All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 13, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
22:38
A Detailed Analysis of Feminist Sophistry
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So for whatever reason, you found yourself in an argument against feminism.
Oh, it's only one reason.
There's only one reason that people actually oppose feminism, at least in the West.
And that's because feminism is trying to infringe upon their rights.
But here's the thing.
Your argument sucks.
Honestly, I'm genuinely impressed with your balls.
Let's start with the most basic shutdown against feminism.
Feminism is sexist.
You've come to this conclusion because you've been taught that sexism is basically the prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination on the basis of sex.
Right.
Because that is the standard English definition of the word sexism and you just agreed to it.
Before I even get into this, I just want to state that it's impossible for the oppressor to be the oppressed.
Ooh, that's embarrassing.
I'm, oh, that's cringey, actually.
I'm so sorry.
I mean, I'm sure that you are terribly, terribly oppressed.
Maybe if you'd done your research, you'd know what a Kyriarchy is.
And you'd know that actually the oppressor can also be the oppressed in different ways because, and I hate to introduce you to this term, It's called intersectional feminism.
That feeling when an anti-feminist on the internet is a better feminist than you.
That's embarrassing, isn't it?
That's the nature of oppression.
Far be it from me to question the credentials of a first world feminist when she purports to tell me about the nature of oppression, but are you sure you know what you're talking about?
Being offended by something is not the same as being oppressed by something.
Wait, that's my rebuttal to you!
I mean, I know I made a few assumptions just a minute ago, but I assumed that you were saying that you were oppressed.
And I was going to say, well, look, just because you're offended by something doesn't mean you're being oppressed by something.
Are you even a feminist?
So bearing that in mind, quite simply, sexism is a form of oppression.
Okay, let's just go over your logic here so far.
Sexism is prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex.
It's impossible for the oppressor to be the oppressed.
Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're oppressed.
Bearing that in mind, sexism is a form of oppression.
And since we're talking about oppression so much, a common English definition of that is prolonged, cruel, or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.
Now, I'm laying this out because I really want to expose to you the mind of a feminist.
It's so full of shit.
And not because she's wrong, because she's actually not, right?
The problem is that most of this is totally unconnected gobbledygook.
I agree on her standard English definition of sexism.
And therefore I'm happy to use the standard English definition of oppression, as I'm sure she must be using that as well.
So when she says sexism is prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination on the basis of sex, and sexism is a form of oppression, oppression being prolonged, cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority, being exposed to sexism for a prolonged period of time is indeed oppression.
Since we agree on that, I'll remove those and just concentrate on the filler.
So it's impossible for the oppressor to be the oppressed and just because you're offended doesn't mean you're oppressed.
Obviously leaving feminist logic aside, I'm happy to agree that, yes, under pretty much every circumstance you can think of, the oppressor is not also the oppressed, or at least is not the person or class that they are oppressing.
And they are of course absolutely correct.
Just because you're offended doesn't mean that you are oppressed.
So what does this filler have to do with the first and last sentences that she uttered?
If you were to separate them into different statements, they would still make sense.
Neither one is contingent on the other.
The reason she has put it's impossible for the oppressor to be the oppressed, just because you're offended doesn't mean you're oppressed.
between her definition of sexism and her assertion that sexism is a form of oppression, again, both of which are correct statements, is because she is apparently setting up a logical fallacy called begging the question, which is going to be her assuming her own point that men are not oppressed and are therefore the oppressors.
If she wasn't doing this, she wouldn't need to put these two middle lines in.
This is her creating the doublethink.
We can remove those, and we will see that we are left with a simple principle that is true.
Anyone who is subjected to sexism for a prolonged period of time is being oppressed.
These two lines were inserted specifically to circumvent the argument over whether women or men are oppressed in order to hopefully win it in advance by just assuming women are.
She's then relying on either the goodwill of the person hearing this or the fact that they are bamboozled by what they have just been told.
And because it is a bunch of statements that are true, and they're repeatedly using the word sexism and oppression, the average person is probably just going to agree with this.
Which is why she is now about to literally describe, by her own feminist definitions, that men are actually oppressed, and she will use the word oppression, but then she will go on to attempt to justify how in fact men are not oppressed, and it is in fact that women are oppressed.
I am not saying that men don't face negative stereotyping, and I am not saying that men don't face prejudice and oppression in society.
She of course uses negative statements there for a very good reason.
Again, it's part of the doublethink.
But as she said, she's not refuting that men face negative stereotyping, prejudice and oppression, and that this is being done by society.
