All Episodes
Previous Next
April 19, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
34:50
This Week in Stupid (19⧸04⧸2015)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 19th of April 2015.
Hasn't it been a very interesting week?
I think my favourite event this week was Vladimir Putin winning the Time 100 Reader's Poll.
So Putin edged out rapper singer Ciel of the South Korean girl band 2Anyone which I've never heard of to claim the number one spot with almost 7% of the votes.
There's something about the popularity of Vladimir Putin that just I find hilarious.
I like to think that I enjoy him ironically, but I'm not even sure if it's ironic.
I mean Vladimir Putin is more popular than the Dalai Lama, Malala Yusavzi and Pope Francis.
And we're not even going to talk about Barack and Michelle Obama who didn't even crack the top 10.
And you might be thinking well a bunch of Russians got together and swung the vote.
No actually.
More than half of the votes, almost 60% of the votes, were cast from within the United States.
I don't know why I find all this so amusing.
But yeah, Vladimir Putin is remarkably popular with Americans.
Anyway, on to the idiocy.
If I'm being racially abused, I don't need a stranger with a saviour complex to rescue me.
That's the voice of appreciation right there, isn't it?
Apparently, a woman has gone viral for defending a Muslim couple against a bigot, when all she really did was deny them a voice.
Oh, fucking.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
No good deed goes unpunished.
I suppose we'd better watch the video then, really, hadn't we?
She wears it for herself, okay?
She wears it because she wants to be modest with her body.
Not because the people like you who are going to marry you, but it's pretty tails.
That's not her doing it.
That is a minority of people.
Not a majority of people, okay?
It doesn't matter what they're doing.
Don't they do disrespecting audience?
Have some respect of Hamilton.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
What's that got to do with your body?
What's it got to do with her?
Nothing.
It's not.
No, you're the one that's sitting there saying all that red.
Shut your mouth.
You shut your mouth.
If you've got nothing nice for red, don't say anything.
Fucking hell, why don't you both shut your fucking mouths?
No one wants to hear either of you.
So this person writing the article says, it shows a middle-aged racist.
How do you know they're racist?
Because they were criticising Muslims.
Is that what you think makes a racist?
In a train ranting at a young Muslim couple, making some confusing links between the woman's hijab and the Islamic State.
Al-Shabaab's attacks in Garissa and Muhammad marrying a six-year-old.
He did marry a six-year-old.
Or something.
She made no sense, as hardline racists never do.
You know, I agree that hardline racists don't, but you don't know that that woman is a hardline racist.
Don't get me wrong, this woman was completely in the wrong, and there was absolutely no reason for her to start having a go at some young couple on the tube.
So she describes our superwoman who I'm guessing is a feminist called Stacey Eden.
And I'm guessing she's a feminist because she sat there presuming the Islamic woman's motivations for wearing a hijab.
She doesn't know, she didn't fucking ask the woman, I've got no doubts, but she is going to say something like, she wears it for herself, okay?
She wears it because she wants to be modest with her body.
It's like, you don't know why she wears it.
Just shut the fuck up.
Seriously, why don't both of you just shut up and leave each other alone?
But as I said earlier, the thing with progressives is that no good deed goes unpunished.
And they have this annoying habit of assuming the worst about everything in any given situation.
I mean, look at this.
The couple were naturally mute and incapable of independent thought.
Hell, they don't even seem to have names, judging from most of the reports.
They needed Stacy to save them.
I mean, who is fucking thinking that?
Apart from you?
Everyone else is just thinking, well, they were probably thinking, well, I just don't want to get involved.
I'm just going to sit here politely and calmly until this woman shuts up and gets off or we arrive at our destination.
My favourite part about this article is how the author can take a situation that didn't involve her in any way, an altercation between three groups of people that have no connection to the author at all, and make it all about her.
She says, personally, I found the video uncomfortable, but not for the reasons most other people seem to.
Yes, I was disgusted by the racism, but I also felt patronised.
It was just an incredibly patronising video.
The couple are treated like children who can't possibly be expected to deal with a crap situation by themselves.
What are you talking about?
How can the video be patronising to you?
The video is not about you.
The people in the video don't know who you are.
Unsurprisingly, you appear to be projecting your own insecurities onto the situation.
The problem with videos like these is that they perpetuate the idea of a helpless minority needing a white saviour to stick up for them.
What are you fucking talking about?
This wasn't a stage event.
