All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 22, 2014 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
32:06
This Week in Stupid (21⧸09⧸2014)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to a belated edition of This Week in Stupid for the 21st of September 2014.
This week I'd like to apologise that I'm a day late.
I'm sure you were all missing Jessica Valenti, so I went to The Guardian and got the first article I found.
And yes, it's stupid as fuck.
Good men don't let women get raped, so why aren't you guys doing enough?
Rape jokes, calling women sluts, protecting a friend from driving drunk instead of preventing sexual assault.
You know better, and it's on you too.
Good god, Valenti.
You make it sound like the people you prevented from driving home drunk then went on to sexually assault someone.
Jessica is obviously everyone's girlfriend.
And men, you need to do more.
Maybe you don't think you're supposed to help stop rape.
Maybe you think that's up to women.
Or maybe you don't know where to start.
Either way, you have disappointed her.
Here's how.
99% of you are great guys, but too many of you insist on pretending otherwise.
Alright, dear.
I see you on Facebook saying you were raped by a difficult standardized test.
I see you on YouTube posting the Tosh-inspired video of men lightly touching women's stomachs and running away.
Oh, I know, I know, it was juvenile.
I hear you on campus calling women sluts, but she's promiscuous.
Or remaining silent when your friends do.
They're not wrong.
I watch at the bar as you posture as if these behaviours make you more of a man.
Or at the very least, prevent you from being called a pussy, a bitch, or worst of all, a girl.
You are better than this.
And I have the sneaking suspicion that you know that already.
Fucking hell, look, can we just have a laugh, please?
can we just relax we'll we'll sit down we'll open a bottle of wine and then we'll just just relax we'll talk about other things Just de-stress you a bit.
Please?
Whenever you tell a rape joke, you may think everyone else just assumes that you don't really think it's funny, but that's not necessarily true.
Because if there's a potential rapist around you, which is always a possibility, you're essentially telling them that what they do is normal.
what do you have to say about that oh i don't none of them are rapists darling they're They're normal.
They're just the guys.
It was just a joke.
You may not think that there's a survivor of sexual violence around, but it's even more likely that you just made him or her feel awful.
What are you going to do?
You're going to apologize?
I'm pretty sure these are not outcomes you want to be a party to.
I'm I know I know I'm not it was I didn't mean to offend anyone It was just a joke.
I didn't think you could hear from all the way over there.
You know better than this already, young man.
And if you know to protect your friends from driving drunk, but do not know to stop these same people from raping women, you should know that you can do more.
Listen, sweetheart, you're going off the deep end.
You're telling me all my friends are rapists.
And instead of stopping them from raping, I'm stopping them from getting into a terrible car crash on the way home.
Come on.
On Friday morning, President Obama announced the latest part of the White House's campus sexual assault reform program.
The reform program!
A new project aimed at men on campus.
You are a men on campus.
It's called It's On Us.
Look it up.
Encouraging them to intervene.
I'm sure it will help, but I also find it profoundly depressing that young men need the President of the United States to get them to do what they already know is needed.
And what is just and step up on this issue.
What have you been doing?
Oh, he's such a mangina.
I mean, I know that you're constantly being told that you need to be tough, that boys don't cry, and however many girls you hook up with, that's somehow an indicator of your masculinity.
I imagine the standard suffocating.
That putting on a guise of impenetrable manliness every day can be exhausting.
And I'm sorry for that.
It's truly unfair.
But your silence or complicity in the face of so much sexual violence, objectification, and sexism, that's right, sexism. does not make you any tougher or cooler, nor contrarian.
It just makes you part of the problem.
You don't want to be part of the problem, do you?
No, dear, of course I don't.
And just try to imagine the other side.
Imagine how different your life would be if you were expected to live in fear of sexual violence all the time.
Well, I don't think anyone's expecting you to live in fear.
If you were expected to wear certain safe clothes and to never walk alone at night in public, to run with your keys in your hand, imagine, just imagine, if you couldn't have a cocktail at a bar, because if you did and then you neglected to take one of these measures and happened to be attacked, you would get blamed for getting raped and having a cocktail.
Oh, I'm s- Yes, okay, alright.
