All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 24, 2014 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
50:09
This Week in Stupid (24⧸11⧸2014)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 23rd of November 2014.
This week we're going to enjoy the complete death of standards as feminists realise they've ruined everything.
So let's start with something funny.
Mattel apologises for depicting Barbie as an incompetent computer engineer.
So feminists have discovered a book about Barbie that was printed in 2010.
In Barbie I Can Be a Computer Engineer, Barbie is depicted as totally incompetent, dependent on the help of men, and unable to even restart her computer, which doesn't represent any women anywhere.
We believe girls should be empowered to understand that anything is possible and believe they live in a world without limits.
We apologise that this book didn't reflect this belief.
All Barbie titles moving forward will be written to inspire girls' imaginations and portray an empowered Barbie character.
I tell you what, there's really something about the line we believe girls should be empowered to understand that anything is possible and believe they live in a world without limits that really makes the anti-Barbie even funnier because now she's short, dumpy and has acne cellulite and stretch marks.
Reach for the stars!
Nothing is beyond your grasp except being slim and attractive.
The anti-Barbie the Lamelee doll has gone on sale, creating the image of a normal 19 year old woman of real proportions, complete with the possibility for adding plastercast, freckles, acne, scars and temporary tattoos.
Does anyone remember when playing games was about fantasy?
When you'd do things for fun because you couldn't do them or experience them in real life.
But anyway, the idea behind the doll was to make one that reflects the real image of typical young women rather than the overly idealised and clearly underweight Barbie doll, who is, according to an interview with second graders and a recent book, not entirely capable of rising to certain professions.
That's right, because just because Barbie didn't do computer studies at school, because she didn't graduate with a degree in computer studies from university, doesn't mean she can't be a computer engineer.
She has a vagina.
That means she's qualified.
As well as the ability to add a plaster cast, freckles, scars, acne and tattoos, you can also give her glasses, stretch marks, mosquito bites, and dirt stains.
My goodness.
Talk about reaching for the stars.
So this is Barbie next to her short dumpy cousin.
And to be honest with you, looking at the proportions, I would be far more attracted to a woman who had the proportions on the right.
I mean, Barbie has got no ass whatsoever.
So the creator took the doll for a test run at an independent school in the US, where second grade kids remarked on how pretty the doll was, with many stating that she looked like her sisters or aunts.
Hey, I don't know what girls like.
I have no idea.
But all I know is that if I was a kid, I wouldn't want an action man that looked like my uncle, because my uncle is 5'7 and pretty damn rotund.
They were asked to name the job the doll might have, with suggestions spanning swimmer to teacher, to a computer job, to pilot.
However, the kids said that Barbie probably had a fashion job.
Presumably they'd all been previously given that Barbie book, and so already knew that Barbie's pretty shit with computers really.
Here's another version of the real life Barbie with brown hair and stretch marks.
Just bravo, bravo, just be everything you can be.
Be everything you're capable of being.
Don't in any way strive to better yourself or achieve an unrealistic ideal in any way.
There's no point.
Which actually reminds me of something.
Look at this motherfucker.
All those years of playing with He-Man when I was a kid, and Skeletor as well in fact now I think about it, no one told me that to look like this, you had to spend your entire fucking life in the gym.
No one said anything.
And surprise, surprise, when I grew up, I looked nothing like him at all.
Which is why I'd like you to sport my Kickstarter, to make an anti-He-Man doll with the proportions of this gentleman.
I don't want my sons growing up thinking that they have to be all buff and muscular to save the universe.
I want my sons to know they don't have to be incredibly buff to save the universe, because I'm some sort of psychotic retard who's converted to feminism.
Next on our list of idiots, woman stands up for female sexuality by wearing lingerie in public.
Oh, so brave.
Just so brave.
Feminist performance artist Diana Oh is taking a stand in support of female empowerment.
God bless you Diana.
You actually look surprisingly like regular Barbie with dark hair.
The actress and artist, and it doesn't take much to be an artist if you're a feminist does it, created a performance art installation called My Lingerie Play, in which she and other women stand on elevated platforms in crowded areas of New York, including Times Square, wearing nothing but lingerie.
Well it's not Rembrandt, but it's something.
Her goal?
To bring awareness to the criticism that accompanies women expressing their sexuality and independence.
As part of the performance arts, O and her female volunteers hold signs that vividly describe violations women face due to society's perception of the female body.
Maybe she hasn't seen this Barbie yet, because as far as I can tell, society views female bodies as generally being plump with scars and stretch marks.
Which frankly accurately depicts the reality of female bodies that I personally have experienced.
So I don't see any problem with any of this.
I mean these violations do include everything from being catcalled to being told to be unnaturally thin, which is probably part of the cat calling.
O created a public service announcement to publicize my lingerie play and invited other women to participate in the movement.
Oh yes, this is now its own movement.
Now it is a movement to stand in public places in lingerie saying people are critical of my sexual preferences.
Here's an idea.
Why don't you just tell them to fuck themselves?
Why don't you just say hey I don't care.
I just don't care what your opinion of me is.
Or you could stand in public for hours on end in your lingerie while people gawk at you as they walk past.