It was a video someone took on their fucking camera phone that went viral on the internet because people were clearly so pleased of the white woman standing up against what is perceived to be racism.
So the author says, the man tries to speak but isn't able to.
Stacy is shouting over him.
In trying to protect him, she literally denies him a voice.
Fucking, could that be any more melodramatic?
But whatever it was, I would actually like to know, because it's their voice that matters here and they weren't even allowed to speak.
You know what?
They could have spoken.
They absolutely could have interrupted these two entitled white women going hammering tongs on a fucking train.
They could have done.
Or they could have sat there, looked at each other and gone, just leave them to it.
Yeah, I think, just leave them to it.
Fuck it.
Just not worth our time.
In completely unrelated news, the Dutch families of those who joined the Islamic State are going to sue the Dutch government.
I love how this is the fault of the Dutch government.
According to Dutch security forces, 28 of 200 people that went to fight in Syria were killed in various clashes.
I can't believe that it wasn't safe to go out and fight in Syria.
How could you have let this happen, Dutch government?
So families of the individuals who ran away to join ISIL are preparing to file a lawsuit against the Dutch government.
According to Dutch media, families gathered together in order to plan to sue the Dutch government for not taking the necessary efforts to prevent their children from travelling to Syria to join the Islamic State.
That's right, Dutch government, we are going to sue you for not being oppressive and tyrannical enough.
I know that you're probably thinking, well, hell, this sounds like the result of really bad parenting.
And I'm sure it is.
But why would they have to be held accountable for that when they can try and hold you, the Dutch government, accountable for that?
Mohamed Nidala, a resident of the southern city of Leiden, whose son reportedly travelled to Syria to join ISIL, leads the initiative.
Nidala claimed that he informed the police as soon as he found that his 20-year-old son had travelled to Syria to join ISIL.
Yet he said the police did not do anything.
Well, it's a bit late once he's already in Syria, isn't it?
But the thing is, what are the Dutch authorities really meant to do about this?
Are they going to arrest him at the airport and say, sorry, you can't leave the country?
I'm like, why?
Well, your dad doesn't want you to.
Nadal has said, the lawsuit won't bring back my son, but I'm doing this to prevent other families from going through the same problems.
I don't know, there's something about raising a son who wants to go off and be an Islamicist terrorist that makes me wonder why you are trying to extract money from the Dutch government.
I mean, I don't want to sound like I'm being too suspicious or anything, but how exactly is this going to prevent other young Muslim men from deciding, you know what, I actually fancy fighting out in Syria.
I'm kind of tired of my humdrum, easy first world life.
I'd like to go and fight to the death for a terrorist group out in the Middle East.
I mean, how is it going to prevent that?
Since we're talking about the Middle East, let's talk about a startling biblical prophecy that just came true in an absolutely horrifying way.
Fuck's sake.
Everyone has clickbait now.
So Isaiah 17 verse 1 and 2 states, See, Damascus will no longer be a city, but will become a heap of ruins.
Last time I checked, Damascus is actually still a city.
The cities of Erro will be destroyed and left to the flocks, which will lie down with no one to make them afraid.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but this happened about 1500 years ago.
To support the prophecy that Damascus will no longer be a city but a heap of ruins, they're using the example of the city of Yarmouk, which the Islamic State has taken over the majority of it, and the city is now rampant with beheadings and other violence in a place that was once known as a refuge for displaced Palestinians.
I'm no expert, but what I think they mean is the Al-Yamuk refugee camp in Damascus, highlighted here in red, which recently suffered a quote Islamic State invasion.
From the reports I've read, Islamic State militants have infiltrated the Yarmouk camp.
And obviously to try and drive them out, Syrian government forces have stepped up their shelling and aerial bombardment of Yarmouk.
And apparently this verse says plainly that the city will be wiped off the map, but the victory will be in the hands of Israel.
What are you talking about?
It's Syrian government forces fighting with ISIS over a small area of Damascus.
I'm afraid we cannot say that Damascus is no longer a city and has been wiped off the map and no, Jesus isn't coming again.
I'm sorry to break this news.
In completely unrelated but highly amusing news.
Those with mental health conditions could wear wristbands, says Tory candidate for Cambridge.
A Tory parliamentary candidate has sparked outrage after claiming mental health patients could wear wristbands in order to identify their conditions.
Someone failed history, didn't they?
I don't want to be too harsh on this person because this was just an offhand comment that they made without really thinking it through.
