All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 12, 2014 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
29:22
This Week in Stupid (12⧸10⧸2014)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 12th of October 2014.
This week we start seeing some of the consequences of feminism and the feminists aren't really very happy about them.
Please try to suspend your disbelief for the duration of this video.
I know you've missed Jessica, so she's back.
Because she can't stop herself from writing stupid things.
You see, she's a daily columnist for The Guardian, which means she has to produce as much meaningless prattle as possible, otherwise she doesn't get paid.
So when she says men deserve everything women get, waiting periods, purity control and science-free sex education, she also forgets about quotas, numerous gender-specific legal protections, and the benefits of the doubt, which I'm absolutely certain is proof that Jessica Valenti is actually an MRA.
As state after state strips women of their access to abortion, Jessica, women can vote too.
And the US Supreme Court rules to strip women of access to contraception.
Ugh.
16 out of 20 really isn't bad, is it?
It seems that it's only fair that men should be helped in the same way that women have been helped all these years, right?
No, darling, no.
Ugh.
After all, the laws are said to be there to protect us from ourselves, and we wouldn't want men to feel left out.
I told you, she's a goddamn MRA.
So, before engaging in any sexual act that could lead to procreation, what if all men have to undergo years of male-centric, abstinence-only education to learn about the horrors and all-round grossness of male sexuality?
I have seen married with children, Jessica, and I'm guessing you haven't.
They do undergo years of men saying, don't get married, don't get married, don't get married, and then they get married, and then they go on to tell their sons, don't get married, don't get married, and their sons go on to get married.
I guess women are just kind of persuasive or something.
But nobody says that female sexuality is gross.
I was drunk, Jessica.
I can't always perform when I'm drunk.
It's not that you're gross.
And what if the standards for how we legislated male sexuality and what we taught about it was based on scientific data of the same quality as that which is applied to women?
Well, we'll put a pin in that for now, and we'll come back to feminist sciences, okay?
Okay, now I've calmed down, Jessica, we can get to the really, really ridiculous shit.
Dear single dudes, it's time to man up.
Alright, Matt Walsh, let's hear what you've got.
Dear single men, I was having a conversation with a friend recently.
He's about my age.
He's single, and he is, I can attest, an all-round, good dude.
I can tell you're connecting with the kids by your use of the word dude.
Um, I hadn't seen him in a while, so I asked him about the status of his love life.
He told me that he's currently hanging out with someone.
What's wrong with that, Matt?
What is your problem with him just hanging out with someone?
This was what the sexual revolution was all about.
What do you mean? I asked.
Well, we've hung out a few times.
She's great.
Okay, so are you guys going out?
Is she your girlfriend?
Matt, are you his fucking mother or something?
No, I don't think so.
But we're hanging out.
We're talking.
Well, of course you're speaking to each other.
Do you talk to her on the phone?
Do you see her a lot?
Oh, no, mum, I'm sorry.
I don't see her all that much.
We're both busy.
No, mostly we text.
I've seen her a few times since we started hanging out.
So you only recently met her?
No, I've known her for a while, but we've only hung out a few times.
You've never hung out with her before.
I did, but I mean, since we started, you know, whatever.
Matt, what's your fucking problem?
You seem to have some kind of neuroses.
I'm gonna guess that you're recently married.
So Matt goes on to say, I left that conversation confused, because confusion is the name of the game these days.
Everyone is confused.
Being single means being confused.
Yeah, quick question, Matt.
Who's responsible for this?
Everyone is so confused that they don't even know what words to use when describing their relationships.
USA Today did a survey of singles a while back and they discovered something that's been apparent for years.
Nobody has any idea what's going on in their own love lives.
Close to 70% don't know if they're on a date when they go on a date.
I guess it's because most are too busy hanging out.
What is that guys?
How old are we?
Oh I see.
It's men's fault that this has happened, is it?
Oh no no I see.
Women are in no way responsible for what's going on here.
It went from courting to dating to hanging out.
Sometimes even hanging out reach too much of commitment, in which case talking can be used.
And if that sounds too serious, maybe we'll start hearing vicinitizing.
Matt, why do you give a fuck?
Why do you care how committed to women your male friends are?
Why do you care?
When did men become so afraid to make a commitment to take the lead, to say what they want, to make long-term plans, to set goals to pursue and to talk about the future?
You know what, Matt, I'm not going to answer that question.
I'm going to let people in the comments answer that question, because they all do a much better job of it than I will.
We are devolving into primates.
Matt.
Why don't you shut up if you don't know what you're saying?