So as she has laid it out, yes, men are negatively stereotyped, which is a form of prejudice, and prejudice over a long period of time is a form of oppression, and it's being done by society, so it must be prolonged, because it is within society that men are born, live, and die.
So thank you should be what every MRA should say to this young lady.
She has just given you a logically sound and feminist argument as to why men are actually oppressed.
Oh, and don't forget.
That it's impossible for the oppressor to be the oppressed.
And therefore men cannot possibly be oppressing women.
So I wonder what double think she's going to use to dig herself out of this pit.
However, only oppressed people experience all of that as well as it being institutionalized and systemic.
So she digs deeper with the tautology.
The sort of social oppression we are talking about is of course institutionalized and systemic within society.
And she'd already established men as being oppressed.
So it's not like men don't have all of this apply to them as well.
But the thing is, I think the term oppressed people here, I think this is her presupposing that women and minorities, LGBT people, are oppressed, and therefore she's referring to them as oppressed people.
And if we do change the word simply to women, which is probably what she's thinking of, let's be honest, that's not a tautology in her head anymore.
That's not wrong.
Only women experience all of what men experience, as well as being institutionally and systemically oppressed.
So she hasn't actually made an argument.
She's actually turned around and said, yeah, well, women have it worse.
But men can get raped too.
I can't stand this argument.
You have to be a certain level of horrible to pit victims against each other, whatever gender.
What a fucking bizarre thing to say.
Nobody is pitting victims against each other, you sociopath.
The reason that saying, yeah, but men can get raped too, is an argument against feminism.
Is because you are specifically excluding them from your activism.
And therefore you can perceive someone else mentioning a separate group of victims that you have no interest in talking about as a challenge against feminism.
If feminism was actually trying to help male victims of rape, people wouldn't be able to offer male victims of rape as an argument against feminism.
Also, I find that people use this argument a lot when discussing rape culture and actually they don't quite know what the discussion is about.
Irrelevant.
The question is what about male victims of rape?
You are interested in talking about rape culture because it is a feminist myth that you can build a narrative upon.
In fact, let's watch.
I want to handle this the right way because feminism supports all victims of rape.
But in the context of why your argument sucks, we are fully aware that men get raped too.
We are not ignorant.
What we were aptly discussing was rape culture, so not the act itself.
Rape culture is when you ask victims what they were wearing.
Were they flirting beforehand?
Asking if they possibly had too much to drink.
Whilst anyone can get raped, rape culture predominantly affects women.
Men do not get asked if they were showing too much skin.
Rape culture is currently ingrained in society.
There are people that would never rape anybody, but sometimes their actions and sometimes their words might contribute towards rape culture.
Well this is pretty cut and dry.
The argument against feminism is that men get raped too and instead of helping to address the instances where men get raped, you instead want to talk about not actual rapes because like you say, feminism supports all victims of rape and we know that men can get raped, but what we're actually doing is discussing rape culture because I'm the one who changed the topic of discussion.
You said men can get raped too and I said yeah well that's true but let's talk about rape culture because that affects predominantly women.
Therefore we don't have to talk about men getting raped.
Basically this boils down to exactly what you said in the previous argument.
Yes I know that what you've said is valid but women have it worse.
Here's how your argument wouldn't suck.
Every single rape prevention tip is geared towards people being in charge of not getting raped.
Not teaching rapists not to rape.
So there's the big problem.
It's amazing they make this argument with a fucking straight face.
You are not in control of what other people do.
However, you are in control of what you do.
And if we know that there are actually risk mitigating actions that one can take to lower the chances that a rape will occur, why not take them?
I mean you have to understand that we can't control what someone who is intent on raping someone is going to do.
All we can do is give the potential victim the tools they can use to prevent themselves from being raped because prevention is better than a fucking cure.
Unless of course you're talking about Muslim migrants from Syria and North Africa who don't realize that what they might be doing is actually rape because they don't have the same laws and standards for rape in their countries.
But since I don't think you're talking about that, you sound fucking stupid.
The other problem in that is that most of these tips are aimed at women.
With colour changing nail varnish for example, there needs to be more done to prevent rape for everybody, such as those glasses that change colour when they detect a substance.
That way everyone can be safe.
This isn't a point I object to, but I really don't think that it invalidates the idea of using nail polish to also do the detection if you want.
I mean you might go somewhere where they don't use these glasses and you still have this kind of protection.
Well that's just my opinion.