She said, wearing wristbands indicating the nature of the person's condition would be helpful to professionals as they often could not explain themselves and that is not a thought that comes from a bad place, I'm sure.
So Chamali said, maybe it's something as simple as, there are certain conditions which are more common, where people can wear a wristband to identify that they have this condition.
So that then we can perhaps not diagnose, but spot it earlier and ensure that we deal with it.
And the thing is, it's not even that this is reminiscent of making a certain group of people wear yellow stars.
It's more about, have you ever been to a British school?
Having to wear a wristband because you have a mental health condition is, it's not going to end well.
But this really was just an offhand, thoughtless, and admittedly stupid comment that everyone really is making too much of.
I don't know why, and maybe I'm being unreasonable when I say this, but this really pissed me off.
Hillary Clinton's visit to college sees everyday Iowan students get locked in their classrooms.
You know what, for a society that claims to be beyond class, this really, really seems to smack of class privilege.
Frankly, she's part of your political class.
She's not the president.
She's I mean, what is Hillary Clinton?
As far as I'm aware, she left office as Secretary of State in 2013.
As far as I can tell, she's just a presidential candidate.
But she does have a fancy name and lots of connections.
So now, Iowan students aren't allowed out of their classrooms because she has come to town.
Students at Iowa's Kirkwood Community College were apparently on lockdown if their classes were along Hillary Clinton's walking path when she visited their campus on Tuesday.
Because God forbid anyone interrupt the walking path of one of their betters.
Apparently students have said that they are locked in their class at the Iowa college Hillary is visiting right now.
Presumably this is the only way they could get everyday Iowans to actually stop and talk to Hillary Clinton.
Apparently Hillary Clinton will make her first trip to Iowa on Tuesday, April 14th and Wednesday, April 15th.
It will be the first of many conversations with Iowans about how to make the economy work so everyday Americans and their families can actually get ahead and stay ahead.
Throughout her life, Hillary has been a tenacious fighter for children, families and middle class American families.
I mean doesn't that just sound like someone from a far more privileged class reaching down to try and connect with those plebs at the bottom.
As if Hillary Clinton or any of the rest of them give a fuck about middle class families.
They care so much they're going to treat the students on Hillary's walking route as if they are potential murderers unable to come out of their classrooms because of her mere presence.
Hillary of course will have the feminist vote because doubtless they will want Hillary Clinton on a banknote.
And for anyone in the UK note that your money went on this article and it starts as professionally as you'd expect.
I fucking hate the BBC.
There are calls for the US and Canada to put a woman on a banknote.
Really, there are calls, aren't they?
They're just like some guy on a hill somewhere saying, put women on a banknote!
Why are you using weasel words?
Why are you using weasel words in the first fucking sentence of your article?
A similar campaign in the UK successfully convinced the Bank of England to put Jane Austen on the £10 note.
But is one woman per country enough?
I mean, I don't know whether the idiots who write these campaigns even realize that there is a woman on every banknote in the UK.
American bills have portraits of the country's founding fathers and former presidents.
Well, that's definitely sexist.
Men of accomplishment?
No, that's no good.
That's no good.
Chinese notes have Mao Zedong and Indian ones have Mahatma Gandhi.
Again, these are accomplishments, accomplished people.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them, obviously, but there's no denying that they did accomplish something within their lifetime.
Now there are calls.
I'm sick of these fucking calls.
I don't care.
If there are feminists who want a woman on the bills of any country, really, why would anyone care?
Why is this worth an article?
So the US currently has seven bills in circulation, all of which feature distinguished deceased American statesmen.
Women on 20s conducted an online poll and asked people to choose from 15 historical leaders which they would most like to see on a note.
The candidates included civil rights activist Rosa Parks, both birth control pioneer Marjorie Sanger, suffragette Susan B. Anthony, and Harriet Tubman, who escaped slavery and went on to lead other slaves to freedom.
Now there's nothing wrong with this at all.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having any of these people on these notes.
But my issue, my fucking issue with this, is why say that the fucking notes are sexist?
It implies a motivation that simply wasn't there when the people who are currently on the bills were chosen.
Once the final poll closes, the group will petition President Obama to replace Andrew Jackson with the chosen woman.
Old Hickory?
The man who broke the banks, why the hell would you replace him?
Jesus, that is that is tragic.
And I'm sure that Michelle will just glare at Obama and then he'll say, oh yes dear, I'll do it.
