All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 16, 2014 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
46:25
This Week in Stupid (14⧸12⧸2014)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 14th of December 2014.
And I'm going to start this week with something that particularly pisses me off.
Twattish activists damage ancient historical monuments.
Dipshits from Greenpeace apologised to the people of Peru over their Nazca Lines stunt.
The Culture Ministry says it will press charges against activists for damage to World Heritage Site as UN climate talks begin in Lima.
I'm guessing someone should tell the activists that the UN summit is actually an attempt to help with the problem of climate change.
I'm sure that renewable energy is something they are concerned about.
So Greenpeace has apologised to the people of Peru after the government accused environmentalists of damaging ancient earth markings in the country's coastal desert by leaving footprints in the ground during a publicity stunt meant to send a message to the UN climate talk delegates in Lima.
Is any of that necessary at all, Greenpeace?
Everyone at this point knows what you want.
Everyone knows what you want.
And they are holding a summit to try and help prevent climate change.
What message did you need to send that couldn't be sent via email?
A spokesman for Greenpeace said, without reservation, Greenpeace apologises to the people of Peru for the offence caused by our recent activity laying a message of hope at the historic Nazca lines.
We are deeply sorry for this.
I personally find this to be complete bollocks because now they're in the same category as the US military, damaging the ruins of Babylon or vandalising the ziggurat of Ur.
And they go on to say that rather than relay an urgent message of hope and possibility to the leaders gathering at the Lima UN climate talks, we came across as careless and crass.
That's true, but don't think this is the only time, Greenpeace.
Peru's Vice Minister for Culture had previously accused Greenpeace of extreme environmentalism and ignoring what the Peruvian people consider to be sacred after the protest at the world-renowned Nazca Lines, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
He said the government was seeking to prevent those responsible from leaving the country while it asked prosecutors to file charges of attacking archaeological monuments, a crime punishable by up to six years in prison.
Good.
Honestly, it's this kind of attitude that really pisses me off with activists.
Invariably, they are upper-middle-class, white, annoying hipsters.
And they think, oh, the ends justify the means.
It's fine for us to damage an irreplaceable historical artefact because we have a message.
It really gets my goat every fucking time.
Just fuck the hell off, you entitled shit.
They are having a climate conference.
You don't need to be involved.
Coming back to Britain, the Independent Living Fund closure ruled lawful.
A government decision to close a fund that helps disabled people to live and work in the community has been ruled lawful by the High Court.
The ILF provides support for some 18,000 people and is worth £320 million, and the government plans to close it on 30th of June 2015.
Delivering her ruling, Mrs. Justice Andrews offered sympathy to those who would find it a great disappointment.
Yes, I'm sure it will just be a great disappointment to those poor disabled people who clearly don't need any extra assistance from the government.
The charity Scope said that disabled people would be left without enough support, to which a spokesperson from the government said, hey, they should have thought of that before becoming disabled.
Okay, so that was actually me interpreting what the government was actually thinking.
The government actually said that changes to social care have called into question the need to have a separate funding stream through the ILF.
It argues that the vast majority of disabled people with care needs are already looked after through the adult social care system.
But funnily enough, after the ATOS disaster, I am less inclined to take the government's word for it.
And apparently neither is the executive chief of Scope, Richard Hawkes, who said the care system was on its knees and the closure of the fund was likely to lead to fewer disabled people being able to live independently.
Wheelchair user John Kelly45 from Wimbledon described it as bonkers.
He said, I'm absolutely gutted, not just for myself, but for the thousands of people this decision will impact on.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has previously warned that the closure of the fund will result in a loss of dignity and independence for many ILF recipients.
It says that some 18,000 severely disabled people risk losing essential funding in breach of the UK's international commitments to support disabled people.
Ah, see, now I can tell what the problem is here.
You see, disabled people need help, and help costs money.
And money is not for poor disabled people, because otherwise, how would the rich be able to afford their champagne?
Which is actually not a rhetorical question.
An initiative to save the taxpayer money by merging the catering services for the House of Commons and the House of Lords was rejected by peers, the Lords, because they feared the quality of the champagne would suffer as a result.
Holy shit.
Way to be out of touch, you privileged Cretins.
Listen, if you really need champagne that badly, how about you bring your fucking own, rather than expecting the taxpayer to pay for it?
The Observer reports that Sir Malcolm Jack, who was the clerk of the Commons between 2006 and 2011, made the claim as he gave evidence to a committee looking at how government should be run last week.
It is reported that the news was met with gasps by those in attendance, and Jack Straw, who was leading the committee, said in astonishment, Did you make this up?
