're saying.
If I was alone for the rest of my life, I wouldn't be useless and miserable because I've spent my time building up skills and making fight finding out how to make myself happy.
Being happy in my own company and so even if I'm on my own, I'm alright.
You are the one saying, I don't have a male partner, I am immediately rendered useless and miserable, because many a truth is said in jest.
Alright, Isabella, I think you know this, because you have nothing else.
And then to call me a royal fuckwit in any boot, that's just brilliant.
I like it.
You know, I like that you think I am.
Because you then go on to recommend a heavy course of re-education.
Hmm.
Re-education's a very loaded term.
Where have I heard that before?
Re-education may refer to a euphemism for brainwashing, efforts aimed at instilling certain beliefs in people against their will.
Re-education camp.
A name given to the prison camps operated by the government of Vietnam following the end of the Vietnam War.
Re-education through labour.
The name given to a system of administrative detentions in the People's Republic of China.
Re-education camps.
The name given to prison labour camps in North Korea.
What the fuck is wrong with you, Isabella?
You are literally declaring that feminism is about psychological manipulation and brainwashing.
It is the sort of thing they do in China.
It is the sort of thing they do in Vietnam and North Korea.
It is the definition of Orwellian.
You have a problem.
You are part of a psychotic cult that feels no remorse in doing things to people against their will.
This is some kind of mind rape you are advocating for, you psycho.
I don't like to just tell people that they're wrong, Isabella.
I really don't.
I'm quite happy to mock idiocy, but that's different.
You know, anyone who spends a little bit of time thinking about something can figure it out.
You know, it's not beyond anyone's grasp unless there's something genuinely wrong with them.
But this sort of thing, Isabella, this is terrifying.
You don't even know what you are advocating for.
You don't know, and I am genuinely concerned that you don't know.
That all of this eludes you is worrying.
It's amazing how you don't see it.
It seems to be some kind of willful blindness on your part.
And seriously, you need to think about what you're saying because it's the actions that make things what they are.
Right?
So if you repeatedly advocate for this, you know, for quotas, for some sort of Gestapo, for this kind of Orwellian brainwashing campaign, then you are the sort of people who use these techniques, which means you are just like them.
Which makes you the same.
It makes you the bad guy, Isabella.
It makes you the person who is taking away other people's personal freedoms and right to expression and right to thought.
Their own thoughts.
And not just that, but the right thoughts.
thoughts that actually make sense, that don't inherently contradict themselves.
You know, it's...
you really need to have a think about what you say, and why you're saying it, and whether or not the people who have told you what to think are wrong.
The...
You have to consider the possibility they might be wrong, Isabella.
Because if I can just show you from your own words that your arguments contradict themselves, then you must then go away and reassess your arguments.
You need to really consider that you've got a backtrack.
Well, was the previous premise correct or not?
Is it a case of misogyny or is it a case of something else?
And if it turns out that it could be a case of something else, then it probably means it's not a case for misogyny.
Because believe it or not, misogyny plays quite a small part in the world.
Very few people fundamentally hate women by virtue of them being women.
Okay?
Very few.
Seriously, the worldview you express is seriously paranoid.
Seriously paranoid.
You think 50% of the human race is out to get you.
You think that it's innate characteristics that must be stamped out.
What you are proposing is a government of feelings and not reason.
And this is the female equivalent of what men would do in their most base state.
Men would have government of strength.
Men would have it so that the most powerful man was in charge because he would just fight whoever challenged him for the rule and then he would defeat them and he would remain in power.
You are suggesting the female equivalent, which is rule by feelings, rule by group consensus.
That's not right either.
It's rule by reason.
The most reasonable and rational thing.
The best solution for everyone.
The fairest solution, Isabella.
That's what I'm advocating for.
And I think that's what practically every single anti-feminist is advocating for.
And you are advocating a rule that is not by reason.
▲
Export Selection