So they want Jackson removed because he's unpopular with Native Americans due to his signing and enforcing of the Indian Removal Act of 1830.
Well I guess that explains that.
Meanwhile in Canada, which is in itself an inherently funny phrase, more than 54,000 people have signed a petition to put a woman on a banknote.
Because Canadian money doesn't have any women on the banknote.
Just like British money.
After the sole female to appear in the country's currency, Teresa Casgrain, and Queen Elizabeth, was replaced in 2011 by an icebreaker ship.
I don't know why that's so funny.
But as always, they read so much into everything.
When we open our wallets and see the faces of four male Prime Ministers and Queen Elizabeth, the subtle message is that Canadian women aren't worthy of being celebrated.
Oh, fucking come on.
Come on, Israel.
Is that really what the message is?
Is there a message at all?
Sexist banknotes are unacceptable in a country that boasts of being a world leader in promoting gender equality.
What?
In fucking Sweden?
Note that a similar petition was launched in the UK in 2013 and it was successful.
And you would think that they would be happy for it.
Of course they're not happy.
Although the UK petition was a success, campaigners in all three countries, the US, Canada and the UK, have called for only one woman on a note.
But is that enough?
No, of course it's not enough.
Nothing's ever enough.
Let's just replace them all with women.
Fuck it.
I am just sick of having this conversation.
I don't give a fuck who's on the banknotes.
Just have it all women.
Because of course, that is what's happened in Sweden.
Half not all, just in case you're wondering.
Fine, whatever.
I don't care.
If it happens in Sweden, that's generally a good reason not to do it.
But yeah, okay, go for it.
Go for it.
But why stop there?
If bills should equally represent men and women, shouldn't they also reflect a nation's racial diversity?
No, because these aren't representative of anything.
I mean, you've already called these things sexist, so why not just call them racist as well?
Why not just ascribe intent where none existed?
Every US note features a white man, albeit one of the country's presidents or founding fathers.
I mean, yeah, it's not like they did anything to earn the position.
I love where all this reasoning goes though.
Perhaps a country can't fully represent the diversity of its population on a handful of notes.
Fucking really, you think?
Do you think that might actually be true?
Do you think maybe, just fucking maybe, a handful of different notes aren't meant to represent anything?
Your example of the Euro bills are a great one.
Tasked with representing a huge span of people, cultures and history, depict stylized images of windows, doorways and bridges.
Not even actual monuments, let alone portraits of real people.
So could this be the solution?
No portraits at all.
Fucking well done.
You have created some stupid rationalization for us now not to have anyone at all represented on the currency.
Doesn't matter what anyone in the country has done because it doesn't accurately represent everyone.
We can't have any of it.
You fucking dicks.
Another reason it might be easier to choose landscapes or buildings other people is that prominent figures are often controversial in one way or another.
And apparently, since you can never please everyone, we're going to go for the option that doesn't please anyone.
Fucking, this pisses me off.
It really does.
It's just, there might be someone somewhere who is offended, so we need to tear down everything, no matter how many people are in support of what is there already.
I guess the plus side of this is that Hillary Clinton won't be on any currency anytime soon.
And I have been doing this long enough to know that if I don't qualify my criticism of Hillary Clinton, then certain people will suggest that my motivations come from an innate hatred of women rather than Hillary Clinton's fucking policies.
So I am actually on the same page as our good friend, Jonathan Macintosh.
Of course, unlike him, I don't feel the need to focus on race.
Bombing anyone with extrajudicial drone strikes is wrong, no matter what colour they are, Johnny.
But since I mentioned a vagina, I may as well carry on talking about them.
The lack of female genitals on statues seems thoughtless until you see it repeated.
Why do I get the feeling that a feminist is about to start criticizing art made by the patriarchy?
So the author says, it hit me on a fairly ordinary Wednesday afternoon, when on a whim I decided to visit the Greek and Roman galleries of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.
But what's hit me was not that, after 20 years, the curation shifted to show an organic progression from the development of the form, it's that none of the forms showed the reality of female genitals.
Well, invoking Sargon's law of projection, I'm guessing that means that your vagina looks like the front window of a butcher's shop.
There are, of course, nude statues of Greek and Roman women, usually standing in a three-point pose, a bent knee, a curved hip, a tilted shoulder to accentuate the form.
Yes, this is actually a feature of patriarchal art.
But let's carry on, I'll explain to you in a minute.
One has a hand over a breast to communicate modesty.