It's your choice.
Our sexualization, she explains, is our own.
Women should be able to express themselves and their own bodies without being subjected to discrimination or victimization.
Her conclusion is simple, she says.
The conclusion is simple, she says.
The solution is to change the way we are talked about.
Holy shit.
When the simplest solution is to change what other people do rather than to change what you personally do, either the entire world is evil and out to get you, or you have gone mad.
She stands there holding bags that read, I'm standing in my lingerie because I'm a woman who enjoys wearing lingerie but does not enjoy.
Being catcalled, being trafficked, being sold, being owned, being told to be unnaturally thin, being told to age unnaturally.
You fucking what mates.
Have you ever been trafficked?
Have you ever been sold?
Have you ever been owned?
And how can anyone say don't you dare age unnaturally?
As if anyone has any fucking control over their own aging process?
What kind of retardation is this?
Why is this woman not being given the help she clearly needs?
She doesn't deserve to be street harassed and followed home by a carful of men at two in the morning.
Citation.
Being asked to fuck you like a bitch or suck on these nuts and lick the dick, citation.
Being called a hoe, citation, a tramp, citation, a stupid girl's citation, or a little Asian friend, what?
Citation.
And being told that you love my lack of self-respect citation and that you got these bitches all tipsy trying to sex you.
Citation.
I'm standing here in my lingerie because I'm a woman who enjoys wearing lingerie and many other things.
Citation.
I think we'd better have a look at these citations.
So being followed home at 2am by a car full of men actually happened.
Okay, that's the one thing that wasn't very nice, and all you can really do is tell them to fuck off.
Two, actual lyrics.
Okay, but they weren't aimed at you personally, were they?
3.
Actual lyrics that aren't from hip-hop songs, same as above, and 4.
See you next time.
Not bloody likely.
The feminist movement reached new lows this week as feminists shove crucifixes up their anuses to express hatred towards God.
Yep, there we have it, class act.
That's feminism for you.
Really raising the bar and empowering women to do whatever it is the fuck they want, no matter how crazy or offensive it is to other people.
The three women pulled their stunt on St. Peter's Square, the enormous plaza located right in front of St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City.
Two of them had Keep It Inside scrawled across their backs, an apparent reference to their anger that the Pope's activities extend beyond the tiny papal enclave in Rome.
Is this a surprise?
Is this some sort of fucking massive surprise?
That the millions of Catholics around the world would like the Pope to come and visit them.
The trio, decked out in nothing but black ankle boots, leather miniskirts and flower garlands, dropped to all fours and began simulating a lewd act with the crucifixes.
I mean, really, is that how you want to be remembered?
Do you want to be those very brave, very empowered women who sat there wanking off with crucifixes in front of the Pope?
Is that...
I mean, it...
Is that acceptable to you as a person?
Is that what you want other people to know about you?
Thank God the patriarchy was on hand as they covered up the women's bare breasts with coats and the cops dragged them off with one woman crying, the Pope is not a politician!
God is not a magician!
Which has got to be one of the stupidest cries I've ever heard in my life.
The Pope has always been a politician.
The Pope has always been a political figure.
And saying God is not a magician, well, actually, if God exists, then pretty much he would be a magician.
I mean, that's miracles, creating shit out of nothing, that's pretty magical.
Anyway, these are pretty extreme actions from what I presume are a group of school teachers.
And I presume this because Chicago schools teach anal sex to fifth graders.
If you're outside the US, fifth graders are between the ages of 10 and 12.
Andrew Jackson Language Academy hosted several parent workshops during a report card pickup on Wednesday, including a meeting on Chicago Public Schools' Sex Ed Curriculum.
Parents were given a binder that included the materials and topics that would be discussed, including the benefits of female condoms for extending sex and increasing pleasure, and the use of lubrication and how to insert condoms into the anus for anal sex.
I just can't imagine what the thought process was leading up to this decision.
It must have been something like, well, kids at that age are starting to become interested in the opposite sex, aren't they?
Hmm, you're right.
Maybe we should teach them about stuffing things up their asses.
Parents were notified of Wednesday's presentation in a letter, which said, the CPS representative would be at the meeting where we will share the lessons and information that will be taught to your child, with some of these lessons even intended for children in kindergarten.
The letter said that the topics included personal safety, human reproduction and childbirth, puberty, abstinence and healthy relationships.
Fourth graders and above would also learn information about HIV AIDS and sexually transmitted infections.
Students in fifth grade and above would also learn about contraception, pregnancy prevention and lessons would include condom demonstration as the letter stated.
Another Chicago elementary school posted the materials and slides that were included in the binder online.
The presentation included links to demonstration videos from Planned Parenthood, the Female Health Company and Teaching Sexual Health.
The latter provides guidance on age appropriateness.
The videos should only be used for grades 8 to 12 and also includes material called the 411 on female condoms that was developed by the Chicago Female Condom Campaign.
You know, people with a vested financial interest in this.
CPS officials said that the questionable material presented at AJLA was a mistake.
The objectional material presented at the Academy this week was not and never was part of the student sexual education curriculum.