Before any argument you're going to have to show that you know what you're talking about before your opinion is valid.
How interesting.
Are you going to tell me anything about the internal consistency of the logic used in said argument?
Just out of interest.
I can tell you that I think socks have emotions.
That's just my opinion.
It doesn't make it true.
Most of the time this has been used because you said your piece, somebody else has come back with personal experience or references, or anything really.
And because your argument doesn't extend past, that's that, then you swiftly state that that is your made-up opinion.
Instead of saying that's just your opinion, try saying, I thought of this, but I'm not going to do any research on this, because I feel like I am right.
Yes, that is a very, very good description of how a feminist argues.
There's a lot of projection going on here.
Please do your research, because without it, no one has a leg to stand on.
Yeah, kind of like your laughable Marxist analysis of the Kyriarchy, am I right?
I am so sick hearing about feminism.
Shocker, so are we!
Please help us not have to talk about this all the time.
You're wearing a t-shirt that says feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
You fucking love talking about feminism.
Well, I'm a woman and I don't find that offensive.
This is quite a hefty topic about internalized misogyny.
Okay, I got loads of laughter.
Yeah, it's not that women can't just not be offended by something.
It's that they actually must secretly hate themselves.
And that is a whole other video.
Your argument sucks because you do not speak on behalf of all women.
I love her expression here.
It honestly looks like she's having a moment of self-awareness where she's like, hang on a second.
Am I talking for all women?
Did I just tell a woman that she hated herself because she wasn't offended?
But anyway, yes, Pumpkin, she doesn't speak for all women.
In fact, that is why.
She said, but I am not offended.
Because you have obviously spoken for all women and she is making the exception of herself to show that you don't speak for all fucking women.
Neither do I. Neither does anybody.
Except maybe Beyonce.
When you say this, you're choosing to ignore the negative ramifications that this particular thing might have on other women.
And here comes the Marxism.
You've already demonstrated that you think women are a social class, and that's where this objection comes from.
There is no sisterhood.
Women do not owe you or any other women anything.
If they want to act in a way that is within the bounds of the law, they are completely free to do so.
You may even be overlooking the negative ramifications this could have on you.
And women are free to do that, you bossy concern troll.
Either way, it's a really selfish argument.
I can't tell you how to feel about things, that's up to you, but...
Oh no!
You're going to sit here and tell them that they hate themselves, that they've got no right to independent action that isn't sanctioned by the church of feminism.
You're going to tell them that what they do is harmful to others, even if it's not harmful to others.
And you're going to sit there and tell them that everything that they say is irrelevant because you want to talk about something that's slightly different.
But you're not going to tell them how to feel because that would be going too far.
Don't throw everyone else under the bus in the process.
Yeah, but what about men's rights?
Men already have all the rights.
Neither you nor any other feminists can name a right that men have that women do not.
We have all the same rights.
You annoying bind.
What I love about this little princess's position as well is that she really hasn't thought this through.
She's thought, okay, I get to vote.
I have the right to vote.
Do men have the right to vote?
And in America, they don't.
Unless they register for the draft, which is something that the military want women to do now, which to their credit is something feminists want, but it's wildly unpopular with women.
I think people use this argument a lot because it's hard to see just how something affects your life until you don't have it.
I'm middle class and white.
I come from extreme privilege and if it wasn't for people talking about it, I never would have thought about it.
Because when you're privileged, you don't have to think about it.
And has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, skin colour and gender do not determine whether someone is privileged or not.
Also, men's rights movements that are around now don't even care about men.
I suspect that there may be MRAs in the comments who wish to disagree with you.
That's what really pisses me off.
Being fair, any movement that sets out to help people is a good thing, right?
The problem is the men's rights movements do not support male victims of rape.
Mm-hmm.
And no feminist has ever complained about, I don't know, a men's shelter being set up or anything like that.
They do not support male domestic abuse victims.
They don't support trans men.
Do you know who do support them?
Here it comes.
Femists!
Yeah, nothing says that we're here to help you, quite like you are an oppressor even if you don't know it, and therefore it's okay for me to revel in your misery.
Feminism is ruining movies.
Slash series slash comics.
This argument gets rolled out every time something gets launched with women in it.
That's the most giant straw man I have ever seen in my life.
And you will go on to literally say...
Basically.
Why is it totally fine to expect women to enjoy and relate to things that involve mainly men?
But as soon as more than one woman comes on screen, we're taking over?
That is literally not anyone's argument.