Her hoo-ha, just a vagina, for fuck's sake, is smooth.
In fact, all the hoo-ha's are smooth, written by a child.
But there are modest dents around the pelvic bones of the statues, but no openings or slight separations of the pelvic mounds to be found anywhere.
The forms are all Barbie doll blank down there.
Again, written by a child.
Like female bodies just sprung out of the head of Zeus, fully formed and sometimes clothed and vulvoless.
Right?
Now, listen, this is the difference, right?
The patriarchy is about raising up, to find perfection where it can be found, or at least as close to it.
Feminism is about dragging down, to reduce everything to the lowest, grossest, most common denominator.
And frankly, I find it unsurprising that patriarchal art done by the ancient Greeks represents the pinnacle of the human form, whereas feminist art is women pissing and shitting and menstruating all over things.
But meanwhile, male statues rock out with their cocks out.
dicks everywhere just honestly why are children being allowed to write for the pulitzer prize winning guardian i I am baffled.
Fucking baffled.
But anyway, penises of all sizes surround me.
Curled and flaccid, put and alert, balls dropped and shrunken.
I wander around looking closely at all of the female nude statues and fragments.
There are no vulvas, no protruding labia everywhere.
No suggestion that vaginas existed.
Well, A, this was art done by the patriarchy of ancient Greece.
And since we're talking about ancient Greece, you have to remember that they were all rather gay.
I wondered for an instant whether the plethora of penises was the work of male archaeologists so enamored that the male member was rendered in excruciating detail centuries before.
Obviously not, you retarded fuckwit.
They were just digging up what was buried in the ground.
How is it that marbled penises survived the sacking, that for nearly three millennia the penis survived in all its barely tumescent glory and nary a stray labia caught the attention of a curator.
The curators aren't deciding not to put the overly explicit statues of gross predator-faced fucking vaginas on display.
The problem you have love is that vaginas aren't actually all that attractive to look at.
And that's coming from a straight man, just so you know.
This of course is nonsense though.
What this actually is, is a conspiracy theory.
The patriarchy has tried to erase imagery of the feminine since time immemorial.
Why would they make statues of women then?
Idiot.
Destroy the image and you can control the narrative.
They were not thinking of the narrative.
The narrative of vulvas or whatever you're talking about.
Jane Caputi wrote in her 2004 book, While the Phallas is deified, the female symbolic equivalent is everywhere stigmatized.
It became synonymous with irrationality, chaos, the depths and the common.
I can't imagine why the vagina has become synonymous with irrationality.
Apparently it makes total sense why George O'Keefe painted flower petals so obsessively.
Why Gustave Corbett voraciously embraced painterly realism, voraciously, to shock the art world with universal truth.
Why Hannah Wilk needed erasers into vaginal shapes and affixed them to the architectural and landscape postcards cleverly titling the series needed to erase her.
Why Judy Chicago decorative plate settings for her famous dinner party emphasize anatomy.
Why Micheline Thomas updated Corbett's painting with her Origin of the Universe.
The longer you study art, the more you understand what ought to have been there but wasn't.
You know what I think we ought to do?
Is stop making paintings and sculptures and whatnot of genitals altogether.
Rare is the graffiti of vaginas even today.
Really, is are we honestly going to start complaining that people make graffiti of cocks more than cunts?
Are we?
Fucking puerile.
Why?
Why?
I've seen it once, scrolled furiously on the tile walls of Blecken Street's subway platform.
Thank God I bet you're like finally, finally, a cunt scribbled on a wall.
I have been waiting my whole fucking life for this.
But penises and their twin companions are everywhere.
Well maybe they shouldn't be.
Jesus Christ.
I don't know why feminists are so obsessed with their own genitals.
I really don't.
Is this why?
Could this be why?
There is a preoccupation with us waxing down there.
No you fucking idiot.
There was no preoccupation with waxing down there in the 70s and unbelievably these statues vastly predate that period.
Fucking idiot.
It occurs to me we haven't visited academia this week.
University warns professors that the students' genders may change over time.
Like the seasons.
You know, it's nobody's fault.
It's not that they're indoctrinating them or anything like that.
I mean you know.
The University of Pittsburgh has released a set of gender inclusive slash non-sexist language guidelines and resources.
Because everything is sexist.
I mean, you know, just the very language they're probably using.
Saying someone is she is probably sexist.
Informing instructors how they should be talking to their classrooms in order not to offend anyone, because god fucking forbid, am I right?