It was mistakenly downloaded and included in the parent presentation, and we agree with parents that it is not appropriate for elementary school students.
Which sounds like total bullshit to me because they did write in a letter to the parents that they would be given this information and they were given binders full of information about it.
Apparently, only teachers were supposed to see the material.
Well, why would they need that if it wasn't on the curriculum at all?
School officials say they are taking steps to make sure that teacher resources and supplemental materials are kept separate from the curriculum.
Why are these teacher resources?
That would imply it's part of the fucking curriculum.
Unless teachers really need to be shown how to insert a condom into their anus.
I think it's time for a lesson in Doublethink.
The gender pay gap has fallen to a record low, and women in their 20s and 30s earn more on an hourly basis than their male counterparts.
So for women in their 20s and 30s, there is no gender pay gap.
In fact, there is a gender pay surplus.
It's Marxism for the win, however, as the difference between the average earnings of men and women in the UK has narrowed to its smallest gap since records began, with women in their 20s and 30s now earning more than their male counterparts.
Well, goddamn, that is not what they wanted at all.
They wanted to earn the same.
So those women are now going to have to take a fucking pay cut, aren't they?
The Forset Society, the exploitative women's charity behind the This Is What a Feminist Looks Like t-shirt, you know, the ones exploiting third world women of colour to make t-shirts for pennies for wealthy first world feminists, calls this age discrepancy the motherhood penalty.
It's almost like if you don't work, you don't get paid, which is indeed disgraceful.
They should be paid for having children.
But I agree with Joe Swinson, Minister for Women, Inequalities and Business, who said that the vision has to be eliminating the pay gap completely.
I'm totally with you, Joe.
So what are we going to do to reduce the wages of 20 to 30 year old women and increase the wages of 20 to 30 year old men?
So we're at parity.
Because, like you said, we've got to eliminate that pay gap.
Remember, it's not the women's pay gap or the female pay gap, it is the gender pay gap.
So no matter which gender you are, if you're experiencing a pay gap, it has to be fixed.
Women are vital to the success of our long-term economic plan, and we need to make the most of their skills at every age.
We have more women in work than ever before, but businesses need to value diversity in their workforce and pay attention to the role of women in their organisations.
I must be the last person on earth who thinks that working for a soulless corporation is another cog in the machine, so someone else's profit margin can be increased at the expense of your labour, probably underpaid at that, is a good thing.
And then they go on to say that the gender pay gap has been eliminated in Northern Ireland, where female full-time workers earn more per hour than their male counterparts.
Listen, you fucking retard.
That is still a gender pay gap.
Now it is just in favour of women and not men.
And how did it happen?
The higher proportion of public sector jobs in this region than in the rest of the UK.
Oh yes, the public sector, the sector that fucking powers the economy, rakes in the cash.
Oh wait, no, it doesn't.
It's funded by the fucking taxpayers.
Private sector jobs are false economy, you morons.
They are not real economic growth.
Nikki Morgan, Minister for Marxism, said that she was delighted that the gender pay gap has been reduced to its lowest point in history.
Spoken like a true Ingsock party member, Nikki.
Although there is apparently more to be done.
Go on, what more?
Is the gender pay gap not high enough now?
Are women not earning enough more than men now?
I mean, do men need to be earning 75% of what women earn?
Have you been speaking to Jessica Valenti?
International Men's Day.
It can be a great feminist cause.
Seriously, where does this shit end?
Where do they say, okay, you know what?
We've gone, we've gone far enough.
Today is International Men's Day, an occasion that sounds like a rearguard action by besieged misogynists.
Just fucking hell, this is just...
This is as openly man-hating as Jessica Valenti's I Bathe In Male Tears shirt.
Founded in 1999, International Men's Day promotes men's health and well-being, better gender relations, and positive male role models.
Yeah, that does sound like a rearguard action by besieged misogynists, doesn't it?
It's also an excellent opportunity for men to do their part against gender equality.
Well, they've certainly managed to fix that inequality in the workplace, haven't they?
Across the world, women are the more oppressed sex.
That's very interesting, but I don't live across the world.
I live in the UK, and in the UK, they are certainly not.
It's easy to understand why people fighting these injustices would hear a woe is me theme from something called International Men's Day.
As Michael Kaufman and Gary Barker put it in the Huffington Post, IMD is redundant, as every day of the year is a man's day.
Oh yeah, yeah, that's true.
I mean, every day is man's day.
Yeah, you know, they just celebrate men.
I mean, it's not like that wouldn't sound like a rearguard action by misogynists.
A rearguard means you're on the defensive, you are retreating, but you're an idiot.
That's the thing.
This person who's written this article is a fucking moron.
A culture of silence surrounds men in most places.
It is still deemed inappropriate and not masculine to cry.
Listen, genius.
It's not masculine to cry.
Crying is a sign of weakness.
How could that be masculine?
But according to the Center FOR Disease Control AND Prevention, 79 of all suicides in the United States are committed by men.
Probably because every day is men's day, isn't it?
Research has consistently shown that young men are less likely to tell anyone when they're the victims of rape or domestic violence.