The argument is, why do you have to replace the cast of Ghostbusters, named characters who have individual histories and backstories, with women?
Why do you have to replace Thor with a woman?
A named character with a history and backstory.
Nobody is complaining that there are women in movies.
There have always been women in fucking movies.
People are complaining because feminists are pushing to co-opt previously male characters because of their ideology.
Here's how your argument wouldn't suck.
Just injecting female characters into a film or a TV series and not spending the time developing their characters or even writing them not only ruins the movie and the TV show, but also puts a massive hindrance in women in the industry and its crap.
have literally not accurately represented anyone's argument there and your response is a feminist response.
Just, I mean, I'm just saying it's pointless.
That means I can hit girls right.
Don't hit anybody.
Why do you want to hit people?
Because they're annoying and preachy and have no idea about their own position and think they know everything about mine.
Or I could say because men and women are biologically different and men are actually evolutionarily hardwired to get a thrill from punching people.
Is it like really hard to live, restraining yourself from hitting people all day?
You're using this argument as a quick way to put feminists in their place, to make them think that this isn't actually what they want.
You know, it might be what feminists want, but it's certainly not what women want.
The other thing is that you're already hitting us.
In the UK alone, 1.4 million women and 700,000 men are suffering from domestic abuse.
So we want you to stop hitting us.
I am not even going to take the time.
You are not part of some we.
You are not part of some we don't want you punching us.
We, the men and women, who are being abused.
You are not one of these people.
These people are not a group.
They are a demographic.
They share nothing in common other than the fact that their spouses beat them.
That's it.
You aren't a part of it.
I'm not a part of it.
And you've just demonstrated how this is not a gendered issue.
Not all men.
If we're discussing something about men and it's not something that you have particularly done, then that's great.
The reason why your argument sucks is because you have to understand that many men have done this.
A majority even.
Okay, I presume you're talking about the case of domestic violence, in which case you're wrong.
But even if you're not, you don't know that a majority of men have done whatever it is you think that they're responding to when they say not all men.
You don't know.
But even if they did, Even if the majority of men did this, it would still be wrong to generalize the person who you said didn't do it.
It's always sucky to have to acknowledge that something that you're a part of has bad bits, but that's just life.
Do you think the same goes for those damn niggers?
You fucking racist.
Do you think the same maybe goes for the kikes?
What about the nips?
Just asking, because this is the reasoning you are using right now.
Hey, just because you're not doing anything wrong, Mr. African-American man who isn't causing any trouble, doesn't mean that we're not going to talk about black people as if they're criminals.
It's always sucky to have to acknowledge that something that you're a part of has bad bits, but that's just life.
So just remember that, black people.
I know you didn't get to choose to be part of the race that you are, but I mean, you know, it's just, you're just going to have to live with it.
It's just something that sucks.
And no, this does not apply to feminism, even though being a feminist is a choice.
So stop driving conversations back to you because it's not about you.
Yeah, Jim Crow.
Just like when we were talking about rape culture and you wanted to talk about actual victims of rape, this isn't about you.
So why don't you get out of the house now, nigga, toddle back to the cotton fields and do whatever it is you do when the important people aren't around.
This argument gets used a lot when women do things to protect themselves and are a bit defensive.
Athley mentioned earlier, rape is up to us to stop.
Fucking what?
No, that's actually the opposite of what you said.
Let me remind you.
Here's how your argument wouldn't suck.
Every single rape prevention tip is geared towards people being in charge of not getting raped, not teaching rapists not to rape.
So there's the big problem.
mean do you honestly think making the rapists responsible for not raping people is something women are doing to protect themselves you can't you can't really think that can you And that's when they say, but not all men.
Like, you may not be a rapist, but you've got to acknowledge why women do certain things to protect themselves.
It's probably the very same reason these women clutch their handbags tighter when a black person walks by.
You can't take these actions personally because there is a much bigger picture than you.
And young privileged white women are so damn important that them being prejudiced against you because you happen to share a gender with people who have done something wrong is totally fine.
Just get used to it, nigga.
The thing with all these arguments against feminism is that if you wanted to have a proper discussion about it, you would have googled it and done your research, but you didn't, which makes you an ass.
Okay, we're literally done with this video.
You are quite possibly one of the most unpalatable people I've ever met.
It's really your phenomenal ignorance and totally illogical arguments combined together with the first world white woman entitlement complex that just makes you just unbearable.
I feel sorry for the people in your life that they have to deal with you.
I didn't mean to attack anyone in this video.
▲
Export Selection