I jolly well think we could all stand to be just a little bit braver and act with a lot more urgency and we might not need to ask what men should be doing because it would be obvious and it would be done.
I agree dear.
I'll go and make a video about it's on us.
I really need something a bit more light-hearted now that Jessica Valenti has told us all off.
But I'll tell you what, we're not getting any for at least a week.
Satanic Temple to distribute materials to school children in Florida.
Thank fuck, this is so much nicer than Jessica Valenti.
The Satanic Temple has announced that it will provide pamphlets on Satanism to students in Florida, following the school board's decision permitting the distribution of religious materials.
Among the materials that's set to be distributed are pamphlets on the philosophy practice of Satanism, the Satanic Temple tenets, and also the sect tells school children about their legal rights to choose to practice Satanism, according to the official press release.
Oh well, that's brilliant.
I'm sure they're die-hard followers of Satan and the Christians are like, well, we do respect your beliefs.
Earlier this month, the school system made the decision to let any religious and atheist materials be provided in schools.
The temple said that although it does not agree with the school board's decision to allow religious materials in schools, it will continue to ensure that pluralism is respected whenever the church-state division is breached.
Yeah, okay, fair enough.
I think it's silly and provocative, but I can see their reasoning.
We think the responsible thing to do is ensure that these students are given access to a variety of different religious opinions, as opposed to standing idly by while one religious voice dominates the discourse and delivers propaganda to the youth.
Fair enough.
I'm quite certain that all of the children in these Florida schools are already aware of the Christian religion and its Bible, and this might be the first exposure these children have to the actual practice of Satanism.
We think many students will be curious to see what we offer.
I imagine they will.
The Satanic Temple came into the media spotlight after announcing it was going to erect a 7-foot Baphomet statue next to the Ten Commandments Monument at the Oklahoma State Capitol.
I'm sure that's in no way a deliberate dick move.
Child-friendly Satan statue for Oklahoma State Capitol awaits final judgment.
I can't really imagine a statue of Satan that children wouldn't instantly see and burst out into tears over.
But go on.
Fucking brilliant.
That in no way looks like Satan has these children under his dark spell.
Child fucking friendly.
I'm scared of that statue.
But this is also stupid, because Baphomet is just a corruption of the word Muhammad, taken from the knights templar.
When they were repressed by the church and king of France, they were accused of worshiping an idol called Baphomet, which was really just Muhammad.
There may have been templars that converted to Islam or started a strange cult of their own or whatever.
It's got nothing to do with the biblical Satan.
We decided to go for Baphomet because it is a fairly traditional character.
Lucian Greaves, spokesperson for the Satanic Temple, said, Well, I hate to break it to you, Lucian, but it's got nothing to do with Satan.
And if Satanism has got everything to do with this, then Satanism has nothing to do with Satan.
And if that's the case, why call it Satanism?
The Ten Commandments still stand at the state capital, Lucian said.
We are fully willing to replace our monument at the capital even while the LACLU suit is fought, with the understanding that a judgment against the Ten Commandments will have ramifications for our monument as well, likely resulting in the removal of both.
Exactly.
This is political.
All of this is political.
You want to distribute religious satanic materials to children and place a statue of Baphomet in your state capital designed to be child-friendly as a political statement.
I don't think you should be doing that.
And I really think that you know that this is incredibly provocative to Christians, which is entirely the reason that you are.
As for why it's important to erect a statue of Lucifer, it's not Lucifer, it's Muhammad, next to the Ten Commandments, Greaves said, we would never have suggested that satanic monuments should be represented on capital grounds if it wasn't for the fact that the Ten Commandments monument already stands there.
The idea of a solitary monument related to any one religion standing on capital grounds is offensive.
Okay, that's fine.
So you are doing this specifically because Christianity offends you.
I really doubt that if it was a Hindu statue, you'd be making a big fuss about this.
I really think this is just because it's Christian and you're Satanists and you chose to use the name Satanists because it would piss off the Christians.
And seriously, so you're doing it for selfish reasons.
You find it offensive and Satan is someone who your opposition cannot abide by so you get them in the emotions and in the in the religion.