Is that true?
To which Jack replied, Yes, it is true.
We may have to compromise on the quality of our fucking champagne.
The House of Lords has an annual catering budget of 1.3 million and is reported to have bought 17,000 bottles of Bubbly since Cameron's government took office in 2010.
Are you people such thundering cretins that you cannot understand that while you are complaining that the quality of the champagne might suffer due to cutbacks, whilst the Conservatives are cutting funding for the poorest and most vulnerable in society, this is the sort of social conditions that foment revolutions.
You fucking morons!
You should come out publicly and say, you know what?
We had a ridiculous budget of 1.3 million for catering in the House of Lords, but we've decided to bring our own fucking sandwiches and donate it to the poor.
That is what you should do!
That would show a measure of civic virtue, and it would probably ensure that the House of Lords lasts another couple of years before the peasants burst in and burn it fucking down.
You know what, this has made me so angry, I think I'm going to start a petition about it, because everyone seems to be starting petitions about fucking everything these days.
After the successful petition to get Target to withdraw sale of Grand Theft Auto V in Australia, there has been a petition to continue to sell Grand Theft Auto V in Australia with 27,000 signatures on it.
It says, a game made for adults is being taken off the shelves by Target following a petition started by a bunch of misinformed feminists, is there any other kind, who inaccurately alleged that the game encourages violence against women.
Again, is there any other kind?
I fear the other retailers will soon follow this trend and the game won't be sold anywhere in Australia.
The R18 Plus rating is there for a reason.
Like many games, Grand Theft Auto does allow you to kill, hurt, bash and shoot people of all genders and it has as much a place on store shelves in Australia as any similar game.
The game is made for adults and cannot legally be sold to children.
Australia is not a nation that condones censorship nor should it be.
Well, I'm not sure if that's true.
Australia seems to be incredibly tight when it comes to that sort of thing.
But yes, I completely agree that Australia shouldn't condone censorship and the meddling busybodies who sign these petitions shouldn't be given any kind of credence.
Especially when they petition don't make a PC version of GTA 5 that gets 14,000 signatures before it's closed.
Don't get me wrong, no one was really worried about Rockstar not making the PC version, but for fuck's sake.
And the thing is, I don't even agree with this petition to remove Anit Sarkeesian from Mirror's Edge 2 game development.
The petition literally is a request to remove Anis Sarkeesian from any aspect of the game development of Mirror's Edge 2.
They say that Anis Sarkeesian has no credibility or experience in game development.
True.
She is merely a self-proclaimed critic and her opinions should offer no sound foundations in the development of this or any other game.
Again, true.
She has no experience in the industry.
Very true.
Anita does not speak for gamers, true, female or otherwise, true.
On the difficulty or appeal of games.
She only offers personal insights catering to her own agenda.
True.
In fact, she went as far as to say that women needed a whole new simplified control set for this game based on her personal experiences and passed them off as the opinion of the female gaming community.
I think that's actually false.
I think it's not true that she said that.
I think that was made up and misattributed to her.
In her past, Anita has even spoken against her status as a gamer, true, only to rebut herself to serve her own purposes, which is also true.
We are not against strong portrayals of women in video games, but believe that consultations on games should be given by more credible and experienced sources.
We agree with Anita's right to voice her opinion on any subject matter she sees fit, however, we do not agree with her input on a professional level and do not want to see the game we love influenced by ignorance.
Well, now, as much as I like to agree with that, and as much as I would probably be raging if she was taking part in the development of a game that I like, I would still feel the need to say that we have no right to stop Anit Sarkeesian from being employed as an advisor to EA on Mirror's Edge 2.
Yeah, she's going to shit the game up.
Of course she is.
She's a social justice warrior.
She's going to shit up everything she touches.
But we've got no right to say that she shouldn't do it or that EA shouldn't employ her.
In fact, I think that a consumer boycott of the game would actually be far more effective than and admittedly a petition with 48,000 people is quite a lot.
But I actually don't agree that it's right to force or try and force EA to stop employing Anita Sarkeesian on Mirror's Edge.
Assuming this is even true, I haven't actually heard any actual confirmation of this.
I think this is actually just a rumor.
But I say let them do it.
Let them do it.
Let them do it.
Let the game suck.
I'm sorry, Mirror's Edge fans, I know that's probably not what you want to hear, but it would be for the greater good.
We need a clear-cut example of how social justice warriors and radical feminists meddling with video games make those games suck.
Because they're doing it for an agenda and not for the betterment of the game itself.
Someone is going to have to take the fall for this.