Probably because every day is men's day.
And men are also significantly less likely to seek help with depression or any other mental health problems and 24 less likely to visit a doctor.
That's because of male privilege.
Disease doesn't really go for men, it's.
It's actually 75 less likely to go for men, which is why only 24 go to visit the doctor and the other 1 are just lazy.
According to TIME Magazine.
Experiments have shown that, while people are quick to intervene when a man in a staged public quarrel, becomes physically abusive to his girlfriend, reactions to a similar situation, with the genders reversed, mostly range from indifference to amusement or even sympathy for the woman, because every day is man's day, isn't it?
You dipshits?
I feel like i'm being gaslighted.
Yes, it's true that many of these men are surely blind to their own privilege and status in the world and within their own cultures.
Yeah, it's all that suicide privilege, I imagine.
You know, I know, I know.
This is why the feminists call me an mra.
But honestly, if I went to an alien civilization and they had two genders that didn't operate in any way like men or women, and one of the genders was constantly going on about how the other gender was so oppressive to them and the other gender were the ones committing suicide 80% of the time, I would really, really have difficulty believing the gender that claimed that it was being oppressed by them, because oppressive people don't commit suicide more often than the oppressed.
That's nonsense.
That is just the most ridiculous stupid, retarded shit I have ever heard.
In fact, who wrote this article?
Ashwin Murphy?
You're a fucking moron.
You are some sort of brainwashed halfwit who really needs to actually look at the content of his own fucking article and then try and pick out the bits that are you showing how you are clearly brainwashed and how you are clearly trying to reconcile his conditioning with what the statistics tell you.
International Men's Day is not for feminists.
Get that through your fucking moronic skull.
And I'm so angry about this because feminists have got to nine-year-old boys.
Honestly, what nine-year-old boy has anything that they dislike about masculinity?
Why would they even think about the concept?
Shouldn't they be out enjoying their childhood, playing with action heroes and climbing trees and riding bikes and doing things that kids do?
No.
They should be discussing feminist dogma.
Because in honour of International Men's Day, some twat on Twitter posted a photo of a list of things that nine-year-old boys said they don't like about being male.
Why are they being fucking well asked what they don't like about being male?
Why would you do that to these poor children?
The list in full is not being able to be a mother, not supposed to cry, not allowed to be a cheerleader, supposed to do all the work, supposed to like violence, supposed to play football, boys smell bad, having an automatic bad reputation and growing hair everywhere.
Fucking hell just Why do these poor boys think that they automatically have a bad reputation?
Who has been propagating this idea?
Who has taught these children this idea?
Where have they picked it up?
Where, why, why would the first thing was, I won't be a mother.
No young boy when I was a child cared about being a mother.
Not one of them.
Not one of them ever said, oh, I don't, I just, I'm just really disappointed.
I won't be able to be a mother.
They were like, I'm disappointed.
I won't be able to be Panthro, but they weren't bothered about not being able to be a fucking mother.
The list comes from a workshop of demons held in 2012 as part of the White Ribbon Campaign, a worldwide movement of men and boys seeking to end the violence against women and girls, promote gender equality, healthy relationships, and a new vision of masculinity, in which boys vilify themselves constantly, I can only presume.
In this workshop, White Ribbons community engagement psychopath Jeff Pereira gathered a group of 50 fourth grade boys and asked them, what do you like or dislike about being a boy?
Why?
Why would you ask them this kind of question?
Why would it be something you would bring up?
And do you really think that gender equality and healthy relationships have been achieved when these boys go, well, I just feel really bad because I'm going to have an automatically bad reputation for being a man?
In his reflection of the event, Pereira says he was particularly struck by the first item on the list, not being able to be a mother.
He tried to talk to the boy who came up with that response.
I said, but you could be a father.
That's what you could do.
Be a dad.
He looked at me with a confused face as if I just spoke in another language.
Holy fucking shit.
Do you think it was men and the patriarchy that destroyed the nuclear family?
In Britain, less than 50% of young boys grow up with their fathers in their household.
Is it any wonder they have no idea what being a dad is like?
And yet somehow, this is going to be blade on masculinity, which really, really pisses me off.
And it's with this in mind that we come to the story of Julian Blanc, an American dating coach who has been denied visas in Australia and Brazil for his misogyny, and should the UK follow suit.
Julian Blanc is disgusting.
His views are blatantly sexist, misogynistic, and very often racist.
He's the kind of man you'd try to swerve in a nightclub, and his YouTube videos are so offensive they should carry an X rating.
He's every woman's worst nightmare, and what's worse is that he makes a living out of preaching his views to others.
Wow, that is quite a strident and damning indictment from a feminist perspective.
For those of you who had never heard of Blanc, and I hadn't, he is a pickup artist, otherwise known as a rather dubious dating coach.
He charges hapless men hundreds of dollars to pimp their game with tutorials that promise to make girls beg to sleep with you after short-surfing their emotional and logical mind into a million reasons why they should.
In other words, he teaches men how to trick, manipulate, and emotionally abuse women for sex.
Alright, hang on.
Trick, manipulate, fine.
I can believe that.