Human beings are primates.
You fucking idiot.
But losing the ability to even discuss our own behaviour using words and sentences.
Alright, the average single American man is now relegated to grunts and shrugs and whatevers and you knows when pressed to have a conversation about his dating habits or his vicinity habits or his whatever habits because whatever you know.
Well, he's probably afraid of perpetuating rape culture.
Hanging out is how we describe what we do with our buddies.
Is that what you want?
Do you want that beautiful woman to be your buddy?
Or would you ideally prefer it if you could distinguish between your relationship with her and your relationship with your friend Steve?
What makes you think I don't fuck Steve?
I know you might tell me that you can decipher between the two based on who you're hooking up with, but I think that's a problem.
Of course you do.
And speaking of which, let's chill with the hookup thing.
How about you shut up and fuck off?
The phrase makes you sound like a teenager.
Grown men relying on the vague, timid code of words of high school freshmen.
It's embarrassing.
Not any more embarrassing than a blog post berating these men for reacting completely logically to the circumstances they find themselves in.
You fucking idiot.
Time to end the nonsense, gentlemen.
It's time to be grown-ups.
It's time to be men.
Now, this is the point, actually, Matt, that you kind of seem to know, but don't really seem to understand.
Men are not born, they are made.
And since society is not making men of them, because they are not required to commit, in fact, everyone in society is telling men, you are not necessary.
Men are obsolete.
Women are independent.
They don't need a man.
Okay, well, that's great, but men's raison d'être.
The whole reason for being was to be needed.
And now, they're not.
So is it any wonder there are no more men?
I know this term really offends a lot of people nowadays, but truly, fellas, let's man up.
No, fuck off.
Why should anyone man up?
Why should they?
They don't have to.
They're getting some tail.
They're having a good time.
They're doing their minimum wage job and they're playing their Xbox.
There is literally no need to change any of this.
And feminism is entirely responsible for it.
Feminism has caused this.
They have got what they wished for.
And now they wish they hadn't.
It's nobody's problem but these women's problem, man.
Men are free.
Do you understand?
Yes, they are free of this burden of patriarchal masculinity.
Honestly, Matt, why are you trying to perpetuate the patriarchy?
Trust me, I'm not innocent.
I'm married now, called it.
But I was once part of this hazy, undefined dating but not dating scene.
I never liked it, because nobody does.
I never found any happiness in it, because nobody does.
But I was part of the problem.
I was a wimpy man-child, afraid of meaningful commitments, afraid of being alone, afraid of rejection, afraid of the future, afraid of being betrayed, afraid of being loved.
Just afraid, really.
Afraid of everything.
You should indeed be ashamed of yourself for being a coward, Matt.
But then one day, I met Alyssa.
She was looking for a grown man, and I was sick of playing games.
We were both exhausted.
So do you know what we did very early in our relationship?
I don't know.
Did you swear an oath of fealty to her, you simpering fuck?
Your abject lack of sovereignty as an individual sickens me, Matt.
Anyway, he says that we defined our terms, we made our goals clear, we were open with each other, we spoke about the future, and we used words like marriage.
Did you not just use the word marriage?
We were clear and convicted and purpose-driven.
I had ambitions for our relationship.
Ambitions.
I, like, had an idea about what I was doing and why I was doing it.
Can you believe it?
I was in it for a reason.
I wanted it to become something.
Well, holy shit, Matt.
Do you know that you sound an awful lot like some sort of Uncle Tom?
You aren't apparently a full and complete person without being married.
And now you're berating other men who clearly don't need that.
Because you need that.
With Alyssa, things were pretty clear from the get-go.
We had a relationship, a real live relationship.
Oh, well done, Matt.
Well done.
A few months into it, I proposed.
Jesus Christ.
Some people wait longer, which is fine.
We're all on our own schedules.
But I promise you, despite popular sentiments, it doesn't take a decade and a half to figure things out.
Did Alyssa write this?
To be fair, Matt does actually redeem himself somewhat here.
He says, I get it.
Our disastrous modern approach to dating or whatever isn't all the fault of men.
But there's no point parceling out the blame.
Well, that's pretty much what you've been doing in this entire article, Matt.
And what's the point of dating?
If these guys can get what they want by just hanging out, why would you put any more work in?
These women don't need the men.
And I think most men need to be needed.
Here's some brutal honesty for you.
Ah, this is going to be good.
If you aren't ready for something serious, then you need to go and get yourself ready and leave these ladies alone until you do.
Matt, you fucking twat.