If Anita Sarkeesian gets to meddle with a game and it turns out to be shit like everyone expects it to be, that's a good thing.
Especially if it's a big title.
Something from a big company that is going to be having a lot of money pumped into it and theoretically they're expecting it to bring a lot of money back in because of it.
Because when it fails utterly, and you know, it's not like gamers don't do consumer boycotts, it'll send a real message to the industry.
This is what happens when you put Anita Sarkeesian in charge of making games.
This is what happens when you put radical feminists and social justice warriors in charge of making games.
They suck the fun out of everything.
They're going to suck the fun out of this too.
Let them do it.
And this is my problem with online petitions.
Withdraw the holy Bible, this sickening book encourages readers to commit sexual violence and kill women.
60,000 supporters.
So when it ends like books like this are grooming yet another generation of boys that tolerate violence against women, it's fueling an epidemic of violence experienced by so many girls and women in Australia and globally.
I believe it's weekly on Sundays.
Target, you pride yourself on being a family company caring for local communities and have a strong ethical sourcing policy.
How can you do this while contributing to hostile and callous attitudes towards victims of violence and more broadly to all women?
Please put ethics before profits and make a strong statement that you do not condone sexual violence, sexual exploitation, or the abuse of women as entertainment.
Well, two things: A, the Bible isn't entertainment, and B, this is kind of making a mockery of the whole concept of petitions, isn't it, really?
If more people are going to sign a reactionary, jokey petition to get the Bible removed from Target because feminists were successful in getting GTA 5 removed from Target, the whole thing is starting to look like a fucking exercise in futility.
Which is why I'm supporting this petition.
Remove your website, change.org, from the internet.
Some of us are offended by your reckless enabling of control freaks to start social justice lynch mobs whenever they see something that even remotely bothers them.
It's wrong, it's disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Bravo, I fully fucking agree with that.
Just extremely valid statistics show that 479 trillion Americans are afflicted by the disease of believing that just because a large number of people with internet access tell an entity to do something, it's that entity's democratic obligation to comply.
Well, guess what?
They're right.
So, by the power invested in me by my awful parents, I hereby demand in the name of the self-righteous masses of America that you delete your website, change.org, from the World Wide Web, forever.
All I can say is I fucking agree completely.
However, this petition ended over a year ago.
And really, I bring it up just to show the prophetic nature of the person who created this petition.
These are a fucking problem.
Yes, there are always going to be a lot of annoying people with a lot of annoying opinions.
But we seem to have moved into an era where public bullying and shaming has become the norm.
And frankly, I find it really disturbing.
Interestingly, change.org actually responded to this petition.
The internet has indeed made it easier than ever before to raise awareness and mobilize support for a cause.
As of last month, more than 20 million people have signed or started a petition that won on change.org, and we're incredibly proud of the incredible changes our users have achieved all over the world.
But that doesn't mean that if enough people ask for something, the decision maker on the receiving end will simply oblige, as this petition seems to imply.
Instead, we've seen that some of the most impactful change.org victories have come from meaningful two-way conversations with decision makers.
Now, obviously, they are correct.
No one is obliged to do anything because of a change.org petition.
But the thing is, a petition with 60,000 signatures on it carries a lot of weight because it says that there is a large amount of people out there who are really concerned about what you as a company are doing.
And if you as a company are trying to sell products, then having very large and very well-motivated gangs of customers or potential customers out causing hassle and blackening your name, you are going to inevitably listen to it.
You can't afford to ignore it.
Now, I don't think that these are going away.
So I really think that what companies need to do is actually think of how exactly these things should be applied.
I mean, for example, in the case of GTA 5 and 40,000 rabid feminists trying to get it pulled from Target.
Target?
Were those feminists your customers?
Do you know that they even originate from Australia?
Do you think that they were going to buy GTA 5 at any point?
Do you think that letting them have their hysterical way has done anyone any good?
I don't even know how to preface this article.
College takes students on field trip to watch Millwall FC so they can see working class sexism and racism.
All the disgusting lower orders.
They're just so sexist and racist.
If only they could drink champagne with their betters.
A college's upcoming trip to watch Millwall Football Club so sociology students can observe working class culture and habits has been blasted as offensive and stereotyping, whereas it should have been blasted for teaching Marxist principles to snot-nose little toffs and giving them yet another way to be disdainful of those who earn less money than they do.
But anyway, Vardeen College in Brighton is offering learners the chance to watch Brighton and Hove Albion take on the notorious Southeast London Club, as well as learning about working class culture and habits, issues around sexuality, race and ethnicity, and women challenging gender norms.
None of which are problems the working class are actually having.