But I really think you should quantify this emotional abuse because that is a rather serious charge.
And now he could end up in the UK for the next leg of his odious tour, giving seminars to men.
However, a change.org petition has sprung up asking the Home Office to deny Julian Blanc a UK visa and it has more than 100,000 signatures on it.
His website also offers a last-minute resistance course to help her that last extra step.
And he promises he'll help men get her to do crazy sexual things once she's in the trance of sex and will teach men how to pull a camera on her.
It's clear that Blanc is a reprehensible excuse for a human being, but, and this is the crux of it, does this mean we should deny him entry into our country, thus cutting off his ability to share his views with British men?
Okay.
A, there is no way you can stop him sharing his views with British men.
They have the internet, he has the internet.
That's a fucking stupid thing to say.
Also, two, I don't agree that we should deny him entry into the country, because we are doing so for ideological reasons.
If Julian Blanc was doing something illegal, you would have said it.
There is no fucking way that this author would have left off his illegal activities from this list of things.
And before I go on, I just want to make something clear.
I don't really like Julian Blanc.
He seems like a sleazy git.
You know, and I've got no interest in associating with him or even defending him.
But what they are trying to do is wrong because they are trying to ban him from the country based on ideological views, their ideological views, because they don't like what he's doing.
Before we continue with the article, I think we better have a quick look at some of Julian's actual work.
It's like you should have, you know, like multiple little excuses you can give her to get her one step closer to your place.
Okay, like who here actually has that?
Like who here knows between where they're going to pull the girl, like where you're staying and where you're going, what are some of the after hours places that are open?
How are you going to get her out of the club?
How are you going to get her there?
How are you going to get her there?
How are you going to get her in your room?
Okay.
How are you going to get her on your bed?
How are you going to get her clothes off?
Okay, how are you going to transition into sex?
What if she says this?
Then what are you going to say?
And what if she says this?
Then what are you going to say?
Okay.
What if her friends come in?
What if she's like, no, my friends, what are you going to say?
Okay.
Do a lot of you know?
Probably not.
You're like, well, deal with it when it happens.
It's like, no.
You should be thinking about that constantly.
Okay.
Like for me at this point here, it's like no matter what a girl throws at me, I know exactly like, okay, I could say this, this, this, this, this.
This, this, this, this, this.
Okay.
I also have like autopilots on hand.
Like when I'm pulling, I have like all these little words where I'm like after party, adventure, now.
It makes it better, it makes it sexier.
Don't worry about it.
Irrelevance, after party, adventure, now, don't worry about your friends.
Two seconds around the corner, we'll be right back.
Your friends will know you're gone.
Tell them you're going to the bathroom, text your friend, after party, adventure, my friend's party, adventure, after party, now, makes it sexier.
Don't worry, it's okay.
Irrelevant, now, after party.
It's like I have that like bullets like that, okay?
Like, I have that on autopilots, okay?
Like, do you guys have something like that on autopilots?
If you're not on top of that, if you're not like even trying to cut her thoughts before they come in, like, if I'm like, let's go, the girl's probably gonna say some bull excuse.
I'm like, irrelevant, before she even says it, right?
Now, if she keeps barreling with the excuse, then I'm gonna address it.
Like, no, no, it's okay.
We're just going around the corner.
It's fine, it's fine.
And start baby stepping it.
But I'm like, proactive as okay.
If you don't have that on autopilot, you're gonna be like, oh, irrelevant.
Like, after you won't even know what to say, or you'll just give up.
Okay?
I'm like analyzing that every time.
When I see another guy in set, I'm also asking myself, what would I do if I was him?
If I was that guy, if you have a wingman who got rejected or who didn't pull, ask yourself, if I was him, how could I pull?
How could I have done it?
What are some of the things that he could have done differently?
So, in my opinion, I think that this sort of thing is kind of sad and pathetic and speaks to a dramatic lack of character and the person doing it and the people paying for it.
But it's really not that reprehensible.
I mean, let's look at this for example.
Today's conversation is going to be on how to attract a rich, wealthy man.
Men are attracted to women for many different reasons.
When a man first meets a woman, of course, the attraction is based on looks, lust, but it's not enough to keep his attention.
A woman's personality, sincerity, intelligence are the keys to keeping him.
Women, they believe that the art of seduction has to do with the way we look or how sexual we can be.
So their belief is if you want to attract the man, you need to make him desire you sexually.
Well, if you believe that, then you're completely wrong because seduction is more than just seducing a man sexually.
It's learning to seduce a man mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and of course, but not least, sexually.
Really, how is this any different?
As far as I can tell, these are both just methods of seduction.
They are not rape manuals.
They are not misogynist or misandrous manuals.
They are just people who want to know how to get what they want.
The power is entirely with the person they are trying to seduce.
The person they are trying to seduce can at any time say no and walk off.
So when the author of this piece says his views are sexist, misogynistic, and very often racist, and that he's every woman's worst nightmare, I have to wonder how much of this is ideologically driven, propagandistic bullshit.
Don't get me wrong, he might be all of these things, but from what I've seen, he just seems to be a guy who wants to get laid.