One suggestion is to ask students to write down preferred names and pronouns on the first day, while also keeping in mind that just because a student wanted a particular pronoun on the first day doesn't mean that he, she, they, z, xi will always want that pronoun because a person's gender identity may change over time.
Zai and Z are provided as examples of gender neutral pronouns in the document, as well as the singular use of the pronoun they.
Or you could do what I do and refer to them all collectively as twats.
To make sure the professors are prepared, the document provides a small sampling of the certainly infinite number of genders that are out there.
Some genders include masculine, feminine, male and female, they are the genders.
Gender queer, that's not a gender.
Queer, that's not a gender.
Fluid, that's not a gender.
Or non-binary gender identity, which isn't a gender.
Agender, which is certainly not a gender.
Cisgender, which is a word describing someone who identifies with the gender that is the same as their sex.
Transgender, which isn't a gender, it's a word that signifies someone has transitioned from one gender to another, male to female.
But fuck it, what do I know?
I didn't do a gender studies degree.
It also suggests avoiding sexist language such as freshmen and congressmen, which is sexist.
It's out there specifically to be derogatory to women.
But they should definitely use the gender inclusive non-sexist language syllabi statement in your syllabi to let students know that you want your classroom to be an inclusive space.
I like how they say that this isn't mandatory, but you are free not to use this language.
You are also free to criticize the way someone's dressed, even if you don't know them.
But then most people would probably think you are rude.
And this article ends in the creepiest way imaginable.
Isn't it nice to have a little guidance about how to be considerate and polite?
No, it's fucking creepy.
It's creepy that you think you're going to use social pressure to enforce this freakish, fucking, oh, an infinite number of genders.
I mean, fuck off.
If someone wants to transition from male to female or female to male or whatever to whatever, I don't care.
It's not my fucking business.
But this tumblorette shit has to stop.
This is bullshit.
Infinite number of genders, my ass.
If there's an infinite number of genders, why can't you name a third gender?
And if gender just so naturally changes over time, why don't French women just choose to become French men?
Yes, this is a study that says 100% of women are harassed on French public transport.
Which really tells you a lot about the French, doesn't it?
This is actually serious.
According to a French government study, 100% of women have experienced sexual harassment or worse on public transport.
To illustrate the growing distress of female public transport users, which I mean growing distress, they're all being harassed.
That can't grow.
The High Council for Equality Between Men and Women included the testimonies of numerous women in the report published on April 16th entitled Report on Sexist Harassment and Sexual Violence in Public Transport.
In the report, which was commissioned by the State Secretary for Women's Rights, the HCEFH indicates the widespread predatory behaviour against women in buses, trains and metros within France.
Well, that's the fucking French for you, isn't it?
Indeed, it says 100% of female public transport users have experienced harassment or sexual aggression at one time or another.
I can't believe they don't just avoid it by becoming men.
So is this true?
No, of course not.
It's complete horseshit.
Like every other feminist study, it's riddled with confirmation bias.
The group admitted that it did not hire a research institute, but calculated the statistic from a sample of 300 women who had all participated in a public consultation about women's roles in the public space and harassment on public transport.
This means that all of the women polled were already concerned by the subject in question and, i'm going to guess, were probably feminists.
The recommendations made by this study are all basically an attempt to infantilize women even further.
For example, one suggestion is the between two stop system, which allows a person traveling alone who does not feel safe to ask the bus driver to stop between stops if it's closer to the traveler's destination which unsurprisingly, is something they already do in Canada.
Other recommendations include opening an online platform where public transport users can report incidents what a website do you mean?
As well as an awareness raising campaign including posters, stickers and audio messages.
Yeah, i'm sure that's going to prevent people who aren't sex criminals from performing criminal acts against women.
Unsurprisingly, the feminist solution is to try and teach men not to rape.
Well, you know, I I just really hope that women in France can find the safety and security away from French men that they clearly so desperately need.
And finally, the week before last, I asked people to send me any cartoons of anything they find that is anti-social justice, and it turns out that it isn't just My Little Pony writers that have seen a problem with the way things are going.
You've probably already seen this, but if you haven't, I think you're really going to enjoy it there.
There a little monkey dude.
I'm being oppressed, not so fast.
Parka Cross Mojo Jojo oh, i'm being oppressed, not so fast.
Hot Girls.
You're just getting lazy.
Being oppressed.
Nonsense.
▲
Export Selection