The problems the working class are actually having are things like paying the bills and making sure there is food on the table and a roof over your children's heads.
But anyway, a poster displayed at the college also urges students to enjoy working class fares like pies and bovril and even talk to fans at their home team's American Express Community Stadium.
My goodness, they're going to be so shocked when a bunch of fucking upper class little college kids going around, oh really, this is fascinating racism from the working class.
Listen to them and look they're sexist as well.
Excuse me, does your wife do the cleaning?
Well yes I work on a building site all day so she oh my goodness what regressive gender stereotypes.
As you can tell I hate these people already.
This is the flyer and it is so condescending and pretentious I really do just want to start slapping the person who wrote it.
You will see football obviously, gender performance, the new lad and hyper masculinity, hegemonic masculinity and women challenging gender norms, working class culture and habits, issues around sexuality, race and ethnicity.
You can enjoy the game cheer, sing and chant for your local team.
Be a sociologist, observe and even talk to football fans from Brighton and the notorious Millwall FC.
Buy a delicious pie listen, you dipshits.
I've had those pies, they're not delicious and warm yourself with a nice cup of tea or a nice warm beefy.
Bovril, a Talksport newsreader, tweeted.
The words offensive and stereotyping spring to mind.
John Hatchman added, VAN college using stereotypes against the working class Millwall fans as a sociology experiment really not cool.
Pete Bailey, head of sociology at the college, which has a 98 a-level pass rate, defended the trip.
Of course he did, claiming that Millwall game was the only evening match around this time of year.
Pete, you fucking cretin.
You have catastrophically missed the point here.
It's not that it was Millwall, it's that you are being condescending to people who earn less money than you.
I'm very dubious at any kind of sociology college with a 98 pass rate, so you'll have to forgive me if I think that maybe sociology is complete quote-unquote bullshit.
But seriously, fuck yourself, Pete.
You're talking about them as As if they're fucking animals in a zoo.
He said, as part of the AQAAS sociology syllabus on culture and identity, students are expected to study the relationship of identity to gender and social class, amongst other things, also the relationship between leisure activities and identity, because they're teaching them Marxist principles.
And the thing is, I bet Pete Bailey doesn't even know that.
I bet he has no idea what he's actually doing.
One of the students was actually a Millwall fan who said the perception of Millwall was outdated and that there are some underlying unjustifiable stereotypes about the club.
From the college's point of view, as a sociology student, I understand them using the trip to try and explain some of the sociological terms, but I do feel that women challenging gender norms is unfair as women have been attending football games since day dot.
I know I might not sound like it, but my parents were very working class and worked very hard to become middle class.
And I can indeed confirm that women have been going to football matches for as long as anyone can remember.
The article finishes up with a bit of interesting information about Varn Dean College.
It's a state-funded sixth-form college in Brighton, one of the wealthiest areas of the UK, and has a 98% pass rate for A-level students and 100% pass rate for arts subjects.
Participation ribbons all round.
Let's just rubber stamp.
Yes, yes, you all pass.
You're all such wonderful special rich snowflakes.
I know I'm probably getting unfairly angry about this, but it's these sort of places that fill these idiot kids' heads with notions like privilege and all the social justice bollocks that goes along with it.
And it doesn't do anyone any fucking good.
Except for the rich white kids who now have a new stick to beat the poor white kids with.
Since bragging about one's wealth has become socially unacceptable now.
Now they have to say, oh, well, we're just so much better than you are.
Because we're aware of our own privilege.
We've checked it and found that if we just say we support minorities and women and whoever, then we're better than everyone else.
Even though there is only one kind of privilege.
And who has it?
Oh, that's right.
These fucking rich kids.
The same sort of rich kids who end up in a college that force the president to apologize after saying, all lives matter.
I cannot even.
I mean, I literally, my evens, they have gone.
I have none.
I cannot even anything.
I'm turning into a tumblorette.
The president of Smith College was forced to apologise after she sent out a campus-wide email saying, all lives matter, instead of the rallying cry of Ferguson protesters, black lives matter.
Is there something about the phrase that all lives matter that somehow precludes black lives from mattering?
Is there, you idiot Marxists?
Is there in any way?
Or is it just that you weren't being catered to?
Is that the problem?
In the original email obtained by Campus Reform, Kathleen McCartney used all lives matter in the email detailing the struggle and hurt the Smith community was experiencing following the non-indictment of Officer Darren Wilson who fatally shot Michael Brown.
Look at what these universities have done to these kids.
Just the struggle and hurt that the Smith College community was experiencing following something that didn't occur to them in any way.
Something that had no impact on them as people, as individuals.