Just like that woman from the clip was a woman who wanted to get a rich husband.
These are not evil motivations.
Although I'm more than happy to concede that their methods for trying to achieve their ends are questionable.
They're not illegal.
So one woman who signed the petition wondered if it was the right thing to do.
After signing it, I thought, surely it would be better for him to come here and talk, but to have someone next to him educating the audience about what he's saying.
I imagine if he behaves that way on stage, the audience would walk out.
Well, I've got a couple of problems with this.
You have absolutely no right to enforce this.
There is no reason this man can't hold this talk and people go and listen to it.
He doesn't need your oversight.
He doesn't have to have your oversight.
It's this kind of bossy meddling woman syndrome that I think is pissing me off the most.
Yeah, you don't have to like what he's doing.
And if some guy comes up to you and starts trying to chat you up and interrupting something, sounds a lot like Julian Blanc, you can tell him to fuck off and you can walk away.
The other worry with this ban is that it could start a precedent.
Would it mean that we would have to ban every pickup artist with misogynistic views from coming here?
As well as that woman who was trying to pick up men, because she is a pickup artist.
What about our own resident sexists, like Dapper Laughs, whose ITV2 show was cancelled because of his rape jokes?
Should we kick them out?
No, I think we should go on a fucking witch hunt.
Which is apparently what Theresa May thought as well, because he was actually banned from the UK.
Lib Dem retard Lynn Featherstone said Julian Blanc's presence in the UK could have led to an increase in sexual violence and harassment.
Based on fucking what, Lynn?
Excuse me, sorry about that.
Lynn, you halfwit, you do not know anything of the sort.
You have got absolutely no reason to think it.
Why would sexual violence be increased by men trying to chat up women and having better techniques to do it?
Why would that be the case?
Why did you say this?
Daily Mail, why are you printing this?
This is at best idle and defamatory conjecture.
But we come to the most important point.
Blanc has been successfully running his £1,200 a head seminars across the globe despite his own admission that he is the most hated man in the world.
The question is why are men paying for them?
Surely this information is available online if they want to find it.
Surely they could just get a prostitute, a really good prostitute, if they just wanted to get laid.
But I think that the problem, and I haven't asked, I can't tell, I can't be sure of this, but I think the problem is that these men are lonely.
They are not monsters, and I doubt Julian Blanc is a monster either.
He strikes me as the sort of man you probably do want to avoid.
He seems very sleazy, he seems obsessed with women rather than being misogynist.
And he seems disingenuous, and I agree.
He probably is a disgusting, vile human being.
But that does not mean, for a second, that we have the rights to prevent him from speaking to people who want to hear him speak.
He's done nothing legally wrong.
He's clearly in high demand.
So why, instead of demonising this guy, don't we address why he's in high demand?
Why don't we ask these guys, why do you want to go and see him?
Why do you want to become a pickup artist?
The lack of free and critical thought in universities is becoming readily apparent as well, as today's students want the rights to be comfortable.
Student union's no platform policy is expanding to cover pretty much anyone whose views don't fit the prevailing group thing.
Well, as we've just seen, it's really not just universities.
This is a very well-written article that I actually encourage you to read.
I'm just going to give you the highlights from it, because it is a bit lengthy.
To the untrained eye, they may seem like your average book-devouring ideas discussing HM-adorned youth, but to anyone who spent more than five minutes in their company, they will know that these students are far more interested in shutting down debate than opening it up.
This is not in Canadian universities.
This is in British universities.
The author was supposed to take part in a debate about abortion at Christchurch, Oxford.
He was invited by the Oxford Students for Life to put the pro-choice argument against the journalist Timothy Stanley, who is pro-life.
But apparently, it is forbidden for men to talk about abortion.
A mob of furious, feministic Oxford students, all robotically uttering the same stuff about feeling offended, set up a Facebook page littered with expletives and demands for the debate to be called off.
I can't say I'm surprised, to be honest.
They said it was outrageous that two human beings who do not have uteruses should get to hold forth on abortion.
Identity politics at its most basely biological and rampantly sexist, and claimed that debate would threaten the mental safety of Oxford students.
The mental safety of students at university.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Last month at Britain's other famously prestigious university, Cambridge, I was circled by Stepford students after taking part in a debate on faith schools.
It wasn't my defense of parents' rights to send their children to religious schools they wanted to harangue me for, as much as they loathed that liberal position.
It was my suggestion, made in this magazine and elsewhere, that lad culture doesn't turn men into rapists.
Their mechanical minds seemed incapable of computing that someone would say such a thing.
How long have I been saying it?
These kids have been brainwashed.
They have been utterly fucking brainwashed.
Their minds have been absolutely stunted, and we have allowed this to happen.
Their eyes glazed with moral certainty.
They explained to me at length that culture warps minds and shapes behaviour, and that's why it's right for students to strive to keep such wicked, misogynistic stuff as the Sun newspaper and sexist pop music off campus.
We have the right to feel comfortable, they all said like a mantra.
No, you fucking don't.
You have no such right.
There is nothing anywhere that suggests that you must feel comfortable at all times.