Until now, you weren't so bad.
I honestly just thought, right, okay, I'll just explain why you're a fucking idiot.
But now, I think you're a complete cunt.
How about you shut your fucking mouth and fuck off?
How about leaving people to their own fucking devices?
You bossy little bitch.
You can't go out and have sex and then claim that you aren't ready for something serious.
It's too late, friend.
Sex is something serious.
Yeah, tell me those words didn't come out of Alyssa's mouth.
Alright, enough of idiots talking about interpersonal relationships when they have no idea or authority to be doing so.
Battleground America.
US Army surplus is even going to coroners as militarization is rampant.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Why the fuck do you think coroners need weaponry?
What?
Listen, idiots!
There is not actually going to be a zombie apocalypse!
The Pentagon's 1033 program, which is militarizing state and local police forces with everything from high-powered firearms to armoured vehicles, is also giving weapons to officials who have no law enforcement functions.
The practice is leading watchdogs and even some US government officials to question why the US military is so desperate to unload its cache of used military hardware that it is even willing to arm a local coroner and other state and local officials who have no apparent need for firepower.
That's a bloody good question, isn't it?
Doug Wertham is the coroner at Sharp County whose working day consists of dealing with dead people.
Nevertheless, he used the Defense Department's 1033 program to acquire an assault rifle, a handgun and a fucking Humvee.
What the fuck could he possibly need a Humvee for?
I mean this is so monumentally retarded unless you look at it from the perspective that the government is about to start actively oppressing the people.
In which case you would treat the population of the United States like an occupied enemy who any one of them could be dangerous to any one of your officials and so they all have to be fucking armed.
That is the only reason that or the zombie fucking apocalypse you morons.
And you know what I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I'll think you're so fucking stupid that you actually think the dead are going to come back to life and start eating the living.
In its quest to serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient and accessible and convenient transportation system that meets the needs of our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people today and into the future, that somehow requires assault rifles.
That is ridiculous.
Any investigation into the weapons giveaway however will be hampered by the program's cloak of secrecy that only reveals information on a county level regarding the transfers.
Even though you're wearing a tinfoil hat I can still read your mind.
Meanwhile, battlefield grade equipment accounted for a fraction of the items available, with some agencies participating in the program to receive office equipment and other such goods.
Okay, that's fine, but do you really need a military hardware giveaway to give people office equipment?
It was only through information voluntarily provided to AP that it was able to discover the destination of their inventories.
Meanwhile, it was early revealed that 26 school districts have participated in the Pentagon's weapon program, which since the 90s has provided free military surplus goods, including mine-resistant armoured vehicles, grenade launchers, and M16 rifles.
The last month, San Diego Unified School Police District Department, SDUSD, announced that it had received from the federal government a $700,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle similar to the models used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why?
Don't you think the coroners will be able to take care of the zombies?
The ongoing militarisation of school police departments has been explained by instances of violence on school grounds, most notably the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, which left 15 dead.
And the worst part is that that's a fucking good reason.
But two dozen civil rights groups sent a letter to Pentagon officials, urging them to stop militarising US school police departments.
Adding the presence of military-grade weapons to school climates that have become increasingly hostile due to their over-reliance on the police to handle routine student discipline can only exacerbate existing tensions.
I agree with this.
I think this whole thing is very unwise.
And it's got to the point of absurdity.
How the fuck can you justify arming a coroner with an assault rifle and a Humvee?
Alright, that's getting a bit serious.
Let's get back to something silly.
Women, down your tools.
Why it's finally time to stop doing all the housework.
New research shows that women do almost twice as much housework as men.
Rennie confronts the elephant lurking in most of our homes.
Ladies, I'm afraid that you're going to have to understand that this is a battle you will not win.
So plenty of research is done to prove what everyone already knows.
The women do most of the housework.
And apparently this is nothing new.
In 1972, legendary socialist feminist activist, brilliant, Selma James formed the International Wages for Housework campaign, presumably before she was committed to an asylum.
Together with the founding members Bridget whatever, whoever, I don't care who these people are.
But they argued that running of a home forms the basis for all work in society.
Yes, it may well do that.
And then people work and earn money.
You cannot get paid for something that doesn't earn.
Children will not make it to school if they are not washed and dressed and fed.
Husbands would crumble if they returned from work to an untidy house with no dinner on the table.
Labour underpinned all labour, yet it was heavily gendered, unpaid and undervalued.
Well, I doubt the husbands were busy undervaluing it in the 70s, to be honest.