They have been turned into such raging activists for these annoying social justice bullshit causes that something happening to someone else for reasons that do not involve themselves is somehow causing a struggle and has hurt their community.
Come on, you fucking pussies.
Just yeah, get over it.
So McCartney had written, we gather in vigil, we raise our voices in protest, yet we wake again to the news of violence that reminds us painfully of the stark reality of racial injustice.
I mean it was the subject line that had Smith students up in arms.
Students took to social media to chastise McCarthy, blaming her skin colour for her lack of understanding.
Wow.
I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but I was always told, don't hold a person's skin colour against them because it's something they had no hand in deciding and have no power to change.
So blaming someone's skin colour for anything is fucking wrong.
But Sophia Buchanan, probably the most enlightened student there, said, no, Kathy, please do not send out an email saying all lives matter.
This isn't about everyone.
This is about black lives.
Said, I'm presuming the whitest student on campus.
People are upset because Kathy and other white people, obviously, clearly don't understand the importance of holding black lives central to the conversation.
What are you talking about, you fucking idiot?
We are talking about a black person.
There is no way we could hold this conversation and not have a black life central in this conversation.
The problem you're having is that you cannot help but discriminate.
People don't like to discriminate when they're talking about human rights.
So when they say all lives are important, that obviously includes black lives because you wouldn't want to hold black lives in a different category of value to white lives.
You would want to say they're all the same because we're all people, we're all equals.
But no, you have to make this about discrimination because you are the sort of people who cannot help but discriminate.
For example, black lives can't be held central to the conversation if the word black isn't even in the title.
Holy shit, we are breeding a generation of fucking morons in universities.
Six hours later, McCartney apologized in a separate emails to the student body.
She alleged that she was not aware the term all lives matter could be used by some on social media to supposedly counter the black lives matter movement.
And no one else would have thought that either.
But your university has produced this mindset, this mentality.
It is complicit with all the others, teaching them explicitly to discriminate based on race and gender.
Otherwise, normal people who are not concerned about discriminating about race and gender wouldn't say, oh, you can't say all lives matter.
They would never say that.
That would be a ridiculous thing to say.
No one with any fucking ounce of sense in their heads would ever say that.
But loads of these fucking students are saying that yes, she should have apologized.
It was right.
For example, it felt like she was invalidating the experience of black lives, says one student.
Well, fuck me.
It felt that way, did it?
I mean, that's exactly what I think college students should absolutely be basing their fucking decisions and conclusions on.
I had a feeling.
Yeah, it just felt like she was just invalidating black lives.
I mean, it was just so profound, man.
I just felt it.
Yeah, she should definitely have apologised.
What happened to intellectual rigor?
What happened to fucking equality of opportunity?
What happened to the idea that you don't discriminate based on gender or race?
Things that are outside of a person's control.
What happened to this?
It's become all about these things.
It's become expressly discriminating against gender and race.
So the next one isn't actually stupid.
It's actually kind of cute.
Lesbian Jewish rabbi stands up for Shari Law.
Again, it's not stupid, so I'm not going to go into it.
It was just such an unusual headline.
I had to feature it.
You can have a look at the sources if you'd like to read the article.
And I suggest you do it.
It's kind of sweet.
Basically, an American lesbian Jew is complaining that the Republican Party are going on about Sharia law in excess when they could be going on about Jewish religious laws or Christian religious laws, but obviously they don't because, I don't know, bigotry against Muslims.
But the Washington Post wins headline of the week this week with Sweden says it will pursue a feminist foreign policy to counter macho-Russian aggression.
fucking bravo Sweden Just when you think there's no way an entire country can be more ridiculous than it already is, Sweden really outshines everyone.
There is just no holds barred, is there?
With just how bent over Swedish men will get.
Are you honestly going to say that you are going to let your government pursue a feminist foreign policy to counter macho Russian aggression?
You fucking pussies, Sweden.
The encroaching American circumvolation of Russia is getting the Russians nervous.
So they're, you know, performing military exercises in the Baltic just to show that we're Russia and we're strong, don't bother attacking us.
And naturally, that has got the hysterical feminists in Swedish government absolutely up in arms.
How dare they get all macho near us?
The article says that there's a measure of the surreal to these developments and Sweden's response to them, which is completely understandable consider that Sweden is an officially feminist country.
When in October Swedish forces hunted what was all but certainly a Russian submarine in the Stockholm archipelago, Swedish media dispatched reporters into dinghies where they breathlessly tried to intuit news in the movement of naval vessels.
This is something like staring into the tea leaves, isn't it?