That's fucking selfish.
Don't come out giving any bullshit about secular law and kids safety and all this sort of bollocks.
You're just as selfish as they are.
Probably more.
So we often hear from feminist academia that women have natural leadership skills.
They list these natural leadership skills as one, being self-aware by having the ability to understand yourself and the way you impact others.
Two, the ability to influence others by communicating a compelling vision.
Three, the ability to motivate others to develop themselves and spur them into action.
4. The ability to build trusting relationships.
5. And the ability to welcome and react well to feedback.
And I'm sure that, like me, you're wondering why most leadership development programs for women fail and what can we do to change that.
Empowering women's leadership is trendy, but how can the movement get some real traction?
When it comes to leadership development, the focus on women is all the rage.
As an executive coach working with senior leaders in Fortune 500 companies, I've seen a noticeable uptick in the interest of developing female leaders.
Companies are boasting about their efforts to attract and retain women, and we see more and more female-centric lists popping up.
The most powerful women spotlights on up-and-coming women and companies where women want to work.
Employee networking groups for women have also sprung up like wildflowers and with them came websites, blogs, special programs, all of them heralding the efforts to being made to bring more women into leadership.
Which is why everyone's so baffled that all of this help isn't working.
Behind the veneer of enthusiasm, the numbers of women at the top leadership positions at most companies remains largely the same.
In America's top companies, only 4.6% of Fortune 500 CEO positions and 16.9% of corporate board positions are currently held by women.
That's incredible given the great lengths that you have just explained that you've gone to to get women into these positions.
If you can't get women into these positions with all of these means that quotas and just outright favouritism that you have displayed here, then maybe, just maybe, it's you guys that are shit.
But statistically speaking, men still have the upper hand.
That's right, women, this is an arm wrestling match and women suck at arm wrestling.
So is it any wonder we've got 80% of the executive suite and corporate boards, 87% of line officer positions, 70% of management and top management positions, and we're twice as likely as women to advance and nearly four times as likely to make the jump to CEO.
And in the meantime, women hold 14% of executive officer positions, 17% of the board seats, and only 3-4% of CEOs.
Go team men!
Even with all the special help, we're literally beating you with one hand tied behind our backs.
I don't know why you guys are presenting this as some sort of gender war, but okay, that's fine and we're winning.
Mentoring programs and recruitment efforts notwithstanding, yeah, don't highlight your own failed attempts.
The real status of women in corporate America reflects the status quo best.
Obviously.
With such a track record, even the most well-intentioned corporate leaders risk inviting the cynical perspective that what they really want is a way to pretty up their image, to show off their efforts with women without really making a change.
They are desperately trying to make a change.
Women aren't cooperating.
So what can they do?
Well, one, start and end with the numbers.
This isn't about quotas, it's about data.
But it is also about quotas.
Two, give programs traction.
Leadership development programs that ostensibly prepare women for leadership roles without you ever putting them in those roles merely raise the self-image of the company that offers them, not the women themselves.
So the companies spend money training women for leadership roles, but then never give them that leadership role, so they waste money just to make themselves look good.
Is it like the patriarchy that doesn't care about profit?
3.
Include men in women's leadership.
Are you quite sure that you've thought this through?
Because that seems a bit counterintuitive.
And it seems that what you're actually asking for is what efforts are being made to include the men who hold leadership and management positions so they will also help to advance women.
You're expecting men to do the work for them and actively participate in nepotism, aren't you?
Having worked with so many executives from wide-ranging companies on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, from Times Square to the Las Vegas Strip, I can say with confidence that many company leaders spearheading efforts to advance and retain women are intentional and sincere, and results would indicate that these steps will be worth the effort.
Companies with more women in leadership have been shown to outperform their competition by more than a third.
Jesus, really?
A company that has women as leaders is 30% more profitable.
I can't believe there are any companies led by men.
Except I can.
And I'll let John Carmack explain why.
what is oculus's approach to their clear gender gap and how you're gonna not port that into vr so i will address this carefully I noted that there were some people online, even an article pointing out that Oculus Connect is mostly male.
I will point out that in the selection process, there were very few women that applied.