It really seems to have been undervalued by the feminists.
And now these are feminists saying, well, we still like being housewives.
We just want money for being housewives so we don't have to listen to our husbands.
And that seems like a highly relevant point to make in 2014 when hardly anyone is even dating.
We are seen as nagging bitches, not workers in a struggle, wrote Sylvia Federici in Wages Against Housework, published in 1975.
I don't know why you're quoting this.
None of you are getting married.
Given how few people are married, I don't see how this is relevant.
But after being told that our world is for the taking, we find ourselves playing out the same acts as our mothers did a generation before us.
Okay, any idea why?
It was in 1963 that Betty Friedman identified this unpaid, undervalued labour as the problem that has no name.
Yeah, yeah.
Fulfilling your half of the partnership that is a marriage is the problem with no name.
White educated middle class women had been sold a lie.
Who sold them the lie?
They were told that suburban housewife living would be fulfilling.
They were supposed to enjoy dedicating themselves to a life of unpaid work.
In 2014, the dynamics of work have changed drastically.
Sorry, yeah, you are now dedicating your lives to paid middle management.
Good job.
That's magnificent.
That's so much more rewarding than taking care of your family.
I would much rather you guys do the middle management jobs.
And I'll stay at home and do the housework.
Take care of the kids.
And I'll probably play on my computer all damn day.
And this will be so damn good for me that all my buddies will want to marry all your buddies and will completely revolutionise the single parent problem that we're having.
And all men will be at home during the day from about 11 o'clock in the afternoon to about 2 o'clock in the afternoon with nothing to do.
I imagine there's probably going to be a fair amount of online play going on at that point.
But it's only about three hours in the middle of the day while you're at work.
Anyway, being serious again, she goes on to say, we're all working now.
While women who claim benefits are chided for their failed work ethic, popular feminist struggles have switched from the struggles of women at the bottom to concerns of the women at the top, penetrating parliament and occupying spaces on corporate boards.
Fewer women are being raised solely with housewife aspirations.
We are more likely to be able to make a genuine choice on the matter.
It's weird that you think women haven't always been able to work if they want to.
It's always just been familial pressure and societal pressure, but there's never been anything standing in anyone's actual way if they want to work.
Legally, at the very least, in 1963, when the Equal Pay Act was brought in in America.
And it was in 73 in the UK.
So which is why they go in 1971, Selma James reported for a BBC documentary on women's labour called Our Time is Coming.
Jesus, that's ominous.
In it, a woman shop worker explains, I set my alarm at 6 in the mornings and I do some of my housework.
I leave home at 8.30am, reach work at 9, finish at 3.30pm, reach home at 4.30pm, start the cooking, and the rest of the work until about 6.30 to 7 in the evening until supper.
Okay, that was in the 70s, and she was probably poor.
That's a 13-hour day, with only some of that work valued enough to be paid.
Some of it only served a purpose to that woman, you dick.
Can we honestly say that this is no longer the case for many women?
On today's research, Women's Hour presenter Jane Garvey wryly comments, times have changed.
Women are no longer trapped in the home.
They can go out to work and come back and start the housework.
Oh, that's a gigantic change from the 70s.
She did some of her housework in the morning, but now she goes to work first and then does the housework.
Of course, couples and families with enough disposable income can hire a cleaner.
Alright, let's find out how that's a bad thing.
But that's just sticking a plaster over the problem.
Outsourcing to low-paid working class women who are overwhelmingly employed by agencies on zero-hour contracts.
Are you suggesting that no women should be poor?
I mean, I'm poor, and I know other women who are poor, because they don't do work that is worth a lot of money, like cleaning.
For example, some of them are cleaners.
So it's really hard to see what you're saying.
And I actually have an incidentally male friend who has worked for these cleaning companies for quite well-off homes.
And they get paid £8.50 an hour, which is alright if you're poor in this country.
Where the minimum wage is like £6.25 or £6.40 or something.
So are you just suggesting that women should be a rich and privileged class?
Or what?
Because apparently it's the overwhelming opposite of feminist solidarity.
Who's looking after the cleaner's kids?
caring for her home yeah if you would fucking hell Yes, if you were all just at home caring for your own fucking homes, you wouldn't be having any of these problems, would you?
The answer is too often a friend's family or worst case scenario.
This is ridiculous.
It's not necessarily a bad thing for only one parent to work.
If everyone did it, there'd be a lot more jobs in the economy, wouldn't there?
I imagine there'd be a lot less unemployment for it.
I thought not having to work was the end goal of technological progress.