When Sverka Gonranson, the supreme commander of Sweden's armed forces, went before the media last month to present concrete evidence that a submarine had violated his country's territorial waters, a Russian newspaper responded by calling the officer unmanly.
So I'm trying not to laugh when I say this, but holy shit, this is the funniest thing I've heard all week.
I guess it's time for the Swedish armed forces to double down on their feminism.
It was probably meant as an insult, but the writer behind the snub may have unwittingly paid the Scandinavian nation a compliment.
Oh dear.
Fucking.
Alright.
After all, even as Russia steps up his military activity in the Baltics and elsewhere, the new Swedish government is working hard.
Yeah, I bet they fucking are.
That's what feminists are notorious for.
Working hard.
You can't stop them.
Why little engines of industry they are?
The new Swedish government is working hard.
Send a message to the world that Vladimir Putin's bluster represents McKismo's death knell.
I have got no doubt that is exactly what they're going to try and do.
Margot Wallstrom, the newly minted foreign minister, has said that under her leadership, Sweden will be the only country in the world to conduct a feminist foreign policy.
That's not true.
Adolf Hitler pursued a distinctly feminist foreign policy.
You know, when the Russians were bombing Berlin, the Americans and the British had stormed through France and the Germans, they were collapsing on all fronts.
Hitler was just there going, no, these facts are not true.
They do not make me feel good, and therefore I shall just exclude them from my worldview.
We in the real world call this going mad.
And that's a perspective that flows from the UN Security Council Resolution 1325, a landmark measure that recognised both the disproportionate impact war has on women and the role women must play in ensuring peace and security.
Yes, I believe it was WhatsApp Face Clinton who said the primary victims of war have always been women.
So you can imagine what a country with feminists in charge of its armed forces are going to be like.
I imagine they are just going to be sending millions and millions of effeminate Swedish men into the meat grinders because they literally have no fucks to give because women are the primary victims of war and suffer disproportionately because of the impact of it.
Of course, no one can actually explain what a feminist foreign policy is.
Sweden is currently between governments and is waiting for a snap general election to be held where the two feminist parties will basically oppose the right-wing party that's desperately trying to claw back some of Sweden's self-respect.
In the interim, Wollstrom will remain at the foreign ministry with her feminist vision for Sweden's adventures abroad intact.
I just can't see how this could possibly go wrong.
By empowering women, the argument goes, there are better chances of snuffing out wars before they start and of ending them in more equitable ways.
Yes, yes, that's exactly what I expect to happen.
I mean feminists are nothing if not reasonable.
However, it's less clear what a feminist foreign policy has to say about the old school power politics that Putin has helped resuscitate in the past year.
Probably nothing because feminism literally has nothing to do with any of this.
But I do look forward to hearing about Wollastrom's vagina.
During a recent debate at the Swedish parliament, Wollestrom said that her feminist approach is based on the American political scientist Joseph Nye's concept of smart power.
Oh really?
The tools of foreign policy can, in varying degrees, be hard as well as soft.
This is sounding a lot like rape culture.
The situation at hand determines this, Wollastrom said.
The half of the population that has so far been almost systematically excluded and forgotten, namely women, will now be included.
Great, get to the front.
That's when you're being bombed from miles away by Russian guns, you can thank Miss Wollastrom here for making sure that you were included in war, that you're empowered to be on that battlefield to be blown up.
God forbid you be at home and safe.
That would be so thoroughly disempowering and it would be a complete disservice to you as women.
Asked how she believes that a feminist foreign policy will help end Russian aggression, Wallerstrom suggested that it would be useful to review women's participation in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and to look at what it does to address problems women face, a statement exactly as vague as it sounds.
Yes, Wollstrom, it's about now that everyone's realising that you have no fucking idea what you're doing.
How is this woman in charge of Sweden's foreign policy?
Meanwhile, Putin delivered another swaggering address on Thursday.
The policy of containment was not invented yesterday.
It has been carried out against our country for many years, always for decades, if not centuries, he said at his annual state of the nation address.
In short, whenever someone thinks that Russia has become too strong or independent, these tools are quickly put into use.
Uh yeah, I'm really thinking that feminist foreign policy is going to absolutely address the issues that Putin is raising here.
The newfound emphasis on feminism abroad has been remarkably absent in the Swedish response to the recent submarine incursion in Stockholm.
When Goronson, flanked by Prime Minister Stefan Ludfern and the Defence Minister, I can't even be bothered to pronounce these names, I'm sorry, Sweden, but fuck yourselves, presented evidence at the November press conference of illicit underwater activity, there was no talk of gender perspectives or feminist approaches to territorial breaches, because they're in no way relevant, I'm presuming.