It was not that we selected for males, and in fact, women may have actually come out ahead in the selection process by a very slight margin.
I'm not 100% sure what we can do.
You know, this isn't a problem with VR.
This is something that is widespread in the tech industry.
And I don't think that virtual reality has any innate quality that really makes it immediately obvious that we're going to be the thing that has a lot more, you know, women becoming interested in virtual reality and coming to developer conferences or becoming game developers.
Then again, I'm not an expert on this issue.
I don't really actually know what the best way to solve it.
It's not something I'm not something that I'm that I'm equipped to do.
We are having a hard time hiring all the people that we want.
It doesn't matter what they look like.
There is a lot of something in the tech industry, and that's very clearly fear.
These feminist psychopaths can't get women to cooperate with these guys, and they're going after the guys as being responsible for it.
They're doing everything they can, you morons.
Look at them.
They look terrorized.
Oh, God, a woman has asked us a question about gender.
We did everything we could.
We had all the quotas in the world, all the affirmative action we could think of.
We just don't know what else to do.
And now she's giving us the judgy look.
I can't believe some of the shit I come across.
Psychologist, minorities are obese because of racism.
Fucking what?
Are racial microaggressions making you fat?
No!
The food you put in your mouth is making you fat.
But a professor at New Jersey Public University thinks so.
Academia is entirely compromised.
I swear to God.
A study by Rutgers University Newark claims that minorities are obese because racial microaggressions cause them to eat fast food and avoid exercise.
You are fucking kidding me, surely.
You don't think a more prosaic reason might be something like fast food is fucking delicious and exercise is hard work best avoided.
When you're exposed to negative stereotypes, you may gravitate more towards unhealthy foods as opposed to healthy foods, said Louis Rivera, the experimental social psychologist who conducted the study.
I think everything we need to know is in that guy's job title.
You may have a less positive attitude towards watching your cards or cutting back on fast food towards working out and exercising.
He explained to an idiot who was interviewing him, lapping it up, I'm sure.
What the fuck?
Rivera said Hispanics who believed negative stereotypes about themselves were three times more likely to be overweight or obese.
Evidence that the obesity comes from believing the stereotypes.
That's not evidence of that.
Correlation does not always imply causation.
I suspect that Hispanics who believe negative stereotypes about Hispanics are probably poor.
And I know that poor people are usually more likely to be obese than rich people because they can only eat shit food.
There are plenty of other reasons than racist microaggressions.
He said that these stereotypes were spread not only through the mass media, but also subconsciously through seemingly harmless social interactions, including so-called microaggressions.
Oh, I see.
This is like when a black person hands me my change and I say thank you, boy.
Right?
Because I do that every fucking day.
There are more subtle ways in conversations and interactions with each other.
Although people don't explicitly say you are A, you are B, there are ways in which those messages are communicated.
Ephemeral, just nebulous ways that I can never really explain to you, but just trust me, there are ways.
It could be teachers, it could be your parents, it could be your friends.
Rivera's study appears in this summer's journal edition of the Journal of Social Issues.
Of course it fucking does.
The Journal of Social Issues is clearly the only kind of shit rag that's going to print this.
Ethical, racial stigma and health disparities.
From psychological theory and evidence to public policy solutions.
You don't have any evidence of your theory.
I don't want you influencing public policy solutions.
You have to pay for the article, so I couldn't get it.
But it's basically a call for scientists to directly petition the government with the findings of their quote-unquote research.
This is typical social justice bullshit in action.
And they're trying to propagandize the government to engineer social change based on incredibly tenuous findings.
It seems self-evident that this has an ideological agenda.
I need something cheerier, but there isn't anything.
Socialite balanced her checkbook as son 8 lay dying next to her in her $2,300 a night Manhattan hotel suite after she fed him an overdose of crushed pills and vodka.
Fucking hell.
That is some cold shit right there.
The trial of a pharmaceutical executive and socialite worth millions who purposefully fed her young son an overdose of fatal drugs began today in New York City.
Gigi Jordan, 54, forced a cocktail of crushed pills and booze down the throat of her eight-year-old autistic son, Jude Michael Mirror, in a $2,300 a night suite at Manhattan's Posh Peninsula Hotel on February 4th, 2010.