One, a bloke, said that the compulsory sexual consent classes recently introduced for freshers at Cambridge to teach what is and isn't rape were a great idea because they might weed out pre-rapists.
Men who haven't raped anyone but might.
The others nodded.
I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
Pre-rapists!
Had any of them read Philip K.E. Dick's dystopian novella about a wicked world that hunts down and punishes pre-criminals?
I asked.
None had.
To no great fucking surprise.
I bet they haven't read 1984 A Brave New World either.
When I told them I spent my student days arguing against the very ideas they were now spouting, against the claim that gangster rap turned black men into murderers or that Tarantino flicks made teens go wild and criminal, not so much as a flicker of reflection crossed their faces.
Back then, the people who are making those censorious misanthropic arguments about culture determining behaviour weren't youngsters like you, I said.
They were older, more conservative people with blue rinces.
A moment's silence.
Then one of the Stepford students piped up, maybe those people were right.
Holy fucking shit.
Seriously.
Seriously, these kids are saying, well, yeah, we actually do agree with old conservative men that media is bad and you need to be protected from it.
The no-platform policy of various student unions is forever being expanded to keep off-campus pretty much anyone whose views don't chime perfectly with the prevailing group think.
Where once it was only far-right rabble-rousers who are no-platformed, now everyone from Zionists to feminists who hold the wrong opinions on transgender issues to rape deniers, anyone who questions the idea that modern Britain is in the grip of a rape culture, has found themselves shunned from the Unisphere.
My Oxford experience suggests pro-life societies could be next.
In September, the students' union at Dundee banned the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children from the Freshers Fair on the basis that the campaign material is highly offensive.
This trend has to stop.
Whoever has programmed these students to think this way must be held accountable.
And honestly, I've spoken to so many, so many freakish feminist social justice warriors that I honestly wonder if it is even possible to deprogram them at all.
So, after Sherdstorm, even feminists are starting to realize that feminism is in danger of becoming toxic.
Yeah, in in danger.
in danger.
It's not, it's not already doing massive amounts of damage.
Instead of worrying about the Rosetta scientist wearing an offensive shirt, or Dapper Laughs, or Julian Blanc, we should be tackling the root causes of inequality.
Holy shit, Julie Bindell, I want to commend you for having some kind of self-awareness, but I also want to castigate you for being a fucking moron.
What root causes of inequality?
What inequality are you talking about?
You're being paid more, you're most of the university students everywhere in this entire country seems to be very feminist-friendly.
If you're failing, I don't think it's institutional issues.
I think the problems might be with you as individuals.
The scientist of Rosesta Mission Fame, Matt Taylor, is arguably better known at the moment for the shirt he wore depicting scantily clad women than his extraordinary scientific breakthrough.
Yes, that is a sick indictment of our society, isn't it?
After a massive kerfuffle led by feminists, Taylor broke down in tears.
Is that what we're calling, is it?
Is that what we're calling a massive online harassment campaign against this one man?
A kerfuffle?
Because I would say it was a torrent of abuse led by feminists.
But that might make feminists sound bad, might it?
So no, it's a kerfuffle.
And it was against a man, after all.
So it's not a big deal.
It's not a big deal.
Doesn't matter that he broke down in tears in front of the whole world, you know, on what should have been, you know, just a day of absolute glory for the man.
Many would hail this as a feminist victory.
A big name scientist apologising on TV and being reduced to tears for his apparent sexism.
I'll stop you there.
If that is what your feminist victories are, that's great because it tells us everything we need to know about feminism.
It is a sick ideology that is intent on bullying people who do not conform to its point of view.
There is no tolerance.
There is no diversity of opinion.
There is only feminism.
We must have come a long way to wield such influence.
Yes, I'm glad you can finally recognise it.
I'm glad after literally molding society around your bent ideology, you can finally say, you know what, we are actually calling the shots here, aren't we?
Yes, you fucking are.
But there's another way of seeing it.
As less of a victory and more of a shift in feminist tactics.
Or we could see it as bullying, which is what it was.
Instead of attacking the root cause of women's inequality, which frankly is women, they're not studying the right courses, they're not going to the right jobs, they're not working those jobs long enough.
Hell, they can't even say no to men.
And they're so scared of men who might try and pick them up, they have to ban them from the fucking country.
We've moved instead towards the vilification of individuals because, let's face it, feminists are a bunch of fucking bullies.
Daniel O'Reilly, a comedian who created the misogynistic Dapper Laughs, I didn't even know that was meant to be a character, has just had his TV program axed, and there is pressure on those who do not publicly condemn him to do so.
The Canadian broadcaster Gian Gameshi has been convicted by the Kangaroo Court of Social Media.
CBC terminated his employment in October after several sexual abuse allegations were made against him despite his denials and a complete lack of conviction.
But just like Bill Cosby, when does any evidence or proof have to be presented?
Aren't we all supposed to be listening and believing?
Feminism.
A great social movement is in danger of becoming toxic and repressive.
In danger.
You've just given us three examples of how it has been toxic and repressive.
It's not in danger of any such fucking thing.
It is already there.