And this very much looks like, be quiet, Wollestrom, the men are talking.
Especially when she starts waffling on bullshit like this.
Her feminist foreign policy is based on the three R's.
Representation, resources and respect.
Well, fucking wonderful.
How does this change Russia's aggressive actions in Swedish waters?
In its dealings with other nations, Sweden should push for fair representation of women in everything from ambassador posts to political committees.
Yes, but the Russians are about to invade.
How does feminism help with this?
Sweden should also encourage other countries to ensure equal access to resources and to respect women's rights, she said, because she is a brainwashed fucking moron and she has the same 10 phrases that every other feminist in every other walk of life has and parrots relentlessly regardless of the situation.
For some reason Wollstrom is still talking and argued that this woman-focused perspective is relevant in all aspects of foreign policy.
I knew her vagina would come into it somehow.
Including in how Sweden deals with territorial breaches and Russian aggression in nearby countries like Ukraine.
To say it's not relevant in such situations is to suggest that women don't think we should have a defence force and that's just not true.
Holy shit Wollstrom you fucking simpleton.
What are you talking about?
How?
How does it suggest that not talking about feminism when you're talking about going to war with Russia means that women don't think you should have a defence force?
I mean, I can't think of a more impressive straw man than this.
The gender-focused agenda has also been welcomed by at least some in the Swedish military.
One enthusiast is Robert Egnell of Sweden's National Defence College.
Notice these are people who are not in the actual army, which has hosted several seminars on gender perspectives in military operations.
In a recent op-ed for Swedish newspaper whatever, Egnell wrote that Wollstrom's stated focus is an instrument for preventing armed conflict, achieving peace where violence is already a fact, and promoting post-war reconciliation and reconstruction.
I have no idea how it does any of this.
I can only assume that what they're planning on doing is sending Swedish feminists over there to nag the shit out of the Russians.
When Wollstrom was appointed, she told Swedish media that she could not evaluate Bild's time as Minister for Foreign Affairs, and that's because she can't find much to criticise.
Probably because she doesn't know what he fucking did.
But by defining her own approach as a feminist, she's indirectly indicating that the previous government fell short of prioritising women.
My god, Swedish government, how is it that you failed to prioritise women?
And who here believes that the Swedish government was actually failing to prioritise women?
Who thinks that to these people, nothing is good enough and they will never ever fucking stop?
Thankfully, there are still one or two people in Swindon who are not brainwashed gender ideologues.
When it comes to security issues that Sweden and the world face today, it is not at all clear what a feminist foreign policy can achieve.
There are no concrete suggestions for how a gender approach to security policy will help put an end to intrusions in the Stockholm archipelago, for instance.
There's not, and there never will be.
But they can't talk about anything but their favourite religion, so what are you going to do?
That's right, you're going to have a feminist foreign minister, and she's going to talk all about her own vagina.
Wollostrom's retort is simply, nu-uh.
She claims that a feminist foreign policy does have concrete implications, but fails to provide any.
Are female police officers being allowed to take part in surveillance operations?
Who cares?
That's not foreign policy, is it?
Are women in a given country being asked about their ambitions?
Who gives a fuck?
How is that keeping the Russians out of Swedish water?
This perspective should permeate everything we do.
Are you such a fucking halfwit that you have forgotten the question was, how is feminist foreign policy going to prevent the Russians from invading Sweden?
But I mean, it's not like when the going gets tough, the feminists pack up and go home, is it?
Oh wait, feminist protest against beauty contest falls flat thanks to cold weather.
Of all of the obstacles, cold weather's the worst.
Organisers blame weather and Christmas as only five women show up outside London's XL to protest the annual pageant.
God, that is just fucking embarrassing.
Last time the pageant was held in London, over 200 feminists came together to protest the sexist competition.
But this year, just five women from the London Feminist Network bothered to turn up to demonstrate the pageant on its 64th anniversary.
One of them blamed poor attendance on the cold and Christmas.
I'm actually quite impressed.
I expected them to blame it on the patriarchy.
I mean, the cold and Christmas are at least real tangible things that exist and can be proved to exist to cause feminists to stay at home in the warm of the game.
They won't be mildly inconvenienced.
I mean, they did get a lot of apologies though, because of transport problems and Christmas commitments, I mean, which were inevitable at this time of year.
It was, what did you expect, you know?
People have got like things to do because it's not like feminism is important.
You know?
If this was important, people would probably cancel what they had to do to go and protest it.
But it's, you know, not a big deal, clearly.