I don't know why this has come to me now, but I couldn't not mention this.
She then balanced her checkbook and called her financial advisor to transfer $125,000 from her son's trust into her account as he lay on the bed, slowly dying next to her, the prosecution stated in their opening argument.
Fucking hell, you soulless hag.
After forcing the pills down the boy's throat with a syringe and spending the night with his body, Jordan then attempted to take her own life by consuming the same mixture of pills and vodka she gave her son.
Why transfer the money out of the account then?
Why?
But was foiled when members of law enforcement kicked down the door to the room and found her on the floor incoherent and babbling.
She immediately said to one officer, I want a lawyer.
Well, I don't know about you, but that sounds like total bullshit to me.
Why the fuck would she transfer the money out, fix her finances if she was planning to then kill herself, and why did the cops break down the door?
Why did they even turn up?
Who called them?
And the first thing she says when she's on the floor dribbling and blah, I want a lawyer.
Do you?
Do you really?
Are you sure you don't want a doctor?
The prosecution believes that she had no regard at all for her child and is a cold and calculated killer.
Miss Jordan is so distraught, so emotional, so emotionally disturbed that she balances her checkbook in that room on her bed with her dead child only a few feet away.
He then described a terrifying scene law enforcement officers walked in on when they found the two back in 2010, saying there were enough drugs in that room to fill a pharmacy shelf.
Well, the evidence seems to speak for itself.
I'd feel quite sorry for defense attorney Alan Brenner, who painted a much different picture in his opening statement, though one of a caring, loving, and devoted mother who is terrified of the suffering her son was going through.
In addition to his medical condition, Jordan alleges that her son's biological father and second husband has been sexually abusing the boy since he was an infant.
Fucking hell, why wouldn't you just tell the police?
She brought him the peace he couldn't have during his life.
She protected him from the animals that she couldn't keep from his door before then, argued Brenner desperately saying, look, I have to say something.
Brenner plans to argue that Jordan killed her son while in the grip of an extreme emotional disturbance, which would then allow the jury to convict her of manslaughter rather than murder.
Killing a person to save them from future abuse has never been recognised as a defence for murder in the state of New York or probably anywhere.
Jordan, who according to the New York Times has gone through 11 defence lawyers since she was charged over four years ago, faces up to life in prison if convicted, but will probably get off on a combination of being female and wealthy, even though the trial is expected to last until next November.
Fucking hell, that's just dark, isn't it?
I really think we need to end on something like 10 ways you are being unfaithful to your spouse and you don't even know it.
Being alert to ways spouses can be unfaithful to their mates is vital.
Otherwise you might not know they're actually being unfaithful.
These 10 behaviours can lead to the ultimate unfaithfulness.
Learn them and be on your guard.
The ultimate in unfaithfulness.
Remember this.
Number one, flirting.
Having a little playful fun at the office with a co-worker can't be too bad, but you may rationalise.
After all, flirting is fun, but avoid it like the plague.
It's dangerous.
If someone flirts with you, ignore it.
What falls into the category of flirting?
Well, everything.
Here's one explanation of what flirting is.
It usually involves speaking and behaving in a way that suggests a mildly greater intimacy than the actual relationships between the two parties would justify, even within the rules of social etiquette, which generally disapproves of direct expression of sexual interest.
This may be accomplished by communicating a sense of playfulness or irony.
Body language can include flicking the hair, eye contact, brief touching, etc.
Well, that is definitely the ultimate infidelity.
That is ultimately unfaithful.
A bit of mild flirting that in no way results in penetrative sex, touching or kissing.
But okay, I can see how flirting's on the list and it is number one out of ten, so.
Number two, confiding in the opposite gender.
This is getting a bit paranoid.
When you pour out your troubles to someone of the opposite gender, you're putting yourself in a vulnerable position.
It may seem harmless.
After all, you just needed a shoulder to cry on.
If you've got a problem, talk it out with your spouse.
What if I'm talking about my spouse to understand how I feel about them?
That's the best ever shoulder to cry on.