So she ends this with a call for women to down their tools.
Literally, I think she means.
And walk out.
So now it's a race to the bottom.
So any women still left in relationships?
How about you down your tools?
Let's see who gets pissed off with the mess first.
Because boyfriends are well known for their nagging.
And for some reason, they include this picture in the article.
Because so many modern women can relate to it, I'm sure.
Okay, to finish up this particularly rambly episode, let's finish on some social justice.
I accidentally went on a date with a bigoted homophobe.
I'll just sum this one up.
Single woman starts dating, she has crazy expectations.
She spends six months getting fat and being a slob, and nothing happens.
And surprise, surprise, she lives in San Francisco.
And she has finally run into the conclusion of what social justice does to men.
She says, I have this theory that the men in San Francisco are so steeped in feminist rhetoric, and like nine times out of ten, I am so into that headspace, that they will not directly approach a woman unprompted.
It's like, I don't want to assume that just because she's at the bar reading a book, that she wants someone to talk to her.
I don't want to assume that that's just because there's a gaggle of girls in short dresses that they want some men folk to compliment them.
Shit, I don't even want to assume that she's into men.
Yes, that is exactly what everyone said would happen.
And she goes on to say, while all this hypothetical gender-behavioral morass is mostly awesome, nine times out of ten, I probably don't want you coming anywhere near me.
I was used to New York City, where it wasn't happening.
Well, this is the result of, as you say, feminist rhetoric.
This is what it does.
And you're not happy with the result.
So this is Jonathan McIntosh, Anit Sarkeesian's boyfriend and advisor to Silverstring Media with their openly feminist company policy.
Let's have a look at some of his tweets just to see exactly what these social justice men that populate San Francisco think.
I'm interested in the feminist rhetoric that they're steeped in.
As usual, there's simply no point contacting them.
They're never going to change their minds.
These people are dying in the wool.
See?
I'd like to also note that there can be no serious examination of toxic masculinity in gaming without a critical look at themes of violence as power.
I cannot in good conscience keep visiting The Escapist after they gave a supportive platform to cyber harassers and rape apologists today.
And retweeting, guys, this is the war on industry women.
Wake up.
Yeah, that sounds like crazy feminist rhetoric to me.
The more control you give to the player, the less ability you have to send a coherent message or offer a coherent experience.
Hashtag Gamergate.
That's exactly the point.
The less control I have in a game, the less I like it.
Brutalized violence has been normalized, glamorized, and celebrated in gaming for so long that to even question it now is considered blasphemy.
Mario was pretty heavy, man, but I didn't really picture all the blood and guts in my own head because I can separate fantasy from reality.
You know what, when they say not everyone knows the difference between fancy and reality, I think that they're telling us the truth.
I think they're telling us that they don't know the difference between fantasy and reality.
And that's why they're demanding all of this be done because these people just can't tell.
I can't understand why you'd be fighting so vigorously to say that everyone knows the difference between fancy and reality is part of the problem.
If you were the one who wasn't, especially if everyone was saying, look, it's just fancy.
Everyone knows it's not real.
Jesus Christ, I mean, what the fuck's wrong with you people?
Oh, I'm serious.
He's retweeted, if you were afraid of the reader backlash from speaking out against a movement that literally includes Nazis, Gamergate apparently being inclusive of Nazis, imagine how the powerless gaming press feel.
This is literal madness.
I mean, the only person I've heard even vaguely connected to the concept of Nazism was Ian Miles Chung, and he's a social justice warrior.
But not only that, we're facing literal communists.
So, what the fuck?
You guys literally are Marxist.
You know?
You're actually literally trying to do that, and it sounds like some crazy term.
And you people are actually trying to achieve it.
And it seems like you're trying to achieve it, Jonathan, because you cannot control yourselves.
You can't control your thoughts or actions.
You see someone shooting people on a computer game screen and you interpret that as it actually being done.
And it seems to have a dramatic effect on you, which is why you do all of this kind of activism.
But most people aren't like that.
So just avoid it.
Just don't, you shouldn't really be in gaming if that's your trigger.
You should really be off playing Farmville or Candy Crush.
It's not the same industry.
This guy is literally just another Jack Thompson coming to end violence in video games because it's so dangerous.
After all, he does think that a social justice warrior is someone who cares more about people than video games.
And that there isn't any room for neutrality anymore.
Silence is a tacit support for harassment and death threats and that's unacceptable.
So either become a social justice warrior or become the enemy.
This is what these people are like.
▲
Export Selection