But the feminists that did show still made their feelings clear about the contest by holding signs with messages such as, end sexism, end Miss World.
I don't think ending Miss World is going to end sexism, sorry.
And Miss World equals old world misogyny.
No, Miss World actually came from the new world.
It's an American thing, the beauty pageants, isn't it?
It's really not an old world thing, but hey, you know, when has feminism ever given a fuck about being accurate?
One of them said, we don't think there's a place for such sexist and outdated contests in 2014.
Having women judged by the way they look is damaging to all women, because it affects the way we see ourselves and the way we're viewed by men.
Obviously, they don't blame any of the women involved in the competition though, because that would be victim blaming.
It's alright loves, it's alright.
One day you're going to be the front lines of a war because of the feminists and you're going to be sat there going, well, this war is just ostracizing and sexist.
I'm going to finish this week with a dramatic reading of a letter that Brianna Wu apparently received from an ex-Gamergate supporter that finally recognises the movement for what it is.
Why would they send it to Brianna Wu?
I mean, she's not a journalist.
She's not implicated in any of the scandals.
I have absolutely no idea why they would send this to the least relevant person to Gamergate.
But let's have a read.
From Brianna's personal blog, Space Channel 6.
Brianna Wu has opinions.
A letter from a former Gamergator.
I got this letter yesterday from a former GamerGator.
It's honest, genuine, and shows his own personal growth.
It's been lightly edited for clarity and anonymity.
Brianna, just wanted to say that I've finally broken, and it's thanks to you, or rather, the treatment you have received since day one.
I tried to tell myself that it was all about the gamers are dead articles and the forums, and for me, it was.
Always.
I don't even go online to game, so never even engage with people there.
But I was blind!
Some would say willfully ignorant about it all.
I told myself over and over that the abuse being received by women such as yourself was not real.
And I put it out of my mind, as I suspect many others have.
I distanced myself from any abuse I did see and wrote them off as fakes.
But it isn't true, is it?
It's more than the majority.
I was wrong all along.
I never abused or engaged you or others.
I signal boosted, supported campaigns, trying to stay away from the ignorance.
Whenever a confident woman comes along to have her say in any way, she is shouted down and harassed by men like me.
Men who have it so easy.
We are blind to the faults of society and its focus on men!
We don't like to be challenged!
We should get used to it because I've got some news for you.
You're winning!
You are winning, and these are the death throes of a petulant, selfish culture.
When they said gamers were dead, I didn't want to believe it, but in a way, it's true.
Ultimately, games are for everyone, and as more women are involved in the culture around video games, it will change for the better.
If some obnoxious boys end up leaving, then so be it.
I won't because I will accept the changes.
I would say more female protagonists is desirable, but it would benefit these males to have a majority even.
They have no idea what it's like to be a woman, and neither do I.
But more empathy would follow.
As would games with an abundance of strong, non-sexual women saving the day.
It would at least stop them from thinking that they are the center of the universe, which is what the average gamergator thinks.
I am so sorry about the way you've been treated.
You are a beautiful, talented, and intelligent woman who is worth a million of those people involved in Gamergate, myself included.
I am no longer involved in it, in fact.
I may just work against.
I know though, it is time for me to stand down from my pedestal and listen to women to let them steer culture and not resist the betterment and balance they will bring.
I said before you are winning.
This is the long game, and as the media continues to side with the good guys, these people will simply end up bickering as they do amongst themselves with less and less influence.
Then they will fade out, leave or change.
People are getting more and more despondent, and it's your magnificent strength in the face of the abuse which does it.
They can't fathom it.
You and the others, you have out-foxed everyone.
Pac-Men, the harassers, everyone.
To beat Gamergate as a former insider, remain defiant but aloof.
You are better than these people.
Remember that.
Don't let them get to you.
Remember, there is no balance here, so don't engage them as an equal and don't let others do so.
Laugh off petty insults if you can, but never show them that you are hurt.
They are getting off on that.
It only encourages them.
I'm sorry for the length.
But I just wanted to let you know that there are people out there who you will ultimately beat and win over with your sheer integrity.
You beat me and I'm so glad.
I'm leaving Gamergate, so I will remain anonymous as I fear these people are getting to me somehow.
But if you wish to talk further, please do so.
I will listen and would appreciate any advice on going further to become the person I should have been as I'm quite ashamed of supporting what was an ugly chaotic mess.
I've rejected feminism from its very starting point and I've done nothing but stand in the way of people.
If I can help, let me know.
Like I say, a confident, beautiful, intelligent woman worth 1 million of 1 Gigia.
Thanks, Brianna Wu.
▲
Export Selection