Not all the time.
If that's not working for you, try a trusted relative, clergyman or therapist.
Oh yeah.
Not someone who may consider this an invitation for intimacy.
Look, you can have friends who are of the opposite gender who don't actually want to be intimate with you.
Even if it doesn't start that way, too often it ends that way.
It's a form of unfaithfulness and we're not incredibly paranoid.
Number three, spending time alone with someone else.
What appears to be an innocent lunch out with someone of the opposite sex or stopping by for a chat at that someone's home without your spouse is definitely in the category of unfaithful behaviour.
You or the other person may say, hey, we're both adults, nothing's going to happen.
Well, things do happen.
It's not appropriate.
Go home and spend that time with your spouse.
Jesus Christ, this is paranoid.
Number four, talking negatively about your mate.
When you're a true friend to someone, you never say bad things about them to others.
Your mate is your best friend and is the last person you should ever talk about negatively.
If you have a beef with your honey, talk it out with him or her.
Let your conversations with others focus on the good things about your spouse.
That's being faithful.
The exception here is abuse.
Thank God you mentioned that.
If abuse is happening, you need to be reported to a trusted friend, counselor and the police.
You must keep yourself safe.
But otherwise, don't ever say a bad thing about your partner no matter how much of a harridan they're being.
Keep it all bottled inside.
Don't confide in a friend, especially not one of the opposite gender, who might be able to give you a different perspective on the situation and really help you understand.
That would be cheating.
Number five, chatting on the internet with someone of the opposite sex.
Well, I thought that went without saying, but if you think this is harmless, think again.
It may start out that way, but it definitely won't end that way.
Just, it always leads to something seedy.
This was clearly written by Christian fundamentalists.
Some have engaged in what they considered innocent talk with a former boyfriend or girlfriend through high school or college days, or even with a stranger.
One thing can lead to another, and before you know it, your marriage is in jeopardy.
Don't do it.
It will only end in sorrow and heartbreak for your family.
Fucking hell.
Number six, dressing to attract the attention of someone other than your spouse.
Well, that actually seems fairly legitimate.
If you're dressing up to look good for someone else, you need to re-examine your motives.
Trying to attract someone else by wearing a sexy-looking outfit is one more way to jump into unfaithful waters.
Yeah, okay, I'll give you that.
I think that's probably true.
Number seven, writing personal intimate notes or letters to someone else.
If you're writing a letter of condolence and congratulations or other good wishes, let it be from both you and your spouse.
Then there will be no misunderstanding about your intentions.
I'm so sorry your husband died from Sargon and not Sargon's wife.
Wink wink.
Number eight, not being a willing sexual partner with your spouse.
Now, that's what I always said.
Not putting out Jessica is being unfaithful.
Being faithful to your spouse means giving yourself over to him or her to enjoy the intimate side of your marriage.
To withhold sexual intimacy from your spouse is not doing your part in keeping your marriage strong and fulfilling.
It creates sorrow and even suspicion.
Being a faithful spouse means doing your part to make it a beautiful relationship in all aspects.
I don't agree, but I can think of relationships I've been in where I really, really want to.
Okay, number nine, putting your parents before your spouse is being unfaithful.
Your spouse must always be the number one person in your life.
If something wonderful happens to you, like a promotion, a confirmation of a pregnancy, or any other good news, you may be tempted to immediately call a parent to share in the joy.
Resist.
Let your spouse be the first one to know your good news and then share it with others.
Or you're being unfaithful.
Number 10.
Putting your children before your spouse.
Kids matter.
They are very important people in your life, but not more important than your spouse.
If you knock your spouse off the top of your priority list, you are not showing total fidelity to him or her.
Your mates must come first.
Even before your own kids.
Not only does it cement your marriage and make it stronger, it gives your children the best security blanket they'll ever have.
Well, I can see the reasoning, but I really think we need to know what situations in which we might put our kids before our spouse.
But check yourself on these points and make sure you're being 100% faithful to your spouse.
By doing this, you will create a genuinely happy and fulfilling marriage.
And fuck knows, they might be right.
Kinda seems like a lot of work though, doesn't it?
▲
Export Selection