The focus on individuals, however vile they may be, signifies a shift from a more difficult, long-term work of making institutions such as the Crown Prosecution Service and other governmental departments accountable.
Yeah, I think we should just presume the man's guilt in the case of a rape.
I mean, works for New Zealand, doesn't it?
Justice for Women, a feminist campaigning group I co-founded, managed to change the law to prevent men claiming that nagging was a justifiable reason to kill female partners.
Hang on, it's not like those men got off, is it?
Surely the judge wasn't like, so why did you kill your wife?
She was nagging me all the time.
Just, oh, I completely understand.
All charges dropped.
South Hall Black Sisters successfully challenged Ealing Council when it proposed cutting women's services.
The CPS, badgered for decades by anti-female genital mutilation campaigners, ended up changing its policy and began to proactively seek prosecutions.
Feminists campaigned all through the 1970s and 80s to make rape and marriage a crime, and in 1992 the goal was achieved.
Rather than spending so much energy piling on a man for wearing a sexist shirt, is it not better to focus on the manufacturer?
Um, I think the shirt was made by a woman for him.
But then an Indian woman probably made your this is what a feminist t-shirt looks like for 62p.
So, is Taylor's shirt really as problematic as an entire clothing label named Pornstar?
I see, you're one of the sex negative feminists.
The current climate of McCarthyism within some segments of feminism and the left is so ingrained and toxic that there are active attempts to outlaw some views because they cause offence.
Is this some sort of fucking surprise?
Petitions against individuals appear to be a recent substitute for political action towards the root causes of misogyny and other social ills.
Petitions have taken over politics.
Well, I don't agree that anyone has actually been in any way misogynist here.
No one has demonstrated a hatred for all women, okay?
But what you're talking about is anti-feminism.
That's essentially what it is.
Doing things that don't fit within the feminist sphere of ideals.
Now, what you're talking about here when you say petitions have taken over politics is the tyranny of the majority.
What they are doing is using the fact that they can all have a unified voice to victimize individuals.
This is a bad fucking thing.
The ban this sick filth approach is starting to look more like censorship than progressive politics.
So just to be clear, feminists shoving crucifixes up their asses in public is not sick filth and is empowering, and a man wearing a t-shirt that feminists don't like is sick filth.
The world has gone fucking mad.
Political protest and heated debates have been replaced with a witch hunt mentality.
Well fucking done for finally realizing it.
Well done for realising what the general public have been able to see for quite some time.
Which is why in a poll about this shirtgate incident, the overwhelming majority of people think that the shirt was a total non-event blown harmfully out of proportion by feminist extremists.
And when it comes to feminist extremists, especially sex negative ones, who want to ban this sick filth, we get to our old friend and favourite feminist frequency, Anita Sarkeesian.
The just don't play it mantra is nonsense.
Sexist depictions of women in video games are not just harmful to women, they're also harmful to men.
Which means that you are, Anita, calling for a ban on those sort of video games.
Which makes it all the more interesting that when Davis and Arini, making the Sarkeesian effect, went to go and interview Jack Thompson of all people.
If you're not familiar, Jack Thompson is famous for trying to ban certain violent video games.
I think it was during the 90s or early 2000s.
They did so because they wanted to show and contrast the difference between Jack Thompson and the extreme feminist progressives.
The bright red line for me has always been that adult entertainment should be available to adults under the First Amendment.
They can get it, but that it should not be available to anyone under that age of adulthood, which is at 18 or as it applies to the video game rating, under 17.
It's surprising how many hardcore gamers, once they hear that's my position, agree with me.
So, no, I'm not for censorship.
I believe in a free society, adults should be able to get adult material.
But because young brains are literally different structurally and functionally than adult brains, there is a neurobiological basis for my concern.
Which I don't disagree with, much to my surprise.
But I'm sure Anita Sarkeesian disagrees with it because, like we've seen, she does want to ban certain kinds of video games.
And apparently, she's not Jack Thompson.
So, you can be sure that this song that she's tweeted has the full endorsement of the progressive video game master race who want to change games.
So they don't want to ban games, they want to change games.
We are not Jack Thompson, we love video games.
We want them to be better, we don't want them to stay the same.
We are not Jack Thompson, we don't want anything banned.
Quite the opposite, we want the world of games to expand.
You're living in a terror dream, I think you're confused.
Maybe it's our arguments or the words we use.
You don't like on home, you're traditionalists.
But Call of Duty 35 could coexist with Depression Quest.
So, we are not Jack Thompson.
We love video games.
We want them to be better.
We don't want them to stay the same.
No, we're not Jack Thompson.
We don't want anything banned.
Quite the opposite.
We want the world of games to expand.
You told yourself a tale of triumph against parents, bullies, and politicians too.
But now your mom wants to play video games and everything's no longer about you.
Oh, is it the end of gaming now?
As we know it, are gamers being put down and harassed?
Or are you living in a virtual terror dream?
Bedeviled by ghosts of censors passed.
Oh, we are not Jack Thompson.
We love video games.
We want them to be better.
We don't want them to stay the same.
No, we are not Jack Thompson.
We don't want anything banned.
Quite the opposite.
▲